Metro Jacksonville

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120881517227532621.html

QuoteLoad Up the Pantry
April 21, 2008 6:47 p.m.

I don't want to alarm anybody, but maybe it's time for Americans to start stockpiling food.

No, this is not a drill.

You've seen the TV footage of food riots in parts of the developing world. Yes, they're a long way away from the U.S. But most foodstuffs operate in a global market. When the cost of wheat soars in Asia, it will do the same here.

Reality: Food prices are already rising here much faster than the returns you are likely to get from keeping your money in a bank or money-market fund. And there are very good reasons to believe prices on the shelves are about to start rising a lot faster.

"Load up the pantry," says Manu Daftary, one of Wall Street's top investors and the manager of the Quaker Strategic Growth mutual fund. "I think prices are going higher. People are too complacent. They think it isn't going to happen here. But I don't know how the food companies can absorb higher costs." (Full disclosure: I am an investor in Quaker Strategic)

Stocking up on food may not replace your long-term investments, but it may make a sensible home for some of your shorter-term cash. Do the math. If you keep your standby cash in a money-market fund you'll be lucky to get a 2.5% interest rate. Even the best one-year certificate of deposit you can find is only going to pay you about 4.1%, according to Bankrate.com. And those yields are before tax.

Meanwhile the most recent government data shows food inflation for the average American household is now running at 4.5% a year.

And some prices are rising even more quickly. The latest data show cereal prices rising by more than 8% a year. Both flour and rice are up more than 13%. Milk, cheese, bananas and even peanut butter: They're all up by more than 10%. Eggs have rocketed up 30% in a year. Ground beef prices are up 4.8% and chicken by 5.4%.

These are trends that have been in place for some time.

And if you are hoping they will pass, here's the bad news: They may actually accelerate.

The reason? The prices of many underlying raw materials have risen much more quickly still. Wheat prices, for example, have roughly tripled in the past three years.

Sooner or later, the food companies are going to have to pass those costs on. Kraft saw its raw material costs soar by about $1.25 billion last year, squeezing profit margins. The company recently warned that higher prices are here to stay. Last month the chief executive of General Mills, Kendall Powell, made a similar point.

The main reason for rising prices, of course, is the surge in demand from China and India. Hundreds of millions of people are joining the middle class each year, and that means they want to eat more and better food.

A secondary reason has been the growing demand for ethanol as a fuel additive. That's soaking up some of the corn supply.

You can't easily stock up on perishables like eggs or milk. But other products will keep. Among them: Dried pasta, rice, cereals, and cans of everything from tuna fish to fruit and vegetables. The kicker: You should also save money by buying them in bulk.

If this seems a stretch, ponder this: The emerging bull market in agricultural products is following in the footsteps of oil. A few years ago, many Americans hoped $2 gas was a temporary spike. Now it's the rosy memory of a bygone age.

The good news is that it's easier to store Cap'n Crunch or cans of Starkist in your home than it is to store lots of gasoline. Safer, too

Oh hell Stephendare, the USA is the second largest EXPORTER of rice in the world 6.7 Million tons. I'd say any food shortages are in someones head. However, we are all... that is global... just one nature hic-up from famine or disaster. Volcanic winters, Gama rays, Ozone, Methane or various natural gases, meteor... you name it. ARE YOU READY? As we have been saying for 2000 years, "the end is near, don't get caught dead without your program!"  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJoSsrqPm10&feature=related
WARNING THIS IS A GRAPHIC MUSICAL PRESENTATION OF MY POLITICS!
With thanks to the Great Curtis Mayfield and the producer.

Ocklawaha

The typical supermarket has a three day supply of food on hand, and nothing in "the back room" because there is no "back room". One glitch in the supply chain and you'd better learn how to catch (and cook) squirrels, or go hungry.

Quote from: stephendare on April 24, 2008, 10:54:45 PM
this is not about supply or shortages, it is about profit.  and the desire to make real money off of the starvation of the eastern countries.

Another New World Order conspiracy from stephendare, the night wouldn't have been complete without one.

As commodity prices continue to recede on a rising dollar and the belief that Fed rate cuts are finished:

QuoteOil Falls Third Day as Dollar Gain Limits Appeal of Commodities

By Christian Schmollinger

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell for a third day as the dollar's gains against the euro curbed investor appetite for commodities as an inflation hedge.

Oil is set for its first weekly decline since March 21. The dollar climbed on expectations the Federal Reserve may stop cutting interest rates. Gold, wheat, silver and corn prices also dropped.

``The stronger dollar means that we see people taking profit here,'' said Anthony Nunan, an assistant general manager for risk management at Mitsubishi Corp. in Tokyo. ``People seem to think that the steep drop in interest rates is over. If everybody starts rushing for the exits you could easily see a $10 drop in oil prices.''

Crude oil for June delivery fell as much as 62 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $115.44 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $115.96 at 11:25 a.m. Singapore time.

Oil reached a record $119.90 a barrel on April 22 after the dollar touched an all-time low against the euro. The dollar traded at $1.5698 per euro at 10:40 a.m. in Singapore from $1.5682 yesterday, when the U.S. currency rose 1.3 percent.

