Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/18/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/13/05, John DeBudge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > China really is greatly increasing its demand for foreign oil, thus
> > becoming a major factor in global demand, which in turn is starting to
> > outpace production, thus resulting in a price increase.
> >
> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html
> >
> > "China was the world's second largest consumer of petroleum products
> > in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time, with total demand of
> > 5.56 million barrels per day (bbl/d). China's oil demand is projected
> > by EIA to reach 12.8 million bbl/d by 2025, with net imports of 9.4
> > million bbl/d. As the source of around 40% of world oil demand growth
> > over the past four years, Chinese oil demand already is a very
> > significant factor in world oil markets."
> >
> > General instability in the middle east could definitely contribute to
> > a rise in prices, but only a permanent increase in demand, or a
> > permanent increase in production, will lead to a long term price
> > change.
> >
> > The higher the price of oil gets, the more pressure will be placed on
> > increasing production.
> >
> > Venezuela has a much greater impact on local US fuel prices however,
> > as it is the top supplier of oil to the US. The strike, and general
> > political instability in 2002 and 2003 resulted in a huge decrease in
> > oil exports, and even now the levels have not fully returned to their
> > pre-strike levels. Furthermore the future growth of production in that
> > country is at risk because of the political situation, thus limiting
> > investment that would lead to future expansion.
> >
> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html
> >
> > Just thought I would add some more details to the discussion.
> >
> > John
> Ven. reached peak oil production several years ago and will not be
> able to increase production.   Right now, it is facing the wrath of
> the GOP as it increased the royalty rates from the oil companies,
> slammed a halt on privatization of public utilites and began policies
> to raise the living standards of the majority of the people.
> 
> --
> Gary Denton

'is facing'?  Ven. (and more specifically Chavez) has been facing
their wrath for a while now.  Or have we forgotten the attempted coup
the US supported?


~Maru
How very... Cold War-ish.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Gary Denton]

On 4/13/05, John DeBudge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> China really is greatly increasing its demand for foreign oil, thus
> becoming a major factor in global demand, which in turn is starting to
> outpace production, thus resulting in a price increase.
> 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html
> 
> "China was the world's second largest consumer of petroleum products
> in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time, with total demand of
> 5.56 million barrels per day (bbl/d). China's oil demand is projected
> by EIA to reach 12.8 million bbl/d by 2025, with net imports of 9.4
> million bbl/d. As the source of around 40% of world oil demand growth
> over the past four years, Chinese oil demand already is a very
> significant factor in world oil markets."
> 
> General instability in the middle east could definitely contribute to
> a rise in prices, but only a permanent increase in demand, or a
> permanent increase in production, will lead to a long term price
> change.
> 
> The higher the price of oil gets, the more pressure will be placed on
> increasing production.
> 
> Venezuela has a much greater impact on local US fuel prices however,
> as it is the top supplier of oil to the US. The strike, and general
> political instability in 2002 and 2003 resulted in a huge decrease in
> oil exports, and even now the levels have not fully returned to their
> pre-strike levels. Furthermore the future growth of production in that
> country is at risk because of the political situation, thus limiting
> investment that would lead to future expansion.
> 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html
> 
> Just thought I would add some more details to the discussion.
> 
> John
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 
Ven. reached peak oil production several years ago and will not be
able to increase production.   Right now, it is facing the wrath of
the GOP as it increased the royalty rates from the oil companies,
slammed a halt on privatization of public utilites and began policies
to raise the living standards of the majority of the people.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
http://elemming.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Doug Pensinger]

JDG  wrote:
First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as the
anti-government Party.   After all, you have previously defined the
Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every*
big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican
opposition.   That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu.
Democrats have the reputation as big spenders, but it's recently been 
documented on the list that Republicans are the most irresponsible when it 
comes to spending.

1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the Democrats 
to argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take 
on
another major... mission.Moreover, such a debate would inevitably 
turn into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the 
Republicans have
already won the last time that was tried.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005. N=1,040 adults nationwide. MoE 
± 3.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the 
situation in Iraq?"

