On 6/20/2011 7:28 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

You Can Forget About Job Creation From Obama
Jun. 20 2011 - 4:10 pm
By Robert Lenzner, StreetTalk - Forbes
snip

================
More punch-and-judy show for the dumb $**ts [i.e. you, me
and vast majority of citizens].

The major problem is that there was never any critical and
in-depth analysis to identify the causes of the economic
malaise before huge amounts of money were p***ed off on
feel-good programs and the ever popular training, training,
training. One example is the Obama initiative to graduate
10,000 more engineers, even with the huge job shortfall for
the existing and newly graduated engineers.

That's because they were relying on the advice of classically trained
economists. They advised doing what is traditionally done in times of
recession. The old way of "priming the pump" by government spending. In
past recessions all that mattered was that the government spent. What it
spent on didn't really matter. This time it is different so the normal
way of dealing with the recession aren't working as well as they were
hoping. But it has helped. Just ask any of the 2 million people who have
gotten jobs in the last 6 months.


In addition to the likely hood that the traditional middle
class with well paying jobs and a considerable degree of
independence are now considered redundant and obsolete by
the political/economic elite(1), there is also phenomena
called "point of diminishing returns,"(2) thus under current
socio-economic assumptions and policies it may not be
possible at best, to exceed a 3 % growth in GDP, given the
more or less fully developed and rapidly deindustralizing
U.S. economy.

More proof that this time it is different.


(1)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eople_obsolete

(2) http://www.cnbc.com/id/43394460

However there are many things that can and should be done,
but these do not fall into the category of "more of the
same, only better," and will gore some peoples' oxen in the
process, e.g. the big oil companies.

IMNSHO here are a few areas where American industry can and
should be expanded with a reasonable expectation of profit:

(A) Coal liquefaction to make synthetic petroleum from our
abundant supplies of coal. The SASol process(3) is well
proven commercially and plants are available "off the
shelf", and can produce "oil" for 60-70 $US per barrel,
which is well below current market costs. The US has
abundant coal, and this could greatly reduce our oil imports
which are a major source of trade deficits, and a serious
national defense consideration.

I disagree with this course of action because it's true the U.S. has
abundant amounts of fossil fuel resources that can be tapped to produce
a lot of energy but with different technology than in the past i.e.
drilling. All energy based on fossil fuels should be abandoned and other
sources should be used in their place.



(3)
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/...vid=1&rootid=1

(B) Implement projects to recover REE [rare earth elements]
and fissile materials [uranium and thorium] from the
enormous amounts of coal fly ash that have been generated by
our coal fired electric generating plants. Currently REE
must be imported from China are contribute to the balance of
trade deficit and another serious national defense
consideration.

It's already being done. Molycorp is a brand new business that seeks to
mine REE in North America. It should be producing minerals within a decade.


(C) Implement projects to develop MSMTR [molten salt
moderated thorium reactors] for mass production on about the
scale of wide bodied aircraft. Imported oil is not going to
become more plentiful or cheaper, "energy" will become more
expensive, and MSMTRs can use the "spent" fuel rods from
conventional uranium reactors for fuel eliminating another
growing problem, e.g. storage. This will also free up large
amounts of coal as feed stock for synthetic oil production
for liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel and JP4, while
providing the steam and power necessary for the coal
liquefaction process, eliminating the need to burn a
significant amount of the coal feed stock to power the
process.

The nuclear reactor process is one that I think still needs to be
considered as an energy source. It's not high on my list but it has
potential. If we ever get the technology for fusion reactors then I'd be
all for it. As long as we're still talking fission I'm leery about going
down that alley.



As the Yankee farmer long ago observed "God helps them what
helps themselves."


America is in one of the biggest transitional periods in history. The
way we always used to do things is changing. Especially in what we
consider work. The jobs in the past that used to make nations' wealthy
are moving to low wage regions. In the future we are going to have to
find out how to create wealth without being the actual producers of
material products. Right now that seems impossible but within a decade
or two we will be doing very well without being the world's
manufacturing plant. Those making all the money now in manufacturing are
going to find themselves having a monopoly on doing something that is
not the gold mine it once was. The process is going to take some time
and we're in uncharted territory so how things are going to unfold is
not easy for anyone to anticipate.

Hawke