``The dollar is affecting all commodities,'' said Mark Waggoner, president of Excel Futures in Huntington Beach, California. ``People are thinking that maybe the bottom is in because the Fed may not lower rates. People looked at crude oil and said let's unwind some positions, let's take some profits.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602013&sid=a_SGVOWFJ3GA&refer=commodity_futures

Meanwhile gold, Stephen's investment of choice, is down significantly from its peak:

QuoteGold Trades Near Three-Week Low in Asia as Euro, Oil Decline

By Feiwen Rong

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Gold traded little changed near a three-week low in Asia as oil's decline and the dollar's gain versus the euro reduced the appeal of the precious metal as a hedge against inflation.

Interest in bullion as an alternative asset waned as crude- oil futures fell for a third day from a record $119.90 a barrel reached on April 22 and the dollar headed for its biggest weekly gain in more than a month against the euro.

``Downside momentum was gained as exchange-traded funds offloaded holdings as the dollar strengthened and oil receded,'' Walter de Wet, head of commodities research at Standard Bank Group Ltd. in Johannesburg, said in a report yesterday.

Bullion for immediate delivery traded at $886.47 an ounce at 9:01 a.m. in Singapore, less than $3 above yesterday's intraday low of $883.59, the lowest since April 2. Gold is 14 percent below the March 17 record of $1,032.70. Silver was also little changed today at $16.74 an ounce.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602013&refer=commodity_futures&sid=aYBx6RO7PsvE

The dollar and commodities have had an inverse relationship.  As the dollar sank, commodities rose.  Commodities were used as a hedge against inflation and dollar weakness caused by the Fed increasing the money supply.  Add to this the speculators driving up the prices and you have another speculative bubble in commodities a la the dot com and real estate bubbles.  Commodities look like they are now beginning to come back to Earth.

QuoteDollar Set for Biggest Weekly Advance Against Euro Since March

By Kosuke Goto and Stanley White

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar headed for its biggest weekly gain in a month against the euro and a second winning week against the yen on increasing speculation the Federal Reserve will stop cutting interest rates.

The U.S. currency held near a two-week high versus the euro as the extra yield two-year German government bonds pay over similar-maturity Treasuries narrowed to the least since March 24. The yen weakened against the Australian dollar as falling expectations for exchange-rate swings encouraged investors to add to holdings of higher-yielding assets funded in Japan.

``We have started to see a bit less panic in the U.S. and that also translates to expectations that the Fed rate cuts might be coming close to an end,'' Naomi Fink, a strategist in Tokyo at Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Japan's second- largest, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. ``We probably should be seeing a bit less support for euro-dollar.''

The dollar traded at $1.5698 per euro at 11:45 a.m. in Tokyo from $1.5682 in New York yesterday and $1.5817 on April 18, heading for a gain of 0.8 percent this week. The dollar may rise above $1.50 by year-end, Fink said. The U.S. currency held at 104.22 yen from 104.26 yen yesterday and 103.67 yen a week ago. Japan's currency was at 163.67 per euro from 163.45 yesterday.

Japan's currency fell to 98.10 against the Australian dollar from 97.97 as rising equity markets boosted confidence in higher-yielding assets. The Nikkei 225 Stock Average climbed 1.9 percent. In carry trades, investors get funds in a country with low borrowing costs and invest in one with higher rates, earning the spread. The risk is that currency swings erase those profits. Japan's 0.5 percent benchmark interest rate compares with 7.25 percent in Australia.

Risk Appetite

The dollar may extend gains against the yen as a decline in measures of volatility suggests increased appetite for risk, according to Citigroup Global Markets Inc. analysts led by Tom Fitzpatrick wrote in research note dated yesterday.

Implied volatility on dollar-yen options expiring in one month with a strike price near current levels fell to 12.4 percent today from 24 percent on March 17, the highest since January 1999. Traders quote the gauge of expectations for future price swings, as part of pricing options.

``The largely straight-line rally in dollar-yen from March 17 came concurrent with the broader stabilization in risk appetite,'' according to the research note. ``This could open the door to additional short-term yen depreciation.''

The dollar may rise to 108.62 yen provided it breaks above 104.95 yen, the report said. First resistance at 104.95 yen is near the dollar's Jan. 23 low, and second resistance at 108.62 yen is the currency's Feb. 14 low. Resistance is a level where sell orders may be clustered.

Rate Outlook

The yen was little changed after a government report showed Japan's consumer prices rose the most in a decade. Core consumer prices climbed 1.2 percent in March from a year earlier, the statistics bureau said in Tokyo today.

The Dollar Index traded on ICE futures in New York, which tracks the U.S. currency against those of six trading partners, rose to as high as 72.610 today, the highest level since April 3. It dropped to a record of 70.698 on March 17. The U.S. currency fell to $1.6019 on April 22, the lowest level since the euro's 1999 debut. It traded at $1.9741 against the British pound from $1.9740 and was at 1.0344 versus the Swiss franc from 1.0355.

The dollar rose as durable-goods orders excluding transportation equipment increased more than forecast in March, signaling parts of the U.S. economy are weathering a housing slump.

