NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been forcasting this to happen, but I really didn't believe it was possible after the summer driving season. But there she blows! While I was on vacation, crude did surpass $50, whether Nymex or Brent Crude. This isn't helping matters, either.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6470014

Time to invest in Hybrid Cars.

Time to invest in Hybrid Cars.
oh yeah

even here the price for gas is nearly 2$ for unleaded, i would hate to be in new york or california or somewhere like that right now

i can see it now, some day in the future i will be telling people i could remember when gas cost a buck 40 a gallon

I've been forcasting this to happen, but I really didn't believe it was possible after the summer driving season. But there she blows! While I was on vacation, crude did surpass $50, whether Nymex or Brent Crude. This isn't helping matters, either.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6470014
My investment in oil companies is doing well...it's nearly doubled in share price.

My investment in oil companies is doing well...it's nearly doubled in share price.
I want to invest in one, too, but I'm waiting a couple years. Why? World economic growth is at its fastest in thirty years, and cannot sustain itself much longer. China will fall, and the housing bubble in the US that has been the backbone of our consumer spending should pop at the same time. As the Middle East and Russia will increase production, demand by then will inevitably fall, glutting the market bigtime. I wouldn't even be surprised to see $15/barrel in a few years. In any case, oil stocks will be extremely cheap by then. So my advice to you is to sell now. But hey, I'm no economist.

Time to invest in Hybrid Cars.
The world's most lucrative auto market is the US, and it'd take about $100/barrel for hybrids to overtake regular ICE cars in new sales there. It might happen in Europe if gas prices go dramatically higher, but they're stuck on deisel, which tends to burn longer than gas anyhow.

Awesome. I hope it gets much more than this. It opens up possibilities for alternatives such as electric, hydrogen and biodiesel-based cars. Ultimately, the market will decide what is given a go, and in this case, the alternatives get rather attractive.

Unfortunately, in my country, biodiesel is illegal. Sick, but truth :(

I expect my "pessimism" to be unwelcome in this thread, but...

...don't expect to see oil prices below $30 per barrel, ever. You've got a new floor established. OPEC should be updating its price range accordingly before long. Not as if they've got any control over it, they would simply be accepting reality.

I want to invest in one, too, but I'm waiting a couple years. Why? World economic growth is at its fastest in thirty years, and cannot sustain itself much longer. China will fall, and the housing bubble in the US that has been the backbone of our consumer spending should pop at the same time. As the Middle East and Russia will increase production, demand by then will inevitably fall, glutting the market bigtime. I wouldn't even be surprised to see $15/barrel in a few years. In any case, oil stocks will be extremely cheap by then. So my advice to you is to sell now. But hey, I'm no economist.
All hypothetical, unfortuantely.

The world's most lucrative auto market is the US, and it'd take about $100/barrel for hybrids to overtake regular ICE cars in new sales there. It might happen in Europe if gas prices go dramatically higher, but they're stuck on deisel, which tends to burn longer than gas anyhow.

In regard to biodiesel, it was already cheaper to run on biodiesel than on diesel before the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. And FYI: Europe ain't 'stuck on diesel'. Lots of cars run on benzine, especially personal cars. LPG and diesel are less popular than that, but diesel ain't uncommon either, you got that right.

All hypothetical, unfortuantely.
Well, not really. I read an issue of the Economist that deals with this issue. They seem hellbent on the notion that the consumer spending in the US is based on rising home values, and judging by the laws of supply and demand, that is not real wealth.

A few years back, my father said that oil would get a lot more expensive if Bush was elected.

I asked him how he came up with that.

He explained, sipping his beer: "Remember when you were a kid? The minute Carter got into office, the price of peanut-butter tripled."

...proof to me that experience is the best teacher...

Kerry gets elected? Look for high prices on ketchups and relishes! ;)

I expect my "pessimism" to be unwelcome in this thread, but...

...don't expect to see oil prices below $30 per barrel, ever. You've got a new floor established. OPEC should be updating its price range accordingly before long. Not as if they've got any control over it, they would simply be accepting reality.
I always thought you were an expert, but you've shown to be a true pessimist, and not just on this topic, either.