Approve 43%
Disapprove 54%
Unsure 3%
All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
 .
Worth Going To War 45%
Not Worth Going To War 53%
Unsure 2%
"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American 
public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Yes, Misled 50%
No,Did Not 48%
Unsure 2%
Dr. Brin didn't even mention the issue that I find most egregious; Geneva 
Convention and human rights violations by the administration.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[John DeBudge]

China really is greatly increasing its demand for foreign oil, thus
becoming a major factor in global demand, which in turn is starting to
outpace production, thus resulting in a price increase.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html

"China was the world's second largest consumer of petroleum products
in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time, with total demand of
5.56 million barrels per day (bbl/d). China's oil demand is projected
by EIA to reach 12.8 million bbl/d by 2025, with net imports of 9.4
million bbl/d. As the source of around 40% of world oil demand growth
over the past four years, Chinese oil demand already is a very
significant factor in world oil markets."

General instability in the middle east could definitely contribute to
a rise in prices, but only a permanent increase in demand, or a
permanent increase in production, will lead to a long term price
change.

The higher the price of oil gets, the more pressure will be placed on
increasing production.

Venezuela has a much greater impact on local US fuel prices however,
as it is the top supplier of oil to the US. The strike, and general
political instability in 2002 and 2003 resulted in a huge decrease in
oil exports, and even now the levels have not fully returned to their
pre-strike levels. Furthermore the future growth of production in that
country is at risk because of the political situation, thus limiting
investment that would lead to future expansion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html

Just thought I would add some more details to the discussion.

John
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 12, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
Ah. Not that widely apparently. ;)
Well they said so on CNN today!
I don't work with the television on. The last time I looked at CNN --  
couple days ago, I think -- there was interminable live coverage of a  
hostage standoff between a man and his ex wife. Completely irrelevant.  
Unfortunately the other feeds were rabbiting on about either the Pope  
or Chuck and Strumpet.

I really really miss DW.
Also, IIRC Shanghai in particular was undergoing a massive boom in  
the last several years, but oil prices didn't spike then either.
Well, Shanghai is only one part of China,
Oh, golly, do tell. ;)
and its conceivable India has something to do with this too (I think  
the CNN report claimed as much too).
No one here mentioned India until just now.
But basing the claim on oil use just on the increase of China's GDP  
may not be the whole factor. At what point in GDP growth do people  
switch from riding busses or bikes to owning their own cars? Someone  
else correct me, but I believe one of the biggest consumers of  
petroleum are domestic, privately owned vehicles (POVs). If millions  
of Chinese are now earning enough to trade in their Huffy's for  
Chengdu SUVs, then there's where the spike in demand would occur...
That's a good point, all right, and could have something to do with it.  
Let's see, it seems that in June of 2004, 3 in 1000 Chinese owned a  
car:



Figure 1.2 bln people, that would have been about 3.6 million cars.  
Even if Chinese automobile purchases have increased tenfold in the last  
10 months, then, that's 40 million cars, which is still not right;  
apparently as of 2004 2.3 million cars were being produced:


That's still a fraction of the number of vehicles the US gobbles up  
annually, and yet we don't see spikes like this most recent one. (Of  
course a lot of it's not on my scopes; I own and use a Bianchi most of  
the time.)

Worldwide there seems to be a prediction of about 1.3 billion motorized  
vehicles in 2005. That's apparently a large increase, but pointing the  
finger at China alone seems a little too pat.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Damon Agretto]

Ah. Not that widely apparently. ;)
Well they said so on CNN today!
I'm not sure how valid that claim is. If the chart here is of any value, 
China's economic growth has been on a more or less steady rise since 1998 
or so:


...while oil prices have been radically up and down over the same period, 
which would seem to indicate no tie between oil prices and China's economy:


Also, IIRC Shanghai in particular was undergoing a massive boom in the 
last several years, but oil prices didn't spike then either.
Well, Shanghai is only one part of China, and its conceivable India has 
something to do with this too (I think the CNN report claimed as much too).

But basing the claim on oil use just on the increase of China's GDP may not 
be the whole factor. At what point in GDP growth do people switch from 
riding busses or bikes to owning their own cars? Someone else correct me, 
but I believe one of the biggest consumers of petroleum are domestic, 
privately owned vehicles (POVs). If millions of Chinese are now earning 
enough to trade in their Huffy's for Chengdu SUVs, then there's where the 
spike in demand would occur...

