F. George McDuffee wrote:

While it is difficult to project, it appears the reduction in the
amount of foreign exchange needed for imported petroleum for the
new fuel efficient vehicles, over their service life, will result
in considerable cost avoidance, and reduction in the current
account trade deficit.

Difficult to project means nobody can prove it, just like all the jobs
that the stimulus bill have saved. Again, you trot out savings accrued
over the lifetime of the vehicles. Damn hard to do.

In what fields are you an expert in? How about a CV for us?

Given both the "high value added" and the high economic
multiplier of vehicle manufacturing, the limited amount of "Cash
for Clunkers" [ONLY!!! three billion$], was most likely a good
one-time shot of stimulant joy juice.

If this approach is so good, why hasn't deficit spending made our
economy strong? That 3B was extracted through taxes, doled out based on
what the government thinks is needed. Why do we prop up inefficient
businesses that saddled themselves with to many costs? Let the market
decide where to apply resources.

F. George McDuffee wrote:
If expert means being from out of town and on an expense account,
none, [I'm retired] but see
http://mcduffee-associates.us/vita.htm

Great, you're another citizen. Technically minded, but I see nothing in
economics. Considering the effects of mandates on the economy without
considering the human equation will lead to a bunch of money being
shoveled into a hole.

Please point out one command-controlled economy that is efficient AND
responsive.

In this case, how much the CfC vehicles are driven, what is their
service life, [compared to the vehicles they replaced], what is
the value of the cleaner air, what is the value of the additional
safety features (how much are a few lives worth?), how much will
be saved on repairs, and perhaps most important the
price/availibility of [imported] petroleum.

At what point does the nanny state stop? The safest vehicle would be a
totally immobile one with no engine. Sort of like the Flintstones car,
but with far more belts, roll cages, etc...

We could use less imported petroleum with more domestic drilling. Gas
would cost less with fewer boutique blends being produced. We can send a
few billion dollars to help Brazil's state run petroleum industry to
drill for oil, yet we won't let US companies even drill in the US.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Please point out one command-controlled economy that is efficient AND
responsive.
Straw man?????
========
Wrong news groups for economics. AMC and RCM are about metal
working, not economics, economic growth/development, or
[political] econmetrics [although this can be difficult to see at
times].

Which is the point I'd like you to embrace.

In usenet try
alt.economics.austrian-school
also see my webpage
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/Econometrics.htm

When I want to save the world, I'll surf.

In this case, how much the CfC vehicles are driven, what is their

At what point does the nanny state stop? The safest vehicle would be a
totally immobile one with no engine. Sort of like the Flintstones car,
but with far more belts, roll cages, etc...

We could use less imported petroleum with more domestic drilling. Gas
would cost less with fewer boutique blends being produced. We can send a
few billion dollars to help Brazil's state run petroleum industry to
drill for oil, yet we won't let US companies even drill in the US.
=======
More B/S -- this was a loan from the Export-Import bank to Brasil
to finance the purchase of US produced goods and services. The
Ex-Im bank is a government sponsered enterprise [GSE] but is not
the government.
see http://www.exim.gov/

Freddie Mac and Fannie May are government sponsored but not
"government". BUT they have the ability to tap into taxpayer's pockets
just as well. Why do American products need an offset from the US
taxpayers? Thomas Sowell has a book out on the housing bubble and how
government officials ramrodded non-market policies through.
The Housing Boom and Bust
http://www.borders.com/online/store/...sku=0465018807


What of the ultimate safe vehicle, sans engine? I bet it would save a
lot of lives.


The US oil companies are not drilling on many of the domestic
leases they already hold. One suggestion is a "use it or lose
it" provision. If you get a oil/gas lease from Uncle Whiskers
you have 3 years to start drilling and 5 years to start producing
or the lease reverts back.

What regulatory and environmental factors are in play? There's a silent
elephant in the room.

On Aug 27, 6:30*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

The US oil companies are not drilling on many of the domestic
leases they already hold. *One suggestion is a "use it or lose
it" provision. *If you get a oil/gas lease from Uncle Whiskers
you have 3 years to start drilling and 5 years to start producing
or the lease reverts back. *

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Really bad idea. Oil companies lease large areas where they think
there is a possibility of finding oil. Then they have to drill
wildcat wells to find out if there is any oil there. Sometimes they
contribute dry hole money to another company. That is money they pay
if the wildcat well does not produce oil. They usually get access to
the drilling logs and have learned where there is no oil at a lower
cost than drilling themselves. At any rate one does not drill a
wildcat well hoping to find oil, unless one has a good deal of land
leased so that if the field is found numerous production wells can be
drilled.

If the US gov went to a use it or lose it, there would be much less
land leased and less exploration in the US. So the gov would get less
money from leases.

Dan

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:23:41 -0500, the infamous Louis Ohland
scrawled the following:

F. George McDuffee wrote:
In usenet try
alt.economics.austrian-school
also see my webpage
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/Econometrics.htm

When I want to save the world, I'll surf.

The Internet or wet, salty water?


