He said No to Walmart
On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote: We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products being purchased that are made in China. And you always want people to buy Korean. For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%. Thus far. -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff
wrote: On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer" wrote: We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products being purchased that are made in China. And you always want people to buy Korean. For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%. Thus far. ====================== All trade is not equal. It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is. A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are imported. A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high tech / high value added items. An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment, knowledge-base and methodology. Export/import on this basis is thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter] in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future. Uncle George |
He said No to Walmart
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:58:11 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff wrote: On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer" wrote: We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products being purchased that are made in China. And you always want people to buy Korean. For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%. Thus far. ====================== All trade is not equal. It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is. A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are imported. As the usual claims are that imports to the US have high labor content (from low wage labor) ..... A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high tech / high value added items. It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment, knowledge-base and methodology. The US exports waste paper, scrapmetal (the machines we used to make things with) and arms. Export/import on this basis is thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter] in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future. The US imports lots of disposable stuff. If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports for long. -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
I would agree except for this...
"A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high tech / high value added items. " When there is no food on the table, having not made the investment in agricultural production shows the ignorance of this thinking. Having a sufficient agricultural base allows a manufacturing base to develop and thrive...not the other way around...ask anyone who has ever had to go hungry whether they would choose a sandwich or an Ipod. TMT |
He said No to Walmart
On 1 Jan 2006 15:43:25 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote: I would agree except for this... "A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high tech / high value added items. " When there is no food on the table, having not made the investment in agricultural production shows the ignorance of this thinking. Having a sufficient agricultural base allows a manufacturing base to develop and thrive...not the other way around...ask anyone who has ever had to go hungry whether they would choose a sandwich or an Ipod. TMT This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the area of North America currently called the United States will become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. Sandwich v. Ipod It all depends how you ask the question. If it is my Ipod or your sandwich that's one answer, my Ipod and my sandwich will be another answer. Unfortunately the most likely answer is "I'll kick yo' a**, eat yo' sandwich and take yo' Ipod." Even with "balanced" trade i.e. no current accounts trade deficit, a nation can still wind up with no viable manufacturing infrastructure and firmly gripped by the short and curlies. Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Uncle George |
He said No to Walmart
"This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the
fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the area of North America currently called the United States will become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. " I know that you weren't implying the lack of importance of the ag sector...but many people forget this fact until SHTF. Your correct observation of the United States becoming a net food importer indicates that our policy makers have. Sandwich v. Ipod It all depends how you ask the question. If it is my Ipod or your sandwich that's one answer, my Ipod and my sandwich will be another answer. Unfortunately the most likely answer is "I'll kick yo' a**, eat yo' sandwich and take yo' Ipod." Even with "balanced" trade i.e. no current accounts trade deficit, a nation can still wind up with no viable manufacturing infrastructure and firmly gripped by the short and curlies. Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Uncle George " Your observations concerning how a nation can have a "manufacturing brain drain" which is hard if not sometimes impossible to recover from is also correct. Outsourcing your labor and manufacturing to other countries means your own population soon does not have the capability or income to compete on a global stage. The fact that we are seeing both occurring, especially during the time of war, speaks volumes as to where this Administration's true loyalties lie. Considering that we have just had a hard reminder that this country still does not have an energy policy for self independence after 30 years since the Arab embargo is an example of where the United States is headed. Reliance on other countries for food, energy and manufacturing are all growing indications that the United States is backsliding to Third World status. Our Founding Fathers have got to be spinning in their graves.... TMT |
He said No to Walmart
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:43:21 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote: Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. ?? -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On 1 Jan 2006 21:58:13 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote: Considering that we have just had a hard reminder that this country still does not have an energy policy for self independence after 30 years since the Arab embargo is an example of where the United States is headed. You missed the neocon/Cheney secret plan? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33642 http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) |