Flattening Curve

Futures on the Chicago Board of Trade showed an 18 percent chance the U.S. central bank will hold the target lending rate at 2.25 percent on April 30, compared with no chance a week ago. There's an 82 percent likelihood of a cut to 2 percent. Two-year German government bonds yield 1.48 percentage points more than similar-maturity Treasuries.

The dollar is likely to be supported against the yen as the Treasury yield curve is flattening, showing growing expectations for the Fed to pause its rate cuts, according to BNP Paribas SA, France's largest bank. The yield curve is a graph that charts the yields of bonds with different maturities.

The extra yield 10-year Treasuries pay over two-year notes narrowed to 1.44 percentage points today from an almost four year-high of 2.08 percentage points on March 6.

``The flattening yield curve comes in line with the Fed getting more concerned about the inflation outlook,'' BNP Paribas analysts led by Hans-Guenter Redeker wrote in a research note yesterday. ``We expect the dollar-yen to remain bid.''

Investors should buy dollars with a target of 105 yen and an selling order at 103.20 yen to limit losses, the report said.

Euro and Oil

The euro weakened against the dollar yesterday as the Munich-based Ifo institute said its German business climate index, based on a survey of 7,000 executives, fell to 102.4 this month, from 104.8 in March.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet told reporters at a conference in Frankfurt yesterday that he is concerned the euro's surge may hurt the economy. The euro has appreciated 7 percent this year against the dollar on speculation inflation and higher fuel prices will discourage the ECB from lowering borrowing costs from 4 percent.

The euro versus the dollar has had a correlation of 0.96 with the price of crude oil over the past 12 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A reading of 1 would mean they move in lockstep. Crude for June delivery rose to a record $119.90 on April 22 and dropped to $115.95 a barrel today.

``Dollar weakness had boosted speculative investment in oil,'' said Michiyoshi Kato, a senior vice president of currency sales in Tokyo at Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd., Japan's third- largest bank by assets. ``Higher oil then had further prompted dollar-selling and euro-buying. This is reversing now.''

The dollar may move between $1.5630 and $1.5760 a euro today, Kato forecast.

A 1 percentage point increase in the euro's real exchange rate reduces growth in the region's exports by 0.6 percent within a year, according to a note this month from Deutsche Bank AG, the biggest currency trader.

To contact the reporters on this story: Kosuke Goto in Tokyo at kgoto2@bloomberg.net; Stanley White in Tokyo at swhite28@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 24, 2008 23:12 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2N1hByXvtcU&refer=home

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 01:13:05 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 24, 2008, 11:57:19 PM
Meanwhile gold, Stephen's investment of choice, is down significantly from its peak:

QuoteGold Trades Near Three-Week Low in Asia as Euro, Oil Decline

By Feiwen Rong

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Gold traded little changed near a three-week low in Asia as oil's decline and the dollar's gain versus the euro reduced the appeal of the precious metal as a hedge against inflation.

Interest in bullion as an alternative asset waned as crude- oil futures fell for a third day from a record $119.90 a barrel reached on April 22 and the dollar headed for its biggest weekly gain in more than a month against the euro.

``Downside momentum was gained as exchange-traded funds offloaded holdings as the dollar strengthened and oil receded,'' Walter de Wet, head of commodities research at Standard Bank Group Ltd. in Johannesburg, said in a report yesterday.

Bullion for immediate delivery traded at $886.47 an ounce at 9:01 a.m. in Singapore, less than $3 above yesterday's intraday low of $883.59, the lowest since April 2. Gold is 14 percent below the March 17 record of $1,032.70. Silver was also little changed today at $16.74 an ounce.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602013&refer=commodity_futures&sid=aYBx6RO7PsvE

ever play that fortune cookie game, River?

no matter what the fortune says you add the words "in bed" at the end?

Please note that the article needs to have the words "in asia" added to your analysis.

What on earth does it have to do with here?

The price of gold and other commodities is the same around the world.  So to answer your question it has everything to do with here.

As for the article saying "in asia" that is easily explained by the fact that at this hour those are the only markets that are currently open.

I get all of my reliable news from the 700 Club.

The only thing more accurate is Fox News

separate is how it is spelled....

gold is the weakest and most at-risk commodity to be in right now IMO...no fundamental demand for it really, like there are for the other "strong" commodities.  financials (not investment banks though) - and only the larger ones (no regional banks even) - are starting to look nicely priced IMO.  also, health care companies look good (not as good as natgas, mining, seed, fertilizer, ag equipment and large banks though).

also, china markets are down 50%  -  for a long-term investor, what better buying signal could you ask for - IMHO?

from dictionary.com...

QuoteNo results found for seperate.

from thesaurus.com...

QuoteNo results found for seperate.
Did you mean separate?

from a google search...

QuoteDid you mean: separate 

Now, I'm sure in the world of absolute relativity that some of choose to reside in - where there are no absolute wrongs and rights - separate could be spelled "seperate" or even "kseperate" (where the "k" is silent).  But it is pretty much a cold, hard fact (i know, i know - these aren't accepted in that special world some live in) that it is spelled s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e.