Well, not really. I read an issue of the Economist that deals with this issue. They seem hellbent on the notion that the consumer spending in the US is based on rising home values, and judging by the laws of supply and demand, that is not real wealth.
It is, you can see it in the rising debt as a percentage of household net worth. It's getting a bit high...

But I meant my portfolio. I just do it for fun, one has made a 30% return over three years, the other a 3% return over a half year, not bad, considering.

In regard to biodiesel, it was already cheaper to run on biodiesel than on diesel before the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. And FYI: Europe ain't 'stuck on diesel'. Lots of cars run on benzine, especially personal cars. LPG and diesel are less popular than that, but diesel ain't uncommon either, you got that right.
But deisel is far more common in Europe. In the US, it has only caught on with locomotives, tractors, and trucks. As for biodeisel, that is cheap for now, but it is not in high demand. Even if a barrel costs just $0.05 today, it'll rise as demand increases, should it catch on. Anyhow, yes it was cheaper before the War on Terror, because prices spiked before then. They begun their spike in 2000 after a decade of decline.

A few years back, my father said that oil would get a lot more expensive if Bush was elected.

I asked him how he came up with that.

He explained, sipping his beer: "Remember when you were a kid? The minute Carter got into office, the price of peanut-butter tripled."

...proof to me that experience is the best teacher...

Kerry gets elected? Look for high prices on ketchups and relishes! ;)

:) :D

It is, you can see it in the rising debt as a percentage of household net worth. It's getting a bit high...
Don't worry. When housing prices inevitably go down, even though consumer spending will halt, more income will go to pay debt, and more savings will be created. It's the business cycle. Of course, the economy would be far better off if everyone saved a little more.
But I meant my portfolio. I just do it for fun, one has made a 30% return over three years, the other a 3% return over a half year, not bad, considering.
Well, at least you didn't loose any money on your portfolio.

Awesome. I hope it gets much more than this. It opens up possibilities for alternatives such as electric, hydrogen and biodiesel-based cars. Ultimately, the market will decide what is given a go, and in this case, the alternatives get rather attractive.

Unfortunately, in my country, biodiesel is illegal. Sick, but truth :(
Where do you live?

Don't worry. When housing prices inevitably go down, even though consumer spending will halt, more income will go to pay debt, and more savings will be created. It's the business cycle. Of course, the economy would be far better off if everyone saved a little more.

That's the problem. If something doesn't kick in, our economy is going to come to a halt once that consumer spending stops.


Ha, if my portfolio was real, I'd had have made quite a bit of change. 274,279.00 from 200,000 invested and 51,214.15 from about 50,000 invested.

That's the problem. If something doesn't kick in, our economy is going to come to a halt once that consumer spending stops.
That's why I say we get a low flat income tax, and have a federal consumption tax. It's effect will be mostly psychological, but it'll encourage consumers to be a.) thriftier, and b.) build a more efficient economy. We have a consumption based economy. Isn't it time we update our tax laws to reflect that?

But deisel is far more common in Europe. In the US, it has only caught on with locomotives, tractors, and trucks.

Yeah, trucks and tractors use it here, too. Personal cars not so much. Locomotives certainly don't. They all run on electricity here since the 2nd half of the 20th century.

As for biodeisel, that is cheap for now, but it is not in high demand. Even if a barrel costs just $0.05 today, it'll rise as demand increases, should it catch on.

The market will adapt to the demand just like the market adapted to the higher demand of computers in the 90s and the crash of the IT sector [whole economy, actually, but IT sector was booming before that, and felt down the hardest] in 2000.

It might take some time, but if you are able to succesfully
1) build a field of biodiesel for say $10.000
2) get the investment back in say 2 months
3) earn yourself say $10.000 a month per field after these 2 months
You'd be crazy not doing this.

Anyhow, yes it was cheaper before the War on Terror, because prices spiked before then. They begun their spike in 2000 after a decade of decline.

At least the version with the black seed was still cheaper before that, too, in the 90s. I don't know about the soy version.

