Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I might be...) but weren't the Republicans controlling the House and Senate at that time? I wasn't too "up" on politics back then, said Loather.
No, I don't think it was until the next congressional election the Republicans were given control of Congress. Now, why didn't that policy against alternative energy reversed then? Perhaps the technoclogy was too unproven or risky, or that the majority of Americans were anti-nuclear in any form. Regardless, we have only ourselves to blame.
Mark
loathar wrote: markpierce wrote: "With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project that had been canceled by Congress. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994."Well, according to Wikipedia, it appears that a certain political party has been hostile to this form of alternative energy and, from my point of view, that party is embarassed by our high standard of living.Make your own presumptions. Do you want to be a dependent, or be responsible?Mark, and yes, I am quite a bit off topicCorrect me if I'm wrong, (and I might be...) but weren't the Republicans controlling the House and Senate at that time? I wasn't too "up" on politics back then.(oh, yeah... How bout them trains!!)
markpierce wrote: "With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project that had been canceled by Congress. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994."Well, according to Wikipedia, it appears that a certain political party has been hostile to this form of alternative energy and, from my point of view, that party is embarassed by our high standard of living.Make your own presumptions. Do you want to be a dependent, or be responsible?Mark, and yes, I am quite a bit off topic
"With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project that had been canceled by Congress. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994."
Well, according to Wikipedia, it appears that a certain political party has been hostile to this form of alternative energy and, from my point of view, that party is embarassed by our high standard of living.
Make your own presumptions. Do you want to be a dependent, or be responsible?
Mark, and yes, I am quite a bit off topic
Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I might be...) but weren't the Republicans controlling the House and Senate at that time? I wasn't too "up" on politics back then.
(oh, yeah... How bout them trains!!)
Okay, gentlemen. This thread is slowly eroding into a political discussion so I'm going to have to pull it over onto a siding.
As someone already mentiioned, times like these allow all of us to become more "resourceful" with both our monies and our time, when it comes to our hobbies. Most of us will have to seriously look at our budgets, figure out what is important/necessary to each one of us and our "lifestyle", then make the necessary adjustments. The sad thing, too, is that the rise in gas prices also affects and is difficult on the LHSes, the excursion RRs, and the RR museums, as well.
Maybe, instead of a thread on the detriment of the current market, someone could start one on inexpensive ways to still enjoy MRRing and RRing, despite the current market. Just a thought...
Tom
After receiving a PM from a forum member and some reconsideration, I'm reopening this thread because I was a bit hasty in locking it earlier. Please feel free to continue the conversation.
Do be mindful though about topics of this sort and where they can lead. If things do get heated or too "political" in nature, the thread will be locked down for good. Sorry about the short disruption.
P.S. I've already noticed a couple of threads started on ways on how to save MRRing $$$s:
HOW TO SAVE $$ IN TOUGH TIMES LIKE THIS
Model Railroad Budget - any ideas?
Way to go, fellas! I think the thrust of each thread has it pluses and benefits. It's a great way to substantiate the adage that, if you're given lemons in life, make lemonade out of 'em.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
markpierce wrote: Perhaps the technoclogy was too unproven or risky, or that the majority of Americans were anti-nuclear in any form. Regardless, we have only ourselves to blame.Mark
Perhaps the technoclogy was too unproven or risky, or that the majority of Americans were anti-nuclear in any form. Regardless, we have only ourselves to blame.
Sadly, living in Vermont, our "nukular" (as some have put it... hehe) power plant is just a "dangerous eye sore". While Yankee doesn't provide all of Vermonts power, it provides a good portion that helps keep our electricity at decent rates. The media likes to play up every little bump that the facility sees like it will cause the end of the world.
I'm all for alternative energy sources. The community I live in is powered about 40% by wood chips, and the other 40+ percent is power bought through wind generation. Around 15% of the power used is bought from traditional fossil fuel usage. Seems like a pretty good alternative to me.