PS - 6th grade spelling bee champion here - when I was in the FIFTH grade.

Here is a chart of recent wheat prices, for example:

(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b133/Gator186/Met%20Jax/WheatChart.gif)

Now, notice how prices were pretty stable until Summer, 2007.  Now look at what happened in Summer, 2007?  The credit crisis began and the Fed began cutting rates and injecting tons of money into the system (i.e. increasing liquidity).  This caused traders to perceive that individual dollars are not worth less and, since commodities are priced in US dollars, the prices of commodities began to rise.  At the same time, you had a bear market with the US stock market, the Chinese stock market, and real estate so people have to put their money somewhere.  So, they have been chasing the returns in the commodities markets thereby driving up prices to unsustainable levels which are not based on reality.  There are no food shortages.  There is just a monetary phenomenon here which is now being corrected since the Fed will cut maybe .25% and no more.  Get it now?

Has the population tripled?  Because the prices have nearly tripled.  I just dont see that as sustainable or realistic.  There is no worldwide drought or war or anything else to justify this.  It is a monetary and psychological problem.

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 11:21:47 AM
from dictionary.com...

QuoteNo results found for seperate.

from thesaurus.com...

QuoteNo results found for seperate.
Did you mean separate?

from a google search...

QuoteDid you mean: separate 

Now, I'm sure in the world of absolute relativity that some of choose to reside in - where there are no absolute wrongs and rights - separate could be spelled "seperate" or even "kseperate" (where the "k" is silent).  But it is pretty much a cold, hard fact (i know, i know - these aren't accepted in that special world some live in) that it is spelled s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e.

PS - 6th grade spelling bee champion here - when I was in the FIFTH grade.

Mr. Dare - you asked for my point?  It was simply that you were wrong.  And I would not have made it so stridently if you had not defended your so obviously erred position so fervently.  

RG - remember what a bubble is.  a bubble is a boom that has no fundamentals backing it.  the tech bubble had small internet companies with no provent profits behind it.  the housing price bubble had people with bad credit and incomes that were too low pushing it along.  if you contend there is a commodities bubble, where does the demand fall short of necessitating these price increases?

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 11:20:21 AM

Quoteseparate is how it is spelled....

There are two spellings of this word, driven1.

Like colour and color, grey and gray. organize and organise.

This is the second time that you have interjected this remark.

If you are going to correct other people, it sometimes helps to be right.

WRONG!

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 12:13:54 PM
RG - remember what a bubble is.  a bubble is a boom that has no fundamentals backing it.  the tech bubble had small internet companies with no provent profits behind it.  the housing price bubble had people with bad credit and incomes that were too low pushing it along.  if you contend there is a commodities bubble, where does the demand fall short of necessitating these price increases?

Again, how has demand tripled in a few short months?  Or, has the supply fallen?  This might result in price rises but I have seen no evidence that the supply has fallen or that demand has massively increased.  There has been no major supply disruption like a massive drought or war or some such thing.  The main change has been the credit crisis, the injection of liquidity into the US money supply and the drop of the dollar in relation to other currencies.  There is a direct correlation between these events and the commodities rally.  So, it is a bubble IMO in the sense that there are not fundamentals justifying this huge increase in prices.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 12:20:41 PM
The inclusion of the word into last years oxford should be enough to settle the matter.

WRONG!!!  Sorry, you are just plain wrong.  While I know that this is near impossible for you to face, it is true.  You are wrong again.

from searching "seperate" at the oxford dictionary online...

QuoteSorry, there are no results for that search.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=seperate&branch=&textsearchtype=exact

oddly though,  a search for "separate" yields 169 results.  weird.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 25, 2008, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 12:13:54 PM
RG - remember what a bubble is.  a bubble is a boom that has no fundamentals backing it.  the tech bubble had small internet companies with no provent profits behind it.  the housing price bubble had people with bad credit and incomes that were too low pushing it along.  if you contend there is a commodities bubble, where does the demand fall short of necessitating these price increases?

Again, how has demand tripled in a few short months?  Or, has the supply fallen?  This might result in price rises but I have seen no evidence that the supply has fallen or that demand has massively increased.  There has been no major supply disruption like a massive drought or war or some such thing.  The main change has been the credit crisis, the injection of liquidity into the US money supply and the drop of the dollar in relation to other currencies.  There is a direct correlation between these events and the commodities rally.  So, it is a bubble IMO in the sense that there are not fundamentals justifying this huge increase in prices.

RG - i will not disagree with you that the an iffy stock market and the cutting of rates and corresponding devaluing of the dollar have attributed to a lot of new money going into commodities.  this is true.  but look at the large correction/sell off of them in mid-March.  for 5 days straight CNBC was talking about nothing but the "commodity bubble".  and after that sell-off, where are we today?  the answer is - significantly higher.  i'm no expert on these matters.  but here are 2 fundamental signs...

1) food riots in the streets of many countries
2) here in Jacksonville if you go to BJ's and try to buy more than 4 large bags of rice, you will not be allowed

Lastly, this has not just occurred recently. This has been years in the making - with diminishing grain supplies worldwide.  Read the quote from Bill Doyle, CEO of Potash of Saskatchewan from earnings call 2 days ago...