Where do you live?

Netherlands

That's why I say we get a low flat income tax, and have a federal consumption tax. It's effect will be mostly psychological, but it'll encourage consumers to be a.) thriftier, and b.) build a more efficient economy. We have a consumption based economy. Isn't it time we update our tax laws to reflect that?
Won't fly, and it hurts the poor (who tend to spend more as a percentage of income then the rich) excessively.

Yeah, trucks and tractors use it here, too. Personal cars not so much. Locomotives certainly don't. They all run on electricity here since the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Passenger trains don't really use it, just freight trains. Also, keep in mind that the US has far more miles of rail in remote areas.


The market will adapt to the demand just like the market adapted to the higher demand of computers in the 90s and the crash of the IT sector [whole economy, actually, but IT sector was booming before that, and felt down the hardest] in 2000.

It might take some time, but if you are able to succesfully
1) build a field of biodiesel for say $10.000
2) get the investment back in say 2 months
3) earn yourself say $10.000 a month per field after these 2 months
You'd be crazy not doing this.

Of course the market will adapt. In fact, I think oil will be replaced by something in the next few decades. I'm just not sure if it'll be biodeisel.

Won't fly, and it hurts the poor (who tend to spend more as a percentage of income then the rich) excessively.
Not with a low flat tax. It may actually increase overall wealth, but in areas outside of consumer spending. When a business buys something, the decision is based off fiscal judgement. When a consumber buys something, it is far more emotional. By taxing income less than consumption, it'd a.) allow for a more efficient economy, and b.) help create jobs. It's free market equivilant, oil, was high in the early eighties, but that didn't stop rapid growth in the US. In fact, such a tax may actually help depress commodity prices. Of course, the goal, in my mind at least, is to eventually have a low consumption tax.

Not with a low flat tax. It may actually increase overall wealth, but in areas outside of consumer spending. When a business buys something, the decision is based off fiscal judgement. When a consumber buys something, it is far more emotional. By taxing income less than consumption, it'd a.) allow for a more efficient economy, and b.) help create jobs. It's free market equivilant, oil, was high in the early eighties, but that didn't stop rapid growth in the US. In fact, such a tax may actually help depress commodity prices. Of course, the goal, in my mind at least, is to eventually have a low consumption tax.
And then comes the budget cutbacks...eh, we get into what is better, a low tax or a high tax that flows money back into the economy. Just remember about a half of our income is perminently tied into debt servicing or the military. We don't have much that we can cut.

That's why I say we get a low flat income tax, and have a federal consumption tax. It's effect will be mostly psychological, but it'll encourage consumers to be a.) thriftier, and b.) build a more efficient economy. We have a consumption based economy. Isn't it time we update our tax laws to reflect that?


Right, like that will happen. What would politicians be able to offer lobbyists if there was a flat income and consumption tax.

Having a progressive and complicated tax code is a windfall for politicians. It allows all sorts of behaviour. You can "reward" groups that support your campaigns. I cant imagine politicians giving up that much power easily.

And then comes the budget cutbacks...eh, we get into what is better, a low tax or a high tax that flows money back into the economy. Just remember about a half of our income is perminently tied into debt servicing or the military. We don't have much that we can cut.
Actually, yes there is. It depends on what you count as government revenue that determines this. I count payroll taxes, as the government does have the habit of using social security money, so it's technically government revenue. Anyhow, I saw this interesting chart on spending at the new US Constitution Museum in Philidelphia. 33% of government spending goes to Social Security. 17% goes to the military, which was a far higher percentage not twenty years ago. The rest is divided between welfare programs, administrative costs, and a whole bunch of other things. I think much of this can be cut out, and we can even fund a cheaper, yet more effective military if we eventually slow down on the R&D. After all, our weapons are already a generation ahead of the rest of the world's. But anyhow, we can argue back and forth what to cut, and we'd never agree.

Passenger trains don't really use it, just freight trains.

Are you talking about the USA?

Also, keep in mind that the US has far more miles of rail in remote areas.

Sure.