This just in:

--snip--

News at 6...

AP news brief just released:

Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For
Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their
National Health Care Plan. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and
Senator Reed are expected to make this major announcement at a joint
news conference later this week.

An advanced copy of the proposal reveals it is named "CASH FOR
CODGERS" and it works like this: Couples wishing to access health-care
funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to
turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be
fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more
prescription-dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts.

Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in
targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds
over their government-prescribed weight, and any member of the
Republican Party.

Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda,
fried foods, potato chips, French fries, lattes, whole milk, dairy
products, bacon, brussel sprouts, or Girl Scout cookies.

All codgers will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This
will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts
harvested to keep other codgers in repair.

--snip--

--
A striking fact of the last two years of financial trouble is how
accountability has differed in the public and private spheres. On
Wall Street and across the country, decades-old firms have failed,
fortunes have vanished, and some former captains of finance face
jail or fines. In Washington, meanwhile, most regulators and Members
of Congress remain on the job, often with enhanced power.
-WSJ "Bernanke's Second Chance" 26aug09

wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:30 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

The US oil companies are not drilling on many of the domestic
leases they already hold. One suggestion is a "use it or lose
it" provision. If you get a oil/gas lease from Uncle Whiskers
you have 3 years to start drilling and 5 years to start producing
or the lease reverts back.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Really bad idea. Oil companies lease large areas where they think
there is a possibility of finding oil. Then they have to drill
wildcat wells to find out if there is any oil there. Sometimes they
contribute dry hole money to another company. That is money they pay
if the wildcat well does not produce oil. They usually get access to
the drilling logs and have learned where there is no oil at a lower
cost than drilling themselves. At any rate one does not drill a
wildcat well hoping to find oil, unless one has a good deal of land
leased so that if the field is found numerous production wells can be
drilled.

If the US gov went to a use it or lose it, there would be much less
land leased

I think you might be right...

and less exploration in the US. So the gov would get less
money from leases.

Oh no.
Those leases would bring a price that would make your nose bleed and they'd
be worth it.
There would just be less interest in shutting out competitors.


--
John R. Carroll

On Aug 28, 3:11*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

and *less exploration in the US. So the gov would get less
money from leases.

Oh no.
Those leases would bring a price that would make your nose bleed and they'd
be worth it.
There would just be less interest in shutting out competitors.

--
John R. Carroll

Remember these are leases on land that is not known to have any oil.

Dan

A lot of wells are dug and end up in high pressure gas. It is
plugged as oil was wanted - and heck with the gas...

The land owners should have escape clauses that all reverts back
to them upon termination. The first oil company simply wrote off
the well. If they want to come back they wouldn't taint it.

Some of it was obvious dirty tricks - but by whom. Maybe the rig crew.
Maybe the cutter wasn't trash. Why not rebuild it.

Doesn't sound like the oil people I knew. There is some honor in them.

I used to handle million dollar checks made out to a company name that
I had signing on. It was for the main house counters, not my petty cash
account - but I figure a hit man would catch me soon... :-)
My friends would do a hand shake deal for millions and once billions.

So the story didn't match what I know or hear. I suspect a big mouth
land owner or other issue prompted it.

Martin

wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:11 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
and less exploration in the US. So the gov would get less
money from leases.
Oh no.
Those leases would bring a price that would make your nose bleed and they'd
be worth it.
There would just be less interest in shutting out competitors.

--
John R. Carroll

Remember these are leases on land that is not known to have any oil.

Dan

wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:11 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

and less exploration in the US. So the gov would get less
money from leases.

Oh no.
Those leases would bring a price that would make your nose bleed and
they'd be worth it.
There would just be less interest in shutting out competitors.

--
John R. Carroll

Remember these are leases on land that is not known to have any oil.

No they aren't, and here is what you have to remember.
There are few transactions on Earth as highly leveraged as Oil and Gas
leases.

I can explain it if you aren't familiar with the mechanics but the basic
situation is that Oil companies are gambling money they raise through the
issuance of corporate bonds that the price of a barrel of oil will
appreciate faster than the general rate of inflation.
You don't have to be Einstien to conclude that Oil is likely to be worth
more 90 years from now and with a dwindling supply facing a surging demand,
you eventually get your payday. They lay claim to say, 1 billion dollars in
reserves for a few million dollars. Every dollar that the cost per barrel of
oil appreciates puts a billion dollars on their mark to market balance
sheets and they never need to pump a thing. With oil at $50.00 that means
all you need in order to make a killing is 2 percent inflation in oil. You
get your money out as the valuation of the company improves with time.

"Use it or Lose it" would put a quick end to that behavior and the markets
would be better off.
IOW, nobody really cares about the oil - it's the money.


--
John R. Carroll

On Aug 29, 7:59*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Remember these are leases on land that is not known to have any oil.

No they aren't, and here is what you have to remember.
There are few transactions on Earth as highly leveraged as Oil and Gas
leases.

John R. Carroll

I do not think you are right. But am not going to continue to try to
educate you.

Dan