I'm looking for a new home, probably going to purchase one f0r myself in relatively short time. Alternative solutions for heating, water, etc are going to be my top priority. Possibly even going as far to look at a self-loading wood chip or wood pellet stove. A few of us at work are even considering buying them by the railcar. 100 tons at a time, at 150$ per to divided by the six to eight us will end up only being in the $2500/person range. That much fuel will last years in time. We have even thought of selling them off to others to further reduce the price. (Of course this assumes that you have access to rail shipment and decent rates - which is a non issue for me). In addition to wood pellets, many of the newer stoves also have the ability to burn corn. Some of the local grain depots are starting to carry corn for the people with pellet stoves. Way cool.
PS: Glad to see that the forum staff here on the Trains.Com forums are open minded about allowing conversations to progress, even as dicey as they sometimes appear to be. Two thumbs up to our Moderators.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
GraniteRailroader wrote:I'm looking for a new home, probably going to purchase one f0r myself in relatively short time. Alternative solutions for heating, water, etc are going to be my top priority. Possibly even going as far to look at a self-loading wood chip or wood pellet stove. A few of us at work are even considering buying them by the railcar. 100 tons at a time, at 150$ per to divided by the six to eight us will end up only being in the $2500/person range. That much fuel will last years in time. We have even thought of selling them off to others to further reduce the price. (Of course this assumes that you have access to rail shipment and decent rates - which is a non issue for me). In addition to wood pellets, many of the newer stoves also have the ability to burn corn. Some of the local grain depots are starting to carry corn for the people with pellet stoves. Way cool. PS: Glad to see that the forum staff here on the Trains.Com forums are open minded about allowing conversations to progress, even as dicey as they sometimes appear to be. Two thumbs up to our Moderators.
Let me know if you do the pellets - I run two of those stoves in my house, and burn about 8 tons a year, which keeps my old (1820) place nice and toasty at 75 degrees. I'd be interested in going in with you on that deal.
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
Scarpia wrote: GraniteRailroader wrote:I'm looking for a new home, probably going to purchase one f0r myself in relatively short time. Alternative solutions for heating, water, etc are going to be my top priority. Possibly even going as far to look at a self-loading wood chip or wood pellet stove. A few of us at work are even considering buying them by the railcar. 100 tons at a time, at 150$ per to divided by the six to eight us will end up only being in the $2500/person range. That much fuel will last years in time. We have even thought of selling them off to others to further reduce the price. (Of course this assumes that you have access to rail shipment and decent rates - which is a non issue for me). In addition to wood pellets, many of the newer stoves also have the ability to burn corn. Some of the local grain depots are starting to carry corn for the people with pellet stoves. Way cool. PS: Glad to see that the forum staff here on the Trains.Com forums are open minded about allowing conversations to progress, even as dicey as they sometimes appear to be. Two thumbs up to our Moderators. Let me know if you do the pellets - I run two of those stoves in my house, and burn about 8 tons a year, which keeps my old (1820) place nice and toasty at 75 degrees. I'd be interested in going in with you on that deal.
Do those things put out any soot? I need to think about heating the train room this winter and the idea of a 220 volt electric heater isn't very appealing. Don't want something that's going to leave a film on everything.
What happened to that RR that was exploring going back to steam engines to haul their coal trains on a few dedicated routes? With the cost of diesel, I would think it would be a good idea.
loathar wrote:he train room this winter and the idea of a 220 volt electric heater isn't very appealing. Don't want something that's going to leave a film on everything.What happened to that RR that was exploring going back to steam engines to haul their coal trains on a few dedicated routes? With the cost of diesel, I would think it would be a good idea.
he train room this winter and the idea of a 220 volt electric heater isn't very appealing. Don't want something that's going to leave a film on everything.
No idea on the conversion back to steam, but with coal at 5.50$ per 1,000,000 BTU in a 75% efficient boiler, well, you may see a comeback. The circumstances would have to be near perfect though.
The stoves need to be vented out, and require constant but minimal upkeep. Keeping an eye on the hopper of pellets and the ash pan is really all that you have to do. Annual inspections by a chimney sweep and someone certified in the care of the stoves is recommended, and I would say, needed. A small pellet stove in the layout room with a couple hundred pounds of pellets should get you through the season with no problems.
All in all, they aren't too bad. Going through 8 tons per year of pellets seems a little high, although running two stoves and maintaining 75 degrees might make that seem about on par.