Of course the market will adapt. In fact, I think oil will be replaced by something in the next few decades. I'm just not sure if it'll be biodeisel.

We agree on that.

I'm quite sure biodiesel will be one of the alternatives. I'm not sure wether coalseed, soy will be the most popular alternative but i think and hope bio fuels will become popular because they're the most eco-friendly and save solution. Government don't want cars to be an explosive bomb (nuclear fusion) or creating nucleair waste sellable to criminals (nuclear splitting).

Especially now with the Kyoto protocol on sight. Here are some numbers already:
* EU wants its countries to convert 2% of fosil fuel to bio fuel by 2005. By 2010, they want 5,75%.
* NL has 70.000h now, immediately free to use for this effort. Every h means 1500 litre of biofuel. On the longer run, 100.000h can be made free. Combined with import from USA and Latin America (soy), we are able to get 255 million litres. We use 6,6 bilion litres of diesel right now.
* According to estimates, 3% of the all the dieselcars with 10 tot 15% using import. Germany alone, without import, is able to get 17% moved to biodiesel.
* We'll have to import some biofuel, but we are also importing benzine right now (we have some gas fields in the north sea too).

In short, i'm not seeing it as the solution, but it'll be one of the solutions for certain.

Not with a low flat tax. It may actually increase overall wealth, but in areas outside of consumer spending. When a business buys something, the decision is based off fiscal judgement. When a consumber buys something, it is far more emotional. By taxing income less than consumption, it'd a.) allow for a more efficient economy, and b.) help create jobs. It's free market equivilant, oil, was high in the early eighties, but that didn't stop rapid growth in the US. In fact, such a tax may actually help depress commodity prices. Of course, the goal, in my mind at least, is to eventually have a low consumption tax.
your living in a nice republican fantasy land arnt you?

Actually, yes there is. It depends on what you count as government revenue that determines this. I count payroll taxes, as the government does have the habit of using social security money, so it's technically government revenue. Anyhow, I saw this interesting chart on spending at the new US Constitution Museum in Philidelphia. 33% of government spending goes to Social Security. 17% goes to the military, which was a far higher percentage not twenty years ago. The rest is divided between welfare programs, administrative costs, and a whole bunch of other things. I think much of this can be cut out, and we can even fund a cheaper, yet more effective military if we eventually slow down on the R&D. After all, our weapons are already a generation ahead of the rest of the world's. But anyhow, we can argue back and forth what to cut, and we'd never agree.
Last time I checked my budget figures, much of that went to military. We might just be seeing different things (and you are forgetting debt interest and everything, that sucks up quite a bit), and we really shouldn't slow down on the R&D or else...well, we will be fucked ten or so years in the future.

Right, like that will happen. What would politicians be able to offer lobbyists if there was a flat income and consumption tax.

Having a progressive and complicated tax code is a windfall for politicians. It allows all sorts of behaviour. You can "reward" groups that support your campaigns. I cant imagine politicians giving up that much power easily.
Both Dennis Hastert and George Bush have talked about it publically. I imagine that they will simplify the tax code one of these days. It's easy to do, and sooner or later, politicians will get sick of lobbyists. After all, they opened the floodgates for them about fifty years ago, and they can still close them. They even have for a few times recently.

Some other facts:
* EU wants in at least 20% of all transportfuels to be biofuels by 2020.
* Tanking a litre coalseedoil costs a bit less than 70 cent right now (but its illegal here, because you don't pay tax for it. Ofcourse, you can't pay tax for it either. Damn beurocrats :rolleyes: ). In contrast, Super / Euro 95 / Euro 98 cost more than 2 EUR in NL! Mind you, that includes tax. Other prices in EU are similar i guess, except Luxembourg. I don't know diesel because i'm not using that.

