--------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** http://www.GOANET.org **** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 International Goan Convention Toronto, Canada
http://www.2008goanconvention.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mon Jul 7 00:26:31 PDT 2008 >From Marlon Menezes marlon at goacom.org > First of all, wrt America's oil reserves, it was not the "whacko environmentalists" who put in the current restrictions on oil drilling. California's off shore bans were placed by the then governor Ronald Reagan - a republican. Florida's anti oil laws were in part set by Jeb Bush, the brother of the current president. Lastly, the national bans oil drilling in places like Alaska were set in place by G.Bush Sr, the current president's father. > Mario asks: > Marlon is absolutely right that it is wacko government intervention at all levels and from both parties for decades that is responsible for the restrictions on oil supplies that are causing the current oil price bubble. However, the extreme environmental wackos and the left wing of the Democrat party played a major role, and continue to do so, as the resistance to President Bush's proposals to open up oil drilling in and around the USA shows. > Contrary to Marlon's insinuations, no single President or state Governor can do any such thing single-handedly without the support of their legislatures - and the primary support for these stringent restrictions on oil exploration and drilling, as well as restrictions on new refineries and nuclear power plants comes from the extreme environmental wacko lobby. > Here is what Investors Business Daily has to say: > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080703/bs_ibd_ibd/20080703issues;_ylt=AsaxuNuOsbrc4_4arHrJi6GffbcF > Excerpt: > "By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within a week of his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy prices began tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a barrel in early 1981 to just $11 by 1986." > Marlon wrote: > As far as some of the so called oil reserves such as shale oil, the issue is cost and yield. > Mario adds: > How about the additional cost of overcoming prohibitive environmental regulations which would surely be followed by lengthy and expensive lawsuits? > Marlon wrote: > Current world oil consumption today is around 88 million barrels per day, while actual production from these tar sands is in the hundreds of thousands range - a drop in the barrel so to speak. These marginal sources will not make much of an impact in overall prices. > Mario asks: > If it's so miniscule, why not remove the environmental restrictions from mining shale and tar sands as well as exploration and drilling around the entire continental USA, and let the market dictate what happens? While we're at it why not remove the restrictions on building new refineries and new nuclear power plants? > Marlon wrote: > This is all inspite of the anti-technological policies emanating from Washtington, such as its recent attempt to halt the construction of new solar energy facilities as well as its failure to pass the clean energy bill, while still supporting a $18 billion tax subsidy for the "poor and suffering" oil industry. > Mario asks: > How does a clean energy bill do anything to increase oil supplies and gasoline refining capacity? Doesn't it just add more expensive regulations that our competitors in Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and the middle-east are not burdened with? > Anti-technology legislation? How about the billions that have been spent over the last 25 years on expensive government boondoggles for developing alternative energy sources that government bureaucrats decide to finance, that are still not feasible? > By the way the profits of the major oil companies as a percentage of revenues is far below that of most businesses that require far less investment and risk. > Marlon wrote: > This year, the budget deficit is due to cross 500 billion dollars and it does not include the cost of the poorly executed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which when done will have cost the US tax payers approximately 2 trillion dollars. > Mario observes: > Fortunately for the Afghanis and Iraqis, not to mention Europe and the old Soviet Union of years gone by, wars of liberation are not managed by accountants and armchair critics. > An experienced polemicist like Marlon would know that the absolute value of the deficits is not the relevent statistic but the deficit as a percentage of US GDP. The following chart exposes Marlon's deficit-sized bulls...,...er,rhetoric:-)) > http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cms/Federal+Deficits+and+Surpluses > Marlon wrote: > The VP Dick Cheney once commented that deficits do not matter. With the dollar down by 40%, I wonder what this jackass would say now! > Mario responds: > I guess it takes one to recognize one. Here is another more reasonable view of what Cheney said: > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp > The declining value of the dollar has less to do with trade deficits and more to do with the growth in the money supply to finance the excessive federal spending of the last several years at lower interest rates, thus devaluing the currency. The US trade deficit acts as an engine for the world economy that sells its products and services to the US, without which their economies would be in the doldrums. The US has not had a trade surplus for decades. It's like a company with a solid credit rating that borrows money to grow the company and provide its employees with jobs. > The falling dollar has already begun a slowdown in US imports and an increase in exports, which is the way this stuff works in the real world.. > By comparison, here is one opinion on what has happened in India: > http://www.indianinflation-uncontrollable.com/ > Which is why Marlon lives in the US. > Marlon wrote: > With all these deficits, the fundamental cause was excess money in the system - > Net result: high inflation and a rapidly deflating dollar. > Mario responds: > High inflation? The US inflation rate so far this year is in the 4% range, which is higher than recent years but hardly critical in the context of many major and mature industrial countries and everything else the US is involved with. > Marlon wrote: > As far as I am concerned the US political system in broken and it does not matter which of the two parties come into power. > The biggest enemy of the US is its own federal government. > Mario asks: > Marlon, haven't you listened to a word that Sen. Obama has said about significantly increasing the total tax burden - or seen estimates of the humongous costs of all the government programs he is proposing? > We have three periods in recent US history which showed that keeping tax rates low increase tax returns to the Treasury, under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. The deficits were not because of reduced revenues but a failure to control increases in wasteful federal spending. > You are right, the US system is the worst system in the world. Someone should inform India and China and the burgeoning economies that split off from the old Soviet Union who are trying to replicate the US system. > Besides, what are YOU going to do living in such a broken system? Suck it up and stick it out, or leave and go to where the grass is greener? I can't wait for you to tell us what your preferred choices are as an alternative! I'm sure the Canadians or Man Mohan Singh will be glad to have you - even Digambar Kamath. It's going to be a long four years for pessimists. > In the meantime, the flexible US economy has seen all this before and its system of checks and balances and self-correcting mechanisms has helped it recover from all previous excesses and business cycles. If it doesn't this time, it will be a first. But, I agree, it's going to get worse before it gets better. > That will give Bobby "The Kid" Jindal an unique opportunity to ride to the rescue in another four or eight years. >