Scarpia, check your PMs
loathar wrote:Do those things put out any soot? I need to think about heating the train room this winter and the idea of a 220 volt electric heater isn't very appealing. Don't want something that's going to leave a film on everything.What happened to that RR that was exploring going back to steam engines to haul their coal trains on a few dedicated routes? With the cost of diesel, I would think it would be a good idea.
As Granite State said, they're pretty clean, but there is a bit of a dust factor. I put a gas heater in the future train room, due to that, and the fact that I'm not planning on heating that room 24/7 - the gas heater will warm the room a lot faster than pellets.
loathar wrote: I've been out of work for almost 1 1/2 years! That leaves ZERO $$$ for the layout! A can of paint or a copy of MR is a cause for celebration for me.I've got 10 years management experience and I can't even get a job stocking grocery store shelves on third shift! I've applied at about 50 places in the last 3 weeks. Got ONE call for an interview. A job I was REALLY qualified for. I got 2 sentences out of my mouth and the woman interviewing me called out to the rest of the people in the office-LOOKY HERE! WE GOT US A OHIO YANKEE LOOKIN FER WERK!!!I REALLY frickin hate living in the South!!
I've been out of work for almost 1 1/2 years! That leaves ZERO $$$ for the layout! A can of paint or a copy of MR is a cause for celebration for me.I've got 10 years management experience and I can't even get a job stocking grocery store shelves on third shift! I've applied at about 50 places in the last 3 weeks. Got ONE call for an interview. A job I was REALLY qualified for. I got 2 sentences out of my mouth and the woman interviewing me called out to the rest of the people in the office-LOOKY HERE! WE GOT US A OHIO YANKEE LOOKIN FER WERK!!!I REALLY frickin hate living in the South!!
Loathar,
You have to consider the source, the woman doing the interview is just a plain jane hillbilly. Half of the rednecks are extremely ignorant to the outside world and then you have the other percentage who have primitive mentality and very limited vocabulary.
YeeeeHaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww !!!!
(If the moderator of this thread feels that my posting is inappropriate, then please feel free to contact me via email)
Tommy0218 wrote: loathar wrote: I've been out of work for almost 1 1/2 years! That leaves ZERO $$$ for the layout! A can of paint or a copy of MR is a cause for celebration for me.I've got 10 years management experience and I can't even get a job stocking grocery store shelves on third shift! I've applied at about 50 places in the last 3 weeks. Got ONE call for an interview. A job I was REALLY qualified for. I got 2 sentences out of my mouth and the woman interviewing me called out to the rest of the people in the office-LOOKY HERE! WE GOT US A OHIO YANKEE LOOKIN FER WERK!!!I REALLY frickin hate living in the South!!Loathar,You have to consider the source, the woman doing the interview is just a plain jane hillbilly. Half of the rednecks are extremely ignorant to the outside world and then you have the other percentage who have primitive mentality and very limited vocabulary.YeeeeHaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww !!!! (If the moderator of this thread feels that my posting is inappropriate, then please feel free to contact me via email)
There's a very provocative take on the situation at this link: it's not a bubble, it's math and economics. Our country, and our world, are going to go through some real changes:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
America is no longer the only voracious consumer of petroleum. The world's supply is finite. Gas prices will not be coming down again, other than in reaction to transient increases in tactical supply.
Agree or disagree with the specifics of the assessment on the page (and I believe the page certainly paints absolute worst case scenarios), but the laws of supply and demand will ultimately triumph. Interesting to speculate on how the rail industry is going to be affected in the next decade.
Follow the links on the page with regard to source documentation from the diverse fields of geology, finance, etc. Some really interesting reading. Again, I'm not saying it's the only interpretation of events, but I think the situation is more serious than most people realize.
I also subscribe to Aviation Week. Interesting statistic from a previous week's investment column: In 2007, the combined profit in the aviation industry from both freight and passenger operations was about $3.2 billion. So far, in 2008, the incremental cost of fuel due to cost increases has been $15 billion. Would be curious to see the same statistics for the railroads.
Chris
Kansas City
I have never understood what "fixed income" means..