Quote
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Government policies spurring biofuel production are not to blame for grain shortages and food inflation, said the chief executive of Potash Corp, the world's largest fertilizer company.

Bill Doyle said demand for meat and other food from Asia's growing middle class combined with a depletion of world stocks are the major factors behind rising food prices.

"I think that ethanol is the most popular whipping boy in the agricultural world at the moment," Doyle told analysts on a conference call on Thursday.

Doyle, who has talked about declining world grain stocks for years, noted 95 percent of the world's grain crop this year will be used for food.

"So to say that biofuels are the culprit clearly underestimates the demand and really shows a gross misunderstanding of the world food situation," Doyle said.

Cutting back on biofuel production would be a short-term measure for the long-term challenge of producing enough food to feed the world, he said.

Doyle said moves by governments to curb grain exports could lead to less grain production at a time when more is needed.

"Governments finally wake up to the problem, they go into a flat panic, full lather, and they make policies that are absolutely wrong-headed, and are making the situation worse," he said.

Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Egypt and Cambodia have recently introduced export bans or tariffs on rice -- a grain that Doyle noted is not used to make biofuel -- which could exacerbate shortages in stores seen as far away as North America.

"By limiting exports of rice they try to keep the price of rice low in their home country, which doesn't give any stimulus to farmers to grow more rice.

"We have to grow more food. We have to increase yields," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2430848420080424

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 01:25:02 PM
more interestingly is that I am posting from the downtown library where there is in fact a copy of the oxford. 

Not to mention a listing for seperate. I will see if I can post a cellphone photo of the listing.

weird.  I wonder how you were able to outsmart these dumb bastards.

i wasn't.  i claim no such intelligence level as you.  the good folks at google, dictionary.com, american heritage dictionary, and oxford dictionary were.  and that makes no mention of the whole rest of the world. 

but, please...continue.  it is fun watching you throw snowballs at an avalanche.

LOL - Not only is the spelling of "separates" wrong in your signature...you have warped the quote even!

Here is the real quote from Thucydides (and do notice how Mr. Dides chose to spell "separates" - like the rest of the world)...

“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thucydides

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 01:39:00 PM
Did he say that in the original english there, Drivel?

lol, was wondering if you would catch that. 

hey mo!

you are right!!  seperates is a word.  but...
a) only in the plural form (as in Women's Swimwear Seperates)
and
b) only as a noun

but, i'm sure this is what you meant all along, right?

sorry...say it a hundred times over again.  post it on every discussion board possible.  insult me. 

none of it changes the fact that you are wrong.  now continue in you oblivion.  better yet, start a crusade against AHL, Oxford, Google, Yahoo and the rest of the world and try to convince them to start spelling it your way.  better yet, go with the "silent k" version... "kseperates".

:)

RG...Doyle continues here...

Quote"In eight of the past nine years, including this year, the world has consumed more grain than farmers have produced," Doyle said. "This has gone largely unnoticed by global leaders and the public because countries were able to meet food demand by drawing from inventories, keeping food prices artificially low."

The cupboards finally started to go dry and food shortages and soaring prices are making daily headlines. Doyle said a crisis can be averted, but it will take a major commitment to farming practices and proper fertilization, and it will take years to build grain inventories back up to a comfortable level.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=21e337bc-4ea4-4fb3-bd66-2937d74dc177

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 25, 2008, 12:26:22 PM
Again, how has demand tripled in a few short months?  Or, has the supply fallen?  This might result in price rises but I have seen no evidence that the supply has fallen or that demand has massively increased.  There has been no major supply disruption like a massive drought or war or some such thing.  The main change has been the credit crisis, the injection of liquidity into the US money supply and the drop of the dollar in relation to other currencies.  There is a direct correlation between these events and the commodities rally.  So, it is a bubble IMO in the sense that there are not fundamentals justifying this huge increase in prices.

I think the available supply of raw food material has not decreased, but it has been diverted to a different market: production of fuel. The government has additionally inflated spending of the US dollar through those farm subsidies for farmers to harvest crops specifically for fuel production, not food production. Now, food is starting to have higher demand since it is essentially two commodities instead of one.

Granted, the demand may have not tripled, but it has been increased as it entered into another market: fuel. In general terms, the supply of food has remained the same, but by default, the actual supply used for food production has been reduced because of its diversion to fuels.

The situation was a one-two punch against food prices.

I hope my post made sense... :-\

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 01:51:52 PM
RG...Doyle continues here...

Quote"In eight of the past nine years, including this year, the world has consumed more grain than farmers have produced," Doyle said. "This has gone largely unnoticed by global leaders and the public because countries were able to meet food demand by drawing from inventories, keeping food prices artificially low."

The cupboards finally started to go dry and food shortages and soaring prices are making daily headlines. Doyle said a crisis can be averted, but it will take a major commitment to farming practices and proper fertilization, and it will take years to build grain inventories back up to a comfortable level.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=21e337bc-4ea4-4fb3-bd66-2937d74dc177

As the CEO of a fertilizer company, do you think this guy may have an ax grind?  He has certainly benefited from the increase in the value of the stock in his company which has occurred concomitantly with the commodity boom/bubble.