He said No to Walmart
Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. -- "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
He said No to Walmart
"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. No it's not... Yes it is.... No it's not.... Yes it is... No it's not. OK, my comment was last. I win! :) |
He said No to Walmart
Dave Lyon wrote:
"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. No it's not... Yes it is.... No it's not.... Yes it is... No it's not. OK, my comment was last. I win! :) as you wish -- "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
He said No to Walmart
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
He said No to Walmart
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. You can find it if you dig through the DOE white papers. Grain-based ethanol passed the zero point of net energy gain in the mid-'90s, IIRC. Cellulosic ethanol is considerably better. And solar cells passed the zero point by 1990. It's hard to find good energy audits, because many of the people doing them have an axe to grind. But there are some out there that appear to be pretty good. -- Ed Huntress |
He said No to Walmart
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. In the articles that I've read, that claim it requires more energy to produce ethanol than it yields, they include the SOLAR energy required to grow the corn. So, technically, it is true. If you exclude the solar energy, which would otherwise be wasted, then it is not true. |
He said No to Walmart
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:59:44 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. You have to count all the upstream energy inputs. US production only. -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. Huh? -- "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
He said No to Walmart
I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. The "study" that recently heated up this debated was by Patzek, T. W. Patzek, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6), 519-567, 2004 A large research university library will get CRPS and here's a link (cut and paste should work) to a .pdf of the article. http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers...Patzek-Web.pdf The first part of the paper shows (given certain assumptions) that the energy from fossil fuel used in growing X amount of corn to make ethanol is greater than the energy value of the ethanol produced. There is an agenda to the paper, but the results are not surprising. There is a reason no one has gotten rich making ethanol without government subsidies. |
He said No to Walmart
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. You can find it if you dig through the DOE white papers. Grain-based ethanol passed the zero point of net energy gain in the mid-'90s, IIRC. Cellulosic ethanol is considerably better. And solar cells passed the zero point by 1990. It's hard to find good energy audits, because many of the people doing them have an axe to grind. But there are some out there that appear to be pretty good. Here's a link to a presentation that touches on the subject: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf See page 21. As might be expected there is considerable difference of opinion on the subject of net energy balance for ethanol. Mike |
He said No to Walmart
Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) Does any one every wonder how the time of posting of Mr Lyons posts on the survival net is 7:59 AM 2 Jan 2006 yet the time that he posted it to the isp was 15:44.59 GMT on 2 Jan 2006. Since their is a difference in time and the isp date time group is GMT and not EST,or CST, or MST or PST I would suspect that Mr Lyons IS ANOTHER LYING ****ING FOREIGNER. -- Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and gagging a victim before raping and mugging them. Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty and dignity, and bend you to will of others. |
He said No to Walmart
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:51:52 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote: "Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of that claim. In the articles that I've read, that claim it requires more energy to produce ethanol than it yields, they include the SOLAR energy required to grow the corn. So, technically, it is true. If you exclude the solar energy, which would otherwise be wasted, then it is not true. Including solar energy seems to be a bit lame. -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
He said No to Walmart
dazed and confuzzed wrote:
Dave Lyon wrote: "dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. No it's not... Yes it is.... No it's not.... Yes it is... No it's not. OK, my comment was last. I win! :) as you wish OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.??? ...lew... |
He said No to Walmart
F. George McDuffee wrote in
: On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff wrote: On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer" wrote: We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products being purchased that are made in China. And you always want people to buy Korean. For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%. Thus far. ====================== All trade is not equal. It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is. A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are imported. The it's a good thing that the US is the worlds largest exporter. If you look up the figures we are in the top five in most all of the so called value added. The most notable exceptions are automotive and computers. A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high tech / high value added items. Diversification is not a bad thing either. Agriculture adds quite a bit to the economy. Plus it improves relations with countries that need the food. We lead the world in aerospace exports. An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment, knowledge-base and methodology. Export/import on this basis is thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter] in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future. China is barely a blip on the radar in value added manufacturing. Look through the stats. The EU mations, Germany in particular, along with Japan are our biggest competitors in the global marketplace. Instead of fretting about imports of underwear and cell phones from China, we should be asking why do we keep our markets wide open to countries