"im on a fixed income"
"try living on a fixed income"..
isnt everyone on a fixed income?
some are "fixed" at $10,000 a year, others at $100,000 a year..but isnt everyones income basically "fixed"? (unless you get a new job or something.) but thats not always an option either..most people's income is "fixed" and cant go significantly higher..whatever that income might be, high or low..
so what does it mean exactly when someone says "im on a fixed income"?..I have never understood the term.
thanks,
Scot
A fixed income is usually meant to be a pension or an annuity that is not tied to the consumer price index. Most government pensions are tied to the CPI at some point, often when the years of employment and age total something like 80, 85, or whatever. At least, that is the way it works for the civil service in Canada, and it also pertains to the RCMP and members of the Armed Forces.
What that means is, once you total 85 years of a combination of age and years of service, your pension/annuity becomes eligible for annual adjustments commensurate with the portions of the pay raises that the civil service, or those deemed to be employed by the civil service, get with each new collective agreement. While your employment is not exactly fixed, it is only keeping up with inflation. Those actually still working may get more, so their earning power ostensibly rises over yours.
But there's more. Some folks sign contracts for a certain remuneration over a period of time for work performed. As time goes on, and the contract ages (say five years), your salaried coworkers may get annual pay raises, but you are stuck with your rate of pay for the duration of your contract. Also, even if you have a fairly attractive pension, but you cannot meet the 85 years situation (as I am in until this calendar year), you get your base rate of pension year after year with no hedge against inflation. So, while the civil service will get 2.something percent this year, say, I get nothing and have to decide which expenses have a higher priority. Gas is costing me much more on my "fixed" income, so nice-to-have stuff has to be put off or done without altogether.
My wife and I just got home from a trip to Myrtle Beach. With the kids and the luggage we had to take my Suburban. $140 to get down there, about $120 once there and another $120 to get home. Fortunately the place we stay at is owned by our company and costs us nothing, because otherwise we would not have gone so far and spent so much in gas money alone. It did though keep us eating in more than going out for dinner, which IMO is a good thing regardless.
This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits.
And for us young'ens out here, with parents and grandparents on fixed incomes, help them out, consolidate with them. For example, go to the store for them, have them over for dinner more often, etc.
Angus99 wrote:There's a very provocative take on the situation at this link: it's not a bubble, it's math and economics. Our country, and our world, are going to go through some real changes:http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html>
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html>
Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which is also peaking in the near future.
Mntneer wrote:This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits.
Well, not exactly. The Federal Reserve has estimated the GDP will grow 0.3% to 1.2% for the rest of the year. The feds also predicted the unemployement rate this year to be 5.3%, up from 4.6% from last year. And "gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes" Really! In other words, only the wealthy are not feeling the pain of higher gas prices.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
sfcouple wrote: Mntneer wrote:This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits. Well, not exactly. The Federal Reserve has estimated the GDP will grow 0.3% to 1.2% for the rest of the year. The feds also predicted the unemployement rate this year to be 5.3%, up from 4.6% from last year. And "gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes" Really! In other words, only the wealthy are not feeling the pain of higher gas prices.
Well, yes, exactly. Growth is still growth, even though 0.3% to 1.2% is not much, it is still growth and better than consecutive quarters in the red. Also, typically, full employment has always been considered to be around 5%, so while 5.3% isn't great, it certainly isn't as bad as some of the other times we seen in the past 40 years.
No need for the sarcasm either. My point concerning the cost of gas was simply meant to give a possible explanation as to what is driving much of the public opinion and consumer sentiment about the economy. Things may be viewed worse than they are because a larger percentage of the population are feeling the effects of the high gas prices. All other things being equal, were gas still at $2-$2.50 a gallon you probably wouldn't see the same opinion of the economy that we have with gas being at $4 a gallon.