RG - you are right...he COULD have an axe to grind.  Doesn't necessarily mean that he does though.  And if you do some searching and read a bunch of his stuff from the last couple of years, you will see that he is not grinding an axe.  Plus, I have not checked his sources - we probably could with some research - but he says that 8 out of the last 9 years more grain was used than was produced.  If this is true, this is not grinding an axe, but just stating facts.  

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:10:55 PM

Quotehey mo!

http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=list&d=8&t=dict&w1=M&w2=MO

Mo?  whats with the undercurrent of homoinsulting jabs there Driven?

lol!!! you are too much!!  as funny as that was, no, it was actually in the sense of...

first name Mo
last name Ron

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:00:26 PM
total sense, Dave.

But the demand itself has tripled.

Food Commodities are going through the same process as building materials have already been going through for the past 8 years.

Eastern Consumption gallops way past western production.

Its an issue for the US to creatively solve in the long run imo.

In my mind its the justification for NAFTA and the North American Union.

Source please.  Pardon me if I dont take your word for it.   

BTW, "seperate" is a common misspelling of "separate".  It is wrong, at least in American English.  Let's move on.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:10:55 PM

Quotehey mo!

http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=list&d=8&t=dict&w1=M&w2=MO

Mo?  whats with the undercurrent of homoinsulting jabs there Driven?

That is a new one.   ::)

ps - why is everything a homosexual insult to you these days?

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:24:15 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 02:22:15 PM
ps - why is everything a homosexual insult to you these days?

Its usually supposed to be a sign of other stuff, but Im not a psychologist, so I don't know.

oh please, don't be so self-deprecating.  do you really expect anyone reading this to think that you don't know everything about everything?  you're not an etymologist, but that doesn't stop you from declaring "seperates" as a verb, now does it? 

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 25, 2008, 02:12:14 PM
BTW, "seperate" is a common misspelling of "separate".  It is wrong, at least in American English.  Let's move on.

Yay!!!! 

Stephen, the important question for us "financial analysts" to answer is that if supply is down and demand is up for food, where is the source of this fluctuation? The problem is that the supply of food is being cut from one market where it solely existed, and a part of it is being placed into a different, highly volatile market in fuels. I would be interested to see a source showing that the demand has indeed tripled. However, I think its a combination of demand rising and supply falling due to the supply being used as a fuel.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:33:27 PM
In fact the most reliable dealer of silver disks (are we going to argue about the alternative 'disc' spelling)locally has been sold out of both bricks and disks for the past week

Nope mo, that one is actually legit.  But let's not extrapolate from one correct example and say that every word has an alternative spelling.  Not in english anyway. 

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 25, 2008, 02:09:12 PM
As the CEO of a fertilizer company, do you think this guy may have an ax grind?  He has certainly benefited from the increase in the value of the stock in his company which has occurred concomitantly with the commodity boom/bubble.

River... here is additional info from thestreet.com (which admittedly is partially ran and owned by an idiot -Cramer - but he is right on this one) today too...a 3rd party that is NOT a fertilizer co. CEO...

Quote
Better seeds and more fertilizer. That's it. Those are the technology weapons in the war against food shortages caused in the short term by a worldwide obsession with biofuels (we are the worst offender, of course) and in the long term by the increased affluence in China and India, which leads to more nutritious, protein-filled diets. Both forces, when combined with worldwide droughts and failed harvests, not augmented by the U.S. -- we are late to start with our corn season -- are driving prices up to ridiculous levels.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:49:53 PM

Quote from: Driven1 on April 25, 2008, 02:43:17 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:33:27 PM
In fact the most reliable dealer of silver disks (are we going to argue about the alternative 'disc' spelling)locally has been sold out of both bricks and disks for the past week

Nope mo, that one is actually legit.  But let's not extrapolate from one correct example and say that every word has an alternative spelling.  Not in english anyway. 

I promise not to do that if you promise not to extrapolate the existence of 'incorrect' quotes in English from Ancient Greek Philosophers that never spoke the language.

you promise?  how can i trust this promise while you are still doing it?  while you are in the middle of making up a word, you expect me to believe such a promise?  i'm sorry, but you are going to have to show me better behavior before i will believe this "promise".

Driven:  I suppose demand could be higher, but 3 times higher seems bogus to me.  In the absence of concrete information regarding actual wheat consumption (to use a common commodity example), I simply do not believe that demand has caused the entire increase in prices.  I think this increase is caused by maybe 15% demand increase, 40% money supply increase and 45% speculation.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 02:30:45 PM
Stephen, the important question for us "financial analysts" to answer is that if supply is down and demand is up for food, where is the source of this fluctuation? The problem is that the supply of food is being cut from one market where it solely existed, and a part of it is being placed into a different, highly volatile market in fuels. I would be interested to see a source showing that the demand has indeed tripled. However, I think its a combination of demand rising and supply falling due to the supply being used as a fuel.

On this was agree.  Ethanol production, plus the 1000 year drought and the failure of the indonesian crops placed a heavy burden on Rice and Corn.   But the ethanol production isnt enough to account for the shortages of wheat or cooking oil, most of which are composites.

by the way, River, Gold isnt actually my first choice of PMs.  Silver is. You would be quite surprised how many of the bohemian and downtown set have respectable stashes of silver piling up right now.

In fact the most reliable dealer of silver disks (are we going to argue about the alternative 'disc' spelling)locally has been sold out of both bricks and disks for the past week

Hes got plenty of gold on hand though.

Well, I for one am not prepared to take investment advice from the "bohemian set".   :D ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 03:05:08 PM
mouthpiece of the bohemian set, Keith Olberman
http://www.youtube.com/v/Mk9ZfVaxY1o

Olbermann is wrong about so many things and on so many levels.  I really dont have the time to get into that right now.  Suffice it to say that he is really more of a far left entertainer than a purveyor of information.

Hmmmm...Stephen, you do know that quoting George Soros tends to conjure serious credibility problems?  ;)

I'm strapped with work right now, but I'll respond to that article later.

Now I'm curious to know who the 'local retailer' of gold and silver is!  Any insights on that one?  I've been wanting to get in on that action for a while.

In other news, today gold prices continue to stay below $900/oz, platinum is dipped slightly further below $2000/oz, and silver is back down to just shy of $17/oz.  Which means, naturally, they'll be back to a hefty percentage above these rates by this time next week.  Gotta love it!

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 04:18:22 PM

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 04:15:05 PM
Hmmmm...Stephen, you do know that quoting George Soros tends to conjure serious credibility problems?  ;)

I'm strapped with work right now, but I'll respond to that article later.

on political philosophy or money manipulation?

Two very different levels of credibility i would assume.

Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

Quote from: Midway on April 25, 2008, 07:05:13 PM
Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

I would look forward to you not responding in general...isn't there some hamburger grill you need to clean? Keep on trolling!

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 03:02:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/gUkbdjetlY8

i remember seeing this originally when it aired...i remember thinking wtf??  this is Cramers WORST by far, but not his only screwup.

DonHerrold.net for many other idiot Cramer instances.

Steven,

I think all the "smart people" on here, want to suffer because they frecking deserve it.
Let them go down in flames, we can pick through their skulls one day for gold.
I'm voting for Mccain so "they" get an even better look at what Bush-Cheney wrought.
Please, if you hate Neo-con America, please vote for Mccain with me.
I would give anything for 8 more years of Bush-Cheney.
What monsters.
Can't wait for the investor driven water shortages.
That when it's going to get fun.
Nothing will be more important than what kind of firepower you have.
Screw rice, Rocket launchers have doubled in price the last two weeks, so you better get them while you can.
Grenades are way over-priced but a must have.
You should never fight a battle without those little bastards.

Doctor Z, Local coin dealers are the best place to buy P.M.s.
Though with each passing day it gets tougher to get silver.
It is rare to be able to get anymore than 100 oz's at a time.
Buy now till Sept, then wait till March to buy again.
Do not buy E.T.F.s.

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 25, 2008, 07:05:13 PM
Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

I would look forward to you not responding in general...isn't there some hamburger grill you need to clean? Keep on trolling!

Riverside Gator groupie. Just reprint his posts. Maybe some of his intelligence will rub off on you.

You can go play house with him and his troll doll collection. maybe take some more photos.

Quote from: Midway on April 25, 2008, 07:05:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 04:18:22 PM

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 04:15:05 PM
Hmmmm...Stephen, you do know that quoting George Soros tends to conjure serious credibility problems?  ;)

I'm strapped with work right now, but I'll respond to that article later.

on political philosophy or money manipulation?

Two very different levels of credibility i would assume.

Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

Soros certainly has a knack for making money speculating on currency and enriching himself off the misery of smaller nations (what a compassionate liberal!), but that does not mean he is always correct.  In fact, he has forecast 10 of the last 1 economic downturns and 4 of the last 0 economic calamities.

Quote from: Midway on April 26, 2008, 12:12:16 PM

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 25, 2008, 07:05:13 PM
Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

I would look forward to you not responding in general...isn't there some hamburger grill you need to clean? Keep on trolling!

Riverside Gator groupie. Just reprint his posts. Maybe some of his intelligence will rub off on you.

You can go play house with him and his troll doll collection. maybe take some more photos.

Interesting ad hominem attack, midway.  This seems to be your forte.  This is why you have earned the troll moniker.   :)

Help!

Does ANYONE know where I can buy a 35 pound bag of Doritos or where they sell those 50 pound cases of Oreos? Survive Hell!

If some of y'all want to co-op, I used to frequent a still out on the Ortega River when I was a kid, I think with a few scrounged, donated or other construction articles, I could build us a regular Rebel Yell production facility... All in the name of survival of course!

Ocklawaha

River, you just wish that I were a troll, so that you could add me to your wonderful collection.

I noticed you don't have an avitar.