like Germany and Japan. The two largest imports into the US are Petroleum in it's various forms and passenger vehicles. The worlds largest exporter of passenger vehicles is Germany followed by Japan. The US is way down the list behind the UK. That's right, the UK now exports more autos than the US. Machine tools, machine parts, plastics, etc. Japan and Germany lead the world. The interesting thing is that they don't buy very many low cost low quality machine tools like we do here. They are also high wage/benefit/cost countries. In general they spend more on automation than we do, they also have thousands of bull**** little ways to keep our goods out of their countries. Neither of them have very good economies either. Our situation could improve dramatically if the US automotive industry could get it's act together. Here is a list of commodities that the US was the number one exporter in the world in 2004: MEAT WHEAT MAIZE CEREAL GRAINS CEREAL MEAL/FLOUR ANIMAL FEED EDIBLE PRODUCTS N.E.S. HIDE/SKIN (EX FUR) RAW OIL SEEDS ETC - SOFT RUBBER SYNTH/WASTE/ETC COTTON WORN CLOTHING ETC OTHER CRUDE MINERALS FERROUS WASTE/SCRAP (interestingly we are the 8th largest importer) NF BASE METAL WASTE NES PRECIOUS METAL ORE/CONC. RESIDUAL PETROL. PRODS ANIMAL OIL/FAT HYDROCARBONS/DERIVATIVES ALCOHOLS/PHENOLS/DERIVS CARBOXYLIC ACID COMPOUND NITROGEN FUNCTION COMPDS OTHER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS RADIO-ACTIVE ETC MATRIAL PHARMACEUT EXC MEDICAMNT POLYACETALS/POLYESTERS.. PLASTIC WASTE/SCRAP EXPLOSIVES/PYROTECHNICS OIL ETC ADDITIVES/FLUIDS ENGINES NON-ELECTRIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANT MEDICAL ETC EL DIAG EQUI AIRCRAFT/SPACECRAFT/ETC MEDICAL/ETC INSTRUMENTS MEASURE/CONTROL APP NES ARMS AND AMMUNITION GOLD NON-MONETARY EX ORE This list really isn't very indicitive of the whole picture as we are number 2,3,4,5 in loads of categories. The stats also don't reflect services which are also a huge value added source of exports for the US. Here is a list of US exports by commodity. You can click on any of them to see where we stand vs. other mations. http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/er842.htm -- Dan |
He said No to Walmart
Cliff wrote in news:pnpgr113barlkpekouafl7p9su04lgvs7p@
4ax.com: An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment, knowledge-base and methodology. The US exports waste paper, scrapmetal (the machines we used to make things with) and arms. Along with aerospace, engines, food, medicine, surgical appliances/ instruments/devices. Loads of chemicals. A fair amount of steel and other metal alloys. Manufactured goods. Software. Music and movies. Etc. Etc. Export/import on this basis is thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter] in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future. The US imports lots of disposable stuff. Mostly oil which is expended not disposed. Second to oil is passenger cars which are disposed of and sold for scrap metal. If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports for long. We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't have enough of either to be independent of other nations. The other nations would miss us when they got sick, hungry, attacked by their neighbor, needed software, needed a safe investment, wanted a market to sell in, etc.. -- Dan |
He said No to Walmart
Lew Hartswick wrote:
dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: "dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. No it's not... Yes it is.... No it's not.... Yes it is... No it's not. OK, my comment was last. I win! :) as you wish OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.??? ...lew... http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm http://www.physorg.com/news4942.html http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/ Hope this helps. -- "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
He said No to Walmart
F. George McDuffee wrote in
: This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the area of North America currently called the United States will become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. Mainly due to tastes and the fact that we can afford to eat imported food. Well that and the fact that when it comes to food, most Americans show little or no restraint. But why buy canned veggies and fruit in the middle of winter when you can get imported fresh ones? Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas and sugar. Yeah, they will grow in Florida but we eat way more than could be grown there. Plus it's barely warm enough. Where are we going to grow all of the coffee? Then there are spices and foreign cuisine. Balsamic vinegar, wasabi, truffles, mushrooms, cheeses, prepared meats, wines, beer, and all sorts of other good stuff that we can afford to buy. We could survive without all of it and can easily grow enough food for everyone. But our diets would be a more dull. -- Dan |
He said No to Walmart
D Murphy wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote in : This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the area of North America currently called the United States will become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. Mainly due to tastes and the fact that we can afford to eat imported food. Well that and the fact that when it comes to food, most Americans show little or no restraint. But why buy canned veggies and fruit in the middle of winter when you can get imported fresh ones? Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas and sugar. Yeah, they will grow in Florida but we eat way more than could be grown there. Plus it's barely warm enough. Where are we going to grow all of the coffee? Then there are spices and foreign cuisine. Balsamic vinegar, wasabi, truffles, mushrooms, cheeses, prepared meats, wines, beer, and all sorts of other good stuff that we can afford to buy. We could survive without all of it and can easily grow enough food for everyone. But our diets would be a more dull. Also I might add that the labor component (which is most of the price) in the imported food is higher than the labor of our exported food. We export a lot of meat, and grain. When you figure the man hour cost of a bushel of wheat or a lb of beef you find that the cost is very low compared to the man hour cost of coffee, spices, cheese, wine etc. I'm a part time cattle man. A lot of the cattle we have here and sell to foreign markets are slaughtered and dressed here. The half carcass is hung in a special shipping containers that keep the meat at 40 degrees for the shipment to foreign countrys. The beef arrives aged and is cut up there. The cattle hides are salted and bailed here and then sent to China, or Brazil for turning into leather. The internal organs are cooked, dehydrated and then ground into a meal for pig food which is then sold to pig farmers. A lot of pig food goes overseas to Asia and China. So when you add the animal feed that is produced to human food you will find that we are not a net importer of food but a huge exporter of agricultural products. I might also point out that a lot of agricultural produce of this country is for livestock feed. Look at the amount of alfalfa and grass manufactured chicken feed and duck food that is sent to china and Japan. Hell the largest market for Rocky Mountain Rainbow trout food are the trout farms in Japan. -- Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and gagging a victim before raping and mugging them. Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty and dignity, and bend you to will of others. |