Mntneer wrote: sfcouple wrote: Mntneer wrote: This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits. Well, not exactly. The Federal Reserve has estimated the GDP will grow 0.3% to 1.2% for the rest of the year. The feds also predicted the unemployment rate this year to be 5.3%, up from 4.6% from last year. And "gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes" Really! In other words, only the wealthy are not feeling the pain of higher gas prices. Well, yes, exactly. Growth is still growth, even though 0.3% to 1.2% is not much, it is still growth and better than consecutive quarters in the red. Also, typically, full employment has always been considered to be around 5%, so while 5.3% isn't great, it certainly isn't as bad as some of the other times we seen in the past 40 years. No need for the sarcasm either. My point concerning the cost of gas was simply meant to give a possible explanation as to what is driving much of the public opinion and consumer sentiment about the economy. Things may be viewed worse than they are because a larger percentage of the population are feeling the effects of the high gas prices. All other things being equal, were gas still at $2-$2.50 a gallon you probably wouldn't see the same opinion of the economy that we have with gas being at $4 a gallon.
sfcouple wrote: Mntneer wrote: This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits. Well, not exactly. The Federal Reserve has estimated the GDP will grow 0.3% to 1.2% for the rest of the year. The feds also predicted the unemployment rate this year to be 5.3%, up from 4.6% from last year. And "gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes" Really! In other words, only the wealthy are not feeling the pain of higher gas prices.
Mntneer wrote: This economy isn't as horrible as it's made out to be (we're still in growth with relative low unemployment) but gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes, which is forcing us all to make changes in our spending habits.
Well, not exactly. The Federal Reserve has estimated the GDP will grow 0.3% to 1.2% for the rest of the year. The feds also predicted the unemployment rate this year to be 5.3%, up from 4.6% from last year. And "gas prices are being felt the most by the lower and middle classes" Really! In other words, only the wealthy are not feeling the pain of higher gas prices.
The sad thing is when domestic spending tanks like it has, the Fed changes how it counts things to artificially prop the numbers up. Groceries never used to be counted in domestic spending. To keep from having negative growth for 3 quarters in a row, (which would OFFICIALLY be a recession) the Fed counted groceries in the last quarters figures. What will they add next? Fuel spending?
Unemployment is MUCH higher than the figures being told by the government. Those numbers only reflect people who are currently receiving unemployment. Those who have used up those benefits and still not found work aren't counted anymore. I've heard you can just about double any cities advertised unemployment figures and get an accurate number.9.5% in my city works out to almost 20% unemployment. (yes...Things ARE that bad...)
Airlines announced today cutting over 20% of their routes. Wonder how many folks are going to lose their jobs due to that? The price of gas isn't what's bothering ME the most. It's the inability to find any kind of work so I can afford the privilege of paying $4/gallon to the nice, kind, helpful oil companies.
My take...
I firmly believe this "oil crisis" is a manufactured one caused by speculation. Investors can predict any price they want for oil and they will invariable drive the price up to that level. It's a self-licking ice cream cone. That would be like me, the meteorologist, predicting rain tomorrow and then making the clouds and the rain myself.
The "world food crisis" is similarly manufactured through a combination of commodities speculation and rising fuel prices (see the previous paragraph). That and now we're making fuel from food (ethanol).
To add to the "self-licking" aspect of this ice cream cone, the media is there shouting in our ear that the bottom has dropped out and we're all doomed!
I'll believe it when I see the bread lines, the mass migrations, and the big investors jumping out of windows. This ain't 1929, or 1932, or even 1939.
Do I need to tighten my belt? Sure. Thankfully two and a half years ago I bought a Prius so I put maybe $60 worth of gas a month in that car. Yes, everything's more expensive, but I'm not going to wallow in self pity over it.
As a weather officer, I've always been paid as well or better as my civilian counterparts in the National Weather Service. Now that I have the PhD, though, I'm making less than I would on the outside. Still, I feel well compensated for my work even as my dollar goes less distance these days. My wife is still working in the USAF Reserve, so that bit helps. We talked about her maybe leaving the Reserves, but with the recent downturn we need her paycheck more than we did before, if for no other reason than to maintain our current standard of living. BTW, military pay tables are publically available if you're curious. I'm an O-4 with 12 years service and dependents.
We've been investing nearly 20% of our household income for the last 12 years in IRAs, mutual funds, money market accounts, education accounts for the kids, etc. They're not worth what I'd hoped they'd be worth right now, but thankfully I don't need to dip into them at the moment. Now, if I think in terms of dollar-cost averaging, if the market ever does recover I'll make out like a bandit.