Last time I checked my budget figures, much of that went to military. We might just be seeing different things (and you are forgetting debt interest and everything, that sucks up quite a bit), and we really shouldn't slow down on the R&D or else...well, we will be fucked ten or so years in the future.
Well, I'm a firm believer in a lighter and nimbler military, and that would suit current defense needs, while it may actually drive down costs.
As for debt, it gets tricky to do here. Yes, there's a huge public debt. But for some reason, investors seem happy to buy it for us. The Bank of China is the biggest buyer of T-bonds, which pretty much finances our trade balance with China. I bet it's to help keep the dollar strong, and from a cynical viewpoint, hurt our manufacturing. Still, I bet investors will keep the dollar strong and help pay our debts, just so that our manufacturing sector doesn't kick back into life.

How much is the average crude oil barrel? Or, maybe better, how much should it be under normal circumstances of production?

How much is the average crude oil barrel? Or, maybe better, how much should it be under normal circumstances of production?
Under normal circumstances, it'd be somewhere under $30. I've even heard that if OPEC didn't exist, and all of our producers were politically stable countries, the price would be hovering near $10. In addition, there are the so-called "society charges" that are not represented in the sale of oil, but are the cost of its effects. For example, for every gallon of gas we buy, about $0.20 goes in the form of our taxes to the DOD to protect oil facilities. $0.05 goes to pay for other's healthcare costs, in the form of insurance premiums.

Some other facts:
* EU wants in at least 20% of all transportfuels to be biofuels by 2020.
* Tanking a litre coalseedoil costs a bit less than 70 cent right now (but its illegal here, because you don't pay tax for it. Ofcourse, you can't pay tax for it either. Damn beurocrats ). In contrast, Super / Euro 95 / Euro 98 cost more than 2 EUR in NL! Mind you, that includes tax. Other prices in EU are similar i guess, except Luxembourg. I don't know diesel because i'm not using that.
They put colour substance into the heating diesel or was it the other way around? That is how things are done here in Europe to distract whether diesel drivers are tanking not heating diesel (cheaper) but car diesel (more expansive.
I paid for Super/Euro 95 1,12 recently in Frankfurt (Germany). I didn´t know that the prices are even higher in the Netherlands.
The price fluctuates of course and there are regional differences.
It can be expected that during winter (in the northern hemisphere) the prices are increasing even more since to the increasing demand.
In those times of terror and uncertainty, of destability in many producer countries from Venezuela to Nigeria, Iraq (terrorism) and the prospect of a conflict between the United States and Iran is a cause of concern for the disruption of oil supplies.
The Iranian nuclear program is a great cause for concern. Sanctions against Iran may be inevitable. Though in the oil sector that wouldn´t be in the worlds interests. A solution needs to be found. Either way: in the next 1-3 years I think the issue is going to be remmedied - likely via regime change in Teheran by the United States.

They put colour substance into the heating diesel or was it the other way around? That is how things are done here in Europe to distract whether diesel drivers are tanking not heating diesel (cheaper) but car diesel (more expansive.
I paid for Super/Euro 95 1,12 recently in Frankfurt (Germany). I didn´t know that the prices are even higher in the Netherlands.
The price fluctuates of course and there are regional differences.
It can be expected that during winter (in the northern hemisphere) the prices are increasing even more since to the increasing demand.
In those times of terror and uncertainty, of destability in many producer countries from Venezuela to Nigeria, Iraq (terrorism) and the prospect of a conflict between the United States and Iran is a cause of concern for the disruption of oil supplies.
The Iranian nuclear program is a great cause for concern. Sanctions against Iran may be inevitable. Though in the oil sector that wouldn´t be in the worlds interests. A solution needs to be found. Either way: in the next 1-3 years I think the issue is going to be remmedied - likely via regime change in Teheran by the United States.
I don't feel it is necessary. The Iranians seem like they are ready for change, and will probably revolt in a few years. They are also regarded as some of the most liberally minded people in Southwest Asia, so don't expect a repeat of the last revolution. The US military should send some bombers in to prevent a revolt from beign quashed, but not much is needed on our part.
As for oil, I don't know why everyone is so worried about Iranian oil. They are far below their peak in 1979, when the revolution and Iran-Iraq war shut most of their production. Effects on the world oil market will be similar to one of the occasional cutoffs from Nigeria: it'll raise prices, but it won't be disastorous. That'd happen if Saudi Arabia or Russia had their production cut off.

I don't feel it is necessary. The Iranians seem like they are ready for change, and will probably revolt in a few years. They are also regarded as some of the most liberally minded people in Southwest Asia, so don't expect a repeat of the last revolution. The US military should send some bombers in to prevent a revolt from beign quashed, but not much is needed on our part.
I think your position is unrealistic. There were few student protests in Theran, but not even in any other place of the country. That can rather be compared to 1989 in China. The Iranian regime is much more accepted than the Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) was. There were much more reasons by several groups in Iraq to overthrow him. However of that the US was obviously not able to instigate a revolt.
I therefore don´t see any changes from within Iran in the prejectable future.
And in 2-3 years Iran could develop nuclear weapons. Especially if the Russians continue to supply them for their nuclear program.
I don´t see that Iran is going to give in. I see either a North-Korea style development or a preventive strike of the US to prevent a nuclear Iran. It is a matter of time.
Seen things from an Iranian perspective: Why shouldn´t they go for nukes? After all they are part of the "axis of evil", surounded by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the regime is not willing to change. So the only way out for them is to go for nukes. That is logical.
And it is as well logical that the US is going to try to prevent that.
Therefore a confrontation almost seems inevitable.


As for oil, I don't know why everyone is so worried about Iranian oil. They are far below their peak in 1979, when the revolution and Iran-Iraq war shut most of their production. Effects on the world oil market will be similar to one of the occasional cutoffs from Nigeria: it'll raise prices, but it won't be disastorous. That'd happen if Saudi Arabia or Russia had their production cut off.
Saudi Arabia would be the WORST CASE SCENARIO.
Given the current level of the prices (which are already damaging - you don´t need to look to Europe look to East Asia (Singapore) and the projections by South Korea) a further increase is going to further slow done economic growth.
Every 10 Dollar plus costs approximatly 0,5-1% growth of the global GDP.
Given the fact that we started in 1999 with 10 Dollars it is not difficult to tell what negative effect that development had - although it is not the only reasons for the problems it is contributing to it and has significant effects.
Iraq needs to be secured (including the oil infrastructure). That is naturally the duty of the occupying powers (or coalition or however once to call it) and the interim Iraqi authorities.
And the issue with Iran needs to be resolved in order to beef up their oil industry to serve the global needs.
The same can be said for the Sudan issue - though that is of much less relevance in that respect. But it is of more importance for the stability of the region.

I think your position is unrealistic. There were few student protests in Theran, but not even in any other place of the country. That can rather be compared to 1989 in China. The Iranian regime is much more accepted than the Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) was. There were much more reasons by several groups in Iraq to overthrow him. However of that the US was obviously not able to instigate a revolt.
I therefore don´t see any changes from within Iran in the prejectable future.
And in 2-3 years Iran could develop nuclear weapons. Especially if the Russians continue to supply them for their nuclear program.
I don´t see that Iran is going to give in. I see either a North-Korea style development or a preventive strike of the US to prevent a nuclear Iran. It is a matter of time.
Seen things from an Iranian perspective: Why shouldn´t they go for nukes? After all they are part of the "axis of evil", surounded by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the regime is not willing to change. So the only way out for them is to go for nukes. That is logical.
And it is as well logical that the US is going to try to prevent that.
Therefore a confrontation almost seems inevitable.

As William Saffire of the New York Times pointed out, however, seemingly small protests also occured before the 1979 revolution, as he was in Tehran in '73. The conditions there favor revolution more and more. The government itself may be more accepting, but the aylotollahs on top are strictly conservative, in conflict with the rest of their population. I don't, to be honest, see regime change as being necessary to liberalize Iran, and have an Iran friendlier to its neighbors. All that needs to happen is the Guardian Concil stop calling itself "supreme", and be to the Shi'ites more like the pope is to Catholics. For I do firmly believe that the people are preparing for change, if not revolution, and the new leaders would see that a WMD program hurts them more than it helps. If they leave their neighbors alone, after all, they have nothing to fear.