He said No to Walmart
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:49:36 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote: If you are going to include the solar input on Ethyl, what about the solar input on Petro??? It comes from "green stuff" too, ultimately. |
He said No to Walmart
On 3 Jan 2006 02:21:32 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
The it's a good thing that the US is the worlds largest exporter. If you look up the figures we are in the top five in most all of the so called value added. What value is added in all those guns, bombs, etc? And many are given away at taxpayer expense (in the end). -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 05:33:26 GMT, zadoc wrote:
Stats Economy World Trade Exports Aircraft spacecraft etc #1 United States 38,069,900 #2 France 19,219,700 #3 Germany 16,419,400 And Airbus counts as being where? Did I miss the UK too? -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
The other nations would miss us when they got sick, hungry, attacked by their neighbor Iraq. -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports for long. We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't have enough of either to be independent of other nations. Critical materials are imported. Tungsten, alloying elements, etc. We do have a huge surplus of Uranium, from making all those nuclear bombs. What's in the "Strategic Stockpile"? -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On 3 Jan 2006 02:53:15 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas and sugar. Sugar beets .... -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:46:46 -0800, Pope Secola VI
wrote: I might also point out that a lot of agricultural produce of this country is for livestock feed. Soils are weathering/eroding away and wearing out. In many places not much of value would grow without the chemicals produced from oil & gas. -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
"Pope Secola VI" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) Does any one every wonder how the time of posting of Mr Lyons posts on the survival net is 7:59 AM 2 Jan 2006 yet the time that he posted it to the isp was 15:44.59 GMT on 2 Jan 2006. Since their is a difference in time and the isp date time group is GMT and not EST,or CST, or MST or PST I would suspect that Mr Lyons IS ANOTHER LYING ****ING FOREIGNER. Foreigner? Are you suggesting that the internet is a US based item, and the rest of the world is stealing it like you do your cable? Lighten up. Dave Lyon Proudly based in the corn belt (of the US) and too lazy to set the clock on his computer. |
He said No to Walmart
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:05:33 GMT, zadoc wrote:
When did they start exporting the airbus? Years ago. http://www.airbus.com/en/ http://www.airbus.com/en/worldwide/airbus_in_uk.html -- Cliff |
He said No to Walmart
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:49:36 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote: If you are going to include the solar input on Ethyl, what about the solar input on Petro??? It comes from "green stuff" too, ultimately. Sorry, logic is not allowed in this argument. :) That's not the only place the scales are not balanced. They also include the fuel cost to transport the corn to refineries, refine it, and distribute it, but they don't do the same for petroleum. If you look at dollars, it is still cheaper to use oil. If you look at the btu cost (excluding the solar to grow the corn), corn may come out on top. In the future, ethanol may be competitive with petroleum at the market place even without the subsidies that it sees. Cellulous refining techniques are helping that, but the rising cost of petroleum is having more effect. Unfortunately, ethanol is probably not a long term solution. We simply don't have enough crop land to supply our energy needs. There is also considerable research in using algae grown at sea. Perhaps this will be our next great energy source. |
He said No to Walmart
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ink.net... dazed and confuzzed wrote: Dave Lyon wrote: "dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message ... Dave Lyon wrote: It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than you can get back by burning same IIRC. No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies. Only wingers believe it. :) actually, it's true. No it's not... Yes it is.... No it's not.... Yes it is... No it's not. OK, my comment was last. I win! :) as you wish OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.??? ...lew... What fun would that be? :) Check out this study. Granted, it's done by USDA, so it may be as biased as the ones done by the oil companies. But, it does match up a little better with what I have witnessed as the son of a small scale farmer. http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf |
He said No to Walmart
On the question of fossil oil as opposed to a renewable resource, though, they may have an argument in one sense. The cost of recovering something that occurs in nature is obviously cheaper than trying to create it, whether you are talking about the oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, or the silver and gold we value. I have no argument there. For now at least, it is much cheaper to use petroleum than ethanol. |
He said No to Walmart
F. George McDuffee wrote:
FWIW the area of North America currently called the United States will become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. Measured in terms of what? Economic value? Bulk tonnage? Calories? Tons of protein? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter