I think I called this for Ellis Wyatt on Mr. Ruddy's post
"With the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand."
Yes, and a 500% tariff on imports from China (and other cheap labor countries) would make manufacturing in the US viable.
The problem is that demand would nosedive and a depression would ensue, while government took the funds from tariffs and increased repression of freedom.
Any action that transfers power and wealth from individual producers to government looters is not a solution, but an increased problem.
Eyton, BP's Group Head of Technology is a poor communicator if he believes that is "economic."
I hope that the headline is more accurate.
Think a 500% increase in electricity fuel costs would be "economic" for people in the US?
Just don't have much positive to say lately about politics, government, privacy, individual liberty, religion, the American socialist-fascist-corporatist state.
(grin)
Election campaigns have that effect on me.
May I respectfully suggest that you search for "The Weekend Interview with Arnold Fisher: Healing the Brains of American GIs" by William McGurn (The Wall Street Journal, Sat/Sun November 7 - 8, 2015). Just a most recent case, still in the rapidly fading memory of an 80 years old fogy.
In my humble opinion, the wealth has never been rationally demonstrated to be a reliable measure of dishonesty (neither of honesty, for that matter). I think that your statement illustrates a delusional prejudice which the collectivist propaganda loves to propagate. Would you then claim that the 10% wealthiest families in this country are all dishonest? Bringing an argument ad absurdum helps the rational mind recognize fallacies, I think.
Forgive me, please, I do not mean this as any kind of personal attack on you. But, with overexposure to the toxic propaganda, I have now intense allergic reactions.
All the best wishes!
I now realize that what I object to the most is that broad brush which you seem to swing back and forth.
EDIT: Spelling and two missing commas.
Who sets the "measurements" for banks? Customers or The Government? Who's to blame if they behave accordingly? Customers or The Government?
I love searching for Root Cause. It's almost NEVER the market, industry or corporation that's The Root Cause. (imnsho)
Color me pessimistic.
those resources, in order to hamper industry, and
attempt to make life on earth unlivable.
Ah, Nick, you remind me of a bromide an old manager told me... "Tell me how you're going to measure me and I'll tell you how I'm going to behave..."
Who sets the "measurements" for banks? Customers or The Government? Who's to blame if they behave accordingly? Customers or The Government?
I love searching for Root Cause. It's almost NEVER the market, industry or corporation that's The Root Cause. (imnsho)
Like the theories and 'definite conclusions' that rocketed around the Mainscream Media after the Russian passenger jet went down. Too many people "knew what happened" long before the 'black boxes' were even found, let alone analyzed!
Some of the wording of those Oil Company Documents could be honest or could be deliberate weasel-wording to keep lawsuits away.
I'm just waiting for more data. I love data.
:)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/19-year...
http://www.business-standard.com/arti...
That source further spreads the implication that scientist Willie Soon received money for exposing carbon scare propaganda, Wille Soon got no extra money for that research. The funding source paid directly to his employer, the Smithsonian, who grovelled but failed to substantiate the accusation.
Predictions, such as the famous case of London being buried by horse droppings by 1890, do not take into account qualitative changes in technology (ie cars) - they always rely on projecting current tech into the future.
Jan
Jan