Under normal circumstances, it'd be somewhere under $30. I've even heard that if OPEC didn't exist, and all of our producers were politically stable countries, the price would be hovering near $10. In addition, there are the so-called "society charges" that are not represented in the sale of oil, but are the cost of its effects. For example, for every gallon of gas we buy, about $0.20 goes in the form of our taxes to the DOD to protect oil facilities. $0.05 goes to pay for other's healthcare costs, in the form of insurance premiums.

I understand better now; thank-you for the explanation.

I understand better now; thank-you for the explanation.
No problem. And btw, if it weren't for Ivan, oil right now would be closer to $40. Maybe not this year, or even next year, but sometime, a huge glut is bound to happen.

Both Dennis Hastert and George Bush have talked about it publically. I imagine that they will simplify the tax code one of these days. It's easy to do, and sooner or later, politicians will get sick of lobbyists. After all, they opened the floodgates for them about fifty years ago, and they can still close them. They even have for a few times recently.


Its one thing to talk about it in an election year, its an entirely different thing to actually get it passed.

Also keep in mind that Dems really dislike flat taxes because it partly removes the class warfare arrow from their quiver.

Not to mention all the accountants + tax attorneys + IRS people who would be against this. HR block share holders would hate this, so would employees and owners/partners in the major auditing firms.

I would love to see it happen though.

Its one thing to talk about it in an election year, its an entirely different thing to actually get it passed.

Also keep in mind that Dems really dislike flat taxes because it partly removes the class warfare arrow from their quiver.

Not to mention all the accountants + tax attorneys + IRS people who would be against this. HR block share holders would hate this, so would employees and owners/partners in the major auditing firms.

I would love to see it happen though.
Well, if the Republicans can hold onto at least one house in Congress and the presidency, I see it more likely. After all, Ronald Reagan's most memorable tax cuts didn't come until his second term. I think they got the ball rolling in some political circles already, and I think it is a matter of time before it happens. The problem is, however, if America's swing to the right has ended, bringing it back to the left.

Well, if the Republicans can hold onto at least one house in Congress and the presidency, I see it more likely. After all, Ronald Reagan's most memorable tax cuts didn't come until his second term. I think they got the ball rolling in some political circles already, and I think it is a matter of time before it happens. The problem is, however, if America's swing to the right has ended, bringing it back to the left.

I dont think America's swing to the right has ended yet(Hopeful thoughts). Rising living standards and a shift from blue to white collar jobs has definately been in the Republican's favour. The people we consider "poor" today would have been solidly middle class a generation or two ago. This holds DESPITE the increase in single parent families.

Unfortunately, the people who are relatively comfortable dont bother to vote in big numbers.

edit: I think the House isa lock for the republicans, the senate isanother matter though.

I dont think America's swing to the right has ended yet(Hopeful thoughts). Rising living standards and a shift from blue to white collar jobs has definately been in the Republican's favour. The people we consider "poor" today would have been solidly middle class a generation or two ago. This holds DESPITE the increase in single parent families.

Unfortunately, the people who are relatively comfortable dont bother to vote in big numbers.
Exactly. Luckily, in this election, voter turnout is expected to be very high. It's the most important elections in a generation, no doubt. Both sides concede that.
edit: I think the House isa lock for the republicans, the senate isanother matter though.
That's because the House is based on population. Any shift in America's overall politics would be felt there first. But the Senate is based on geography. In the words of Fareed Zakaria, we have the least democratic upper house of any mature republic. It obviously isn't a bad thing. It's needed to make sure smaller states have a voice. But it simply means that it is more insulated from popular politics. We Republicans will worship the Senate, for example, whenever the nation starts its inevitable swing back to the left.

Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae by Michael Briggs, University of New Hampshire, Physics Department (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html). Good read IMO.

Well, if a bad situation can't get worse, well it just did. A pipeline in Mexico exploded. Not even a pipeline in Iraq has exploded in a while.

Well, if a bad situation can't get worse, well it just did. A pipeline in Mexico exploded. Not even a pipeline in Iraq has exploded in a while.

Bad == very subjective. I don't oppose these results, higher oil prices are a Good Thing IMO.