Damon.

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Italeri's M8 Greyhound 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway?
It's been widely reported that the reason for high fuel costs is 
because of China's rapidly expanding economy.
Ah. Not that widely apparently. ;)
I'm not sure how valid that claim is. If the chart here is of any 
value, China's economic growth has been on a more or less steady rise 
since 1998 or so:


...while oil prices have been radically up and down over the same 
period, which would seem to indicate no tie between oil prices and 
China's economy:


Also, IIRC Shanghai in particular was undergoing a massive boom in the 
last several years, but oil prices didn't spike then either.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Damon Agretto]

And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway?
It's been widely reported that the reason for high fuel costs is because of 
China's rapidly expanding economy.

Damon.

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Italeri's M8 Greyhound 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:47 PM, JDG wrote:
First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as 
the
anti-government Party.   After all, you have previously defined the
Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every*
big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican
opposition.   That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu.
You don't think it can be done? Even with the Liberal Media in the 
pocket of the Dems? Hmm, how about GWB, the Compassionate Conservative 
who Unites, not Divides, and Errs on the Side of Life?

"Liberal Media" my eye.
1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the 
Democrats to
argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take on
another major... mission.
I don't think that was the suggestion. The problem -- and it is valid 
-- is that US readiness for defense is at a nadir. Calling for rational 
behavior in military strategy is not at all the same thing as 
suggesting the armed forces should be preparing to go to war.

Moreover, such a debate would inevitably turn
into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the Republicans 
have
already won the last time that was tried.
They have? It doesn't seem so from this perspective.
2) You'll need your conspiracy theory regarding the purge of the 
Officer
Corps to be picked up by the mainstream media and for some actual 
evidence
supporting it to be gathered before a major political Party can start
touting it.
Why? I recall a major political party recently touting another crackpot 
idea, that a hunk of meat incapable of even swallowing on its own for 
the last 15 years had somehow miraculously begun to show signs of 
emergent consciousness. I even recall the mainstream (liberal?) media 
playing field hockey with emotions and ethics for over two weeks using 
that basis.

Considering that the US Armed Forces have famously been
restricting retirements in order to meet personnel goals, I think that 
if a
purge were occurring, it ought not to be too difficult to document.
I'd like to see documentation on it as well, as it happens; but your 
suggestion that "the media" cares about facts when there's a 
sensational story afoot is not particularly in keeping with 
observation.

3) There is no question that the biggest division in Republican ranks 
right
now is the immigration issue.   Again, the history of the Democrats 
makes
this a difficult change to make.
But I thought GWB was a uniter, *not* a divider. ;)
4) I don't find government secrecy to be a resonating issue - but I 
could
conceivalby be proven wrong on that point.
Well, there's continuing resistance to PATRIOT II, and there _is_ a 
steady minority of individuals who feel that the current administration 
is far too secretive.

It's maybe a little like CO emissions from vehicles -- you're always 
aware of them on a low-key level, but every once in a while someone 
will jog the awareness into a higher level of consciousness and you'll 
be very focused on them for a while, ideally when you're contemplating 
a new vehicle purchase.

All that
screeching from 93-2000... and the result?  ZERO indictments of
Clinton-era federal officials for acts performed while in office.
5) Dr. Brin, your point about indictments is just plain false.   Even
worse, you know that they are false, as you admitted your error on this
point once before.I find it very disappointing that not only are 
you
repeating false statements even after they have been corrected, but 
using
those same false statements to lambaste others gratuitously.

The indictment of Mike Espy, Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture for
accepting bribes from companies regulated by his department, is here:
 http://www.oic.gov/SMALTZ/briefs/dismis5m.htm
Whoops, that's one. Are there more?
6) You may have heard that there is some economic growth going on 
China
  And I would also point out that Goldman Sachs projected prices in a 
range
from $50 to $105, *not* $105.   Your source misrepresented the 
projection.
You misrepresented the statement, which was this:
"This week we have seen a projected price spike of $105 from Goldman 
Sachs."

A *spike* is not the same thing as a *range*. It is, implicitly, a 
maximum value.

And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway?
Re suborning -- an interesting concern, but it might be hard to pitch 
if one wants to, on one hand, request that the government be less 
overweening while, on the other hand, asking that it watchdog itself 
with another layer of possibly-useful scrutiny.

A more valid complaint is the internal subornation that goes on daily 
-- such as the way the credit card lobbyists have at last managed to 
later bankruptcy laws in favor of themselves and their predatory 
lending practices.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[David Brin]

--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After all, you have> previously defined the
> Democrats on this List as being the Party that
> favored *every*> big-government program over the
past 100-or-so years> over Republican> opposition.  
That is an awful lot of history to> jujitsu.

A typical outright and deliberate lie.

What I did do is list MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY.  Excluding Teddy Roosevelt, NONE of
them have unambiguous roots in the GOP... although I
do admire Eisenhower and credit him with helping
Truman and Marshall to achieve many miracles,
including calm containment of the USSR.

What you utterly and blitheringly ignore is that many
of those accomplishments were REDUCTION of big
government.  In fact, EVERY major deregulation except
energy and the S&L industry, was pushed by the
democrats... and THOSE two deregulations were actually
klepto raids.

I'll be even more fair and allow that Welfare Reform
was bipartisan between Clinton and a Gingrich Congress
the very briefly had a moment of lucid sanity and
willingness to negotiate pragmatically.

But the utter hypocrisy of calling the democrats the
party of Big Government when:

Federal payrolls dropped under BC and skyrocketed
under Bush.
Ditto deficits
Dito government secrecy.

Ditoo... O hell. What's the point.  If I finally do
show that fantastic FACTS, John would only credit it
all to delayed effects of REaganomics.


> 
> 1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning
> strategy for the Democrats to
> argue that the nation aught to be preparing the
> armed forces to take on
> another major... mission.Moreover, such a debate
> would inevitably turn
> into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and
> the Republicans have
> already won the last time that was tried.

No, it was a referendum on BOTH Bill Clinton's
wonderful Afghanistan plan (which W executed and kept
his hands off) and the wretched Rumsfeld generalship. 
Just wait till enough generals retire and talk about
that.

> 3) There is no question that the biggest division in
> Republican ranks right
> now is the immigration issue.   Again, the history
> of the Democrats makes
> this a difficult change to make.

Crap again.  The UNIVERSAL history is that dems better
support the Border Patrol.  It is a quirk of social
thinking that keeps them from bragging.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[JDG]

De. Brin:

Some responses:

First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as the
anti-government Party.   After all, you have previously defined the
Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every*
big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican
opposition.   That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu.

1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the Democrats to
argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take on
another major... mission.Moreover, such a debate would inevitably turn
into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the Republicans have
already won the last time that was tried.

2) You'll need your conspiracy theory regarding the purge of the Officer
Corps to be picked up by the mainstream media and for some actual evidence
supporting it to be gathered before a major political Party can start
touting it.Considering that the US Armed Forces have famously been
restricting retirements in order to meet personnel goals, I think that if a
purge were occurring, it ought not to be too difficult to document. 

3) There is no question that the biggest division in Republican ranks right
now is the immigration issue.   Again, the history of the Democrats makes
this a difficult change to make.

4) I don't find government secrecy to be a resonating issue - but I could
conceivalby be proven wrong on that point.

>All that 
>screeching from 93-2000... and the result?  ZERO indictments of 
>Clinton-era federal officials for acts performed while in office. 
5) Dr. Brin, your point about indictments is just plain false.   Even
worse, you know that they are false, as you admitted your error on this
point once before.I find it very disappointing that not only are you
repeating false statements even after they have been corrected, but using
those same false statements to lambaste others gratuitously.

The indictment of Mike Espy, Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture for
accepting bribes from companies regulated by his department, is here:
 http://www.oic.gov/SMALTZ/briefs/dismis5m.htm

6) You may have heard that there is some economic growth going on China
  And I would also point out that Goldman Sachs projected prices in a range
from $50 to $105, *not* $105.   Your source misrepresented the projection.  

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l