This is probably more info than I would ordinarily share, but I see a broad spectrum of responses from "suck it up (including from a teen not supporting a family)" to "woe is me."
I think a modicum of optimism will do us all some good. Might be nice to turn off CNN or Foxnews for a day and turn a deaf ear to the fear-mongering. After all, we Americans still have it AMAZINGLY well. I've been to war zones and seen real suffering, and it's more than just having to sell your SUV for less than Blue Book.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
loathar wrote:The sad thing is when domestic spending tanks like it has, the Fed changes how it counts things to artificially prop the numbers up. Groceries never used to be counted in domestic spending. To keep from having negative growth for 3 quarters in a row, (which would OFFICIALLY be a recession) the Fed counted groceries in the last quarters figures. What will they add next? Fuel spending?Unemployment is MUCH higher than the figures being told by the government. Those numbers only reflect people who are currently receiving unemployment. Those who have used up those benefits and still not found work aren't counted anymore. I've heard you can just about double any cities advertised unemployment figures and get an accurate number.9.5% in my city works out to almost 20% unemployment. (yes...Things ARE that bad...)Airlines announced today cutting over 20% of their routes. Wonder how many folks are going to lose their jobs due to that? The price of gas isn't what's bothering ME the most. It's the inability to find any kind of work so I can afford the privilege of paying $4/gallon to the nice, kind, helpful oil companies.
The unemployment rate as generated by the feds is basically done by an opinion poll, where as state and locality rates are typcially generated off of data such as claim filings, but even then most economists still agree about what is considered full employment based off of the federal rate.
Some areas though are just getting hit harder than others, such as where you are at. For a while the state of West Virginia was running a pretty low state rate, with some counties, such as the one I live in, being below the federal rate. I don't doubt though we'll see an increase in the rate over the next few months, possibly hitting 6%, and probably won't see a reversal until next year.
I understand where you are coming from though, as I went through a period about 7 years ago when I couldn't find any work, was caught up in the dot com bubble burst, and was very frustrated with what was available. Hopefully, with time, this slow down will go like most all others and pass within a year. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much the government can really do right now to speed things up.
Best of luck with your searching though, and especially with the care of your mother.
sfcouple wrote:Wish those folks in DC could get together for a change and start doing something constructive instead of blaming everyone else for the economic problems we face.
<begin nastygram>
The people who CAN "do something constructive instead of blaming everyone else" are usually the ones who get driven out by the other residents of The System.
<end nastygram>
Despite the above, I have noticed that conservative Republicans are slightly more likely to do something helpful than any other group in politics. And ex-hippies are the least likely to do anything at all helpful. When voting, I look to eliminate the worst of the bunch. At this rate (1 Congressman per 2 years) I should be able to clean up the House of Representatives in 870 years !
I work in strategic planning for a large corporation, with global interests. Part of what we do is model future economic conditions - obviously, the reason being trying to predict trends that will impact our profitability. No surprise there. I referenced that site because aspects of the supporting data, particularly the petroleum production data and curves, have fed some of our scenario development. It is most certainly not all the snake eating its tale - the data comes from many, many reliable and authoritative sources.
You can take shots at the authors of that site - I won't argue about its tone. If you want to dismiss all of it, feel free.
However, I'll share that there is no scenario in our modelling, currently, where the price of gas drops significantly in the future. We build and use statistical models that manage tens of thousands of variables - and leverage significant computing power to predict such costs. The key difference between this energy crisis and previous ones is the global stage - in the past, the US was the clear and only mega-consumer. Now, four decades of consumption later, there are industrial engines in China and India that will require similar or greater levels of energy - I'm not agreeing with the end of the world scenario, but if you can't force yourself to look dispassionately at the impacts of the industrialization of China on global oil resources, you're hiding from the facts. The issue of global peak production capabilities is very, very real - in the last two weeks, both Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries signalled short term increases in production - with virtually no impact on price.
The only debate currently occupying our scenario planners is the question of how long it will take gas price to double again. Is our analysis perfect, or infallible? Of course not. But the problem with the "this too shall pass" philosophy is sometimes, it doesn't.
Your mileage may (literally) vary. :)
Angus99 wrote: Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries signalled short term increases in production - with virtually no impact on price. The only debate currently occupying our scenario planners is the question of how long it will take gas price to double again.
Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries signalled short term increases in production - with virtually no impact on price.
The only debate currently occupying our scenario planners is the question of how long it will take gas price to double again.
These are the two things that are really bugging me. When the supply goes up, the prices are staying high. (artificially??)
Look at how many decades it took for gas to hit $1. Then it took less than a decade to hit $2. Then less than 5 years for $3. Now it's gone to $4 in less than a year. And probably up to $5 in the next 6 months. You start expecting it to go up 10 cents/month for the rest of your life and that's a future that doesn't seem real rosy to me. It won't be long before our economy looks like Germany's did before WWII.
Dave Vollmer wrote:I think a modicum of optimism will do us all some good. Might be nice to turn off CNN or Foxnews for a day and turn a deaf ear to the fear-mongering. After all, we Americans still have it AMAZINGLY well. I've been to war zones and seen real suffering, and it's more than just having to sell your SUV for less than Blue Book.
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
I have seen and read a number of models predicitng all sorts of scenarios for the oil market. I have haeard several analysts say that the oil market is highly unstable and a signifigant downward force would break the bubble. I have heard the exact opposite as well. Truthfully, no one on this planet can tell you for sure.
I know that a couple of years ago I was watching the real estate market and there were analysts who said that the gravy train would continue forever. Others thought that the market was overblown. I was in the second catagory. The price of a good can only go so high before alternatives become practical. If the markets sense that we are all looking to alternatives, then the market will shift.
Right now we are dealing with a bubble in the market. Individuals invested in the dot com bubble and then went to real estate. Now they are ar commidities whether oil, grains, etc. Some of the speculators are afraid that they will get caught short and are starting to pull back. Some of the reportst that I have read indicate that the new commidties dollars are down singifigantely. At this point, I would not put one red cent in the commidities market. Simply put, everyone is there and competing for dwendling profits. I am looking at other investment sectors. If the areas that I am interested in investng in become the next thing, I will sell out of them. The hard part is not knowing when the bubble will burst.
The oil market will bust. The world supply is growing and demand is down signifigantely. Many OPEC nations have expressed concerns about the global glut of oil. Libya had stated that they want to cut production to avoid a crash. OPEC leadership said a few weeks ago the the economic models they use indicate that there is no reason for oil to be more than $60/barrel. When the oil executive testified before Congress one of them stated that the oil market indicators show oil at $35 to $70 a barrel. Why is the market so high? Right now many people are investing in the market out of the belief that they are a safe refuge during challenging times. The second that investors feel confident in other investments or feel that the commidities market will fall they will sell out of commodities. The commodites market has historically not been the best place to make money and is described by my financial analyst as gambling by another name. My understanding is that the president of OPEC expected the market prices to rise due to speculation and not market fundementals. The situation that we face right now globally is a maket where demand is falling, reserves are growings, and supply is increasing while prices continue to increase.
There are a few things that Congress could do today but is unlikly to do to stablize things. One is make the tax cuts permanent. Many investors are scared about the outcome of the elections and are not willing to take long term investments out of fears of new regulation. The second thing we could do is continue domestic energy production for both renewable and conventional sources. We need domestic production of conventional energy. If we tap our own resoureces we can take a lot of fear out of the market and calm things down. The oil does not have to be available today. I just needs to be in the pipeline in the near future. If we stated drilling today within the continent we could have additional oil within six months to a year. Will it solve the problem? No but it will help. We also need to reauthorize the regulations allowing for the construction of wind farms which expire early next year. No matter how the election turns out this fall we need to be very aware of the causes for the great depression. We face challenges much as we did in the 30's. Government meddling and threats turned a downturn into a depression. We can avoid this by limiting the power of government.
The world is full of challenges right now and I doubt that the issues we face today will be the leading issue on our minds six months or three years from now. We need to calm down and scale back so that we control our spending. The next few months or years will not be as easy as time in the past. Hopefully we can take this opportunity to realize the we need to live within our means both personally and governmentally. As a nation, we have been on a drunken spendng spree for decades and we cannot afford to continue this way. We need to be stewards our of personal fortunes and our liberty.