Here's my suggestion:

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 26, 2008, 02:51:24 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 25, 2008, 07:05:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 04:18:22 PM

Quote from: Charleston native on April 25, 2008, 04:15:05 PM
Hmmmm...Stephen, you do know that quoting George Soros tends to conjure serious credibility problems?  ;)

I'm strapped with work right now, but I'll respond to that article later.

on political philosophy or money manipulation?

Two very different levels of credibility i would assume.

Charleston Native doesn't like George Soros, which means Soros is wrong. After all what does he know, being the 80th richest person in the world and having made that money himself. I'm sure that Charleston native is much more astute an investor than Soros.

And we all look forward to you response just as soon as you finish cleaning out that kitty litter box.

Soros certainly has a knack for making money  (what a compassionate liberal!), but that does not mean he is always correct.  In fact, he has forecast 10 of the last 1 economic downturns and 4 of the last 0 economic calamities.

Last I checked he was 8 billion $ more correct than you. "speculating on currency and enriching himself off the misery of smaller nations" oh, who's the bleeding heart liberal now? Wahh Wahh Wahh he's enriching himself through speculation, oh mercy me!!! Are you wishing for a Socialist economic system where that activity is illegal?

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you are for capitalism or against it. 

What a foolish post!  What a ridiculous statement!  Sure you hate him for his politics, but to lead people to infer that you are more astute than him in the realm of business is just plain asinine, and bespeaks your warped egotism and constant need for universal acclaim.

I really wonder how many people who post here have had a close family member explain to them in detail just exactly what the impact of the "great Depression" was on them and their family, rather than just reading about in in a textbook or on Wikipedia? How many people can actually put a human face on what it is really like, and can understand the full and real implications of such a financial disaster?

Riverside gator said:

QuoteInteresting ad hominem attack, midway. 

As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.

StephenDare said;

QuoteWe have had real trolls on here, and other boards, you should have been around for John Cocktosen and a few others.

John Cocktosen fit in perfectly at "the morgue" as it devolved into lunacy and obscurity.

That River would compare me with him by implication is as illogical a thought as any person is capable of producing.

He does not like my views? Thats too bad.
Don't like my techniques? Just following his example.
He can call me all the names he wants to. That's OK.
And remember that when he tosses one over the wall, he's likely to encounter incoming.
Logical, rational, provable facts.

(http://static.flickr.com/40/85494664_14f47b4cb9.jpg)
One of Dad's? In Maud, Oklahoma
(http://static.flickr.com/56/158965465_f69bb92e65.jpg)
Oh my God, Dad's school is still standing!

Well being the ancient one here I can relate. No I wasn't born then nor did I live through any part of the Great Depression, but 2 of my 3 older sisters, Mom and Dad sure did. Worse still, dad had worked in Oklahoma until 1927, by then the effects were already staggering in the oil patch and farm belt. Misfortune smiled on dad as he joined the Navy (at age 16!) before the entire country fell apart. By the time the military had lines knocking on their shrinking doors (remember the Treaty of Paris, we were disarming the world, already having fought the FINAL war {WW1}) so he had rank before the rush. Mom's father was a methodist circuit rider and the church, and his contracting business kept them well. The Navy sent dad to Great Lakes, Philadelphia, Maine, Seattle, San Francisco, and Long Beach. They were called "OKIES" (which became the universal term not unlike the "N" word, for the poor, homeless farmers, still used in California schools today to describe those "lower in station" such as a boy from Jacksonville, usually connected with "Stupid" etc...) and had it not been for ownership of a new auto and a military ID, many times they would have been placed in camps, compounds built to contain the "OKIES" on the west coast. The money became so valuable and rare that no one could afford a greenback. Wages were sliced, prices tumbled, banks folded and called in their loans, Mother Nature added as the top soil throughout the farm belt blew off in a drought, times were ugly. When my family finally took a vacation home to Southern Missouri, and while sleeping along a road in Oklahoma, woke to being surrounded by state troopers who mistook them for Bonnie and Clyde... (Okay, dad WAS a dead ringer for the bum but Mom? no way). My STRONG SUGGESTION to ANYONE who wants to really understand this at length or in depth, read the classic "THE GRAPES OF WRATH" by John Steinbeck.

(http://www.moplants.com/archives/images/dustbowl1.jpg)
Add in a natural disaster like "Here come Kansas' top soil... uh but this is Missouri

(http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Clyde_Barrow.jpg)
Family Photo? No, Dad had a slight moustache

(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/utah/utah1911.jpg)
BB 31 the Mighty old Utah, twin sister ship of the USS Florida

(http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/utah2.jpg)
Utah today, the forgotten titan of Pearl

My folks survived it well, only to have dad's beloved USS UTAH restationed in Hawaii, On December 1, 1941 (or there about) he got his first leave after the move. He finally got a hop back to Long Beach. On Sunday December 7, they went to the beach only to see the shock wave roll across the crowd as the radios blasted out the horror of Pearl Harbor. The Utah and 56 of his best friends were gone, the ship is today an unknown memorial not unlike the popular Arizona... The only 2 ships still in place. He fought his way across the Pacific, became a big band performer, and later staged the first shows in occupied Japan.

(http://static.flickr.com/140/320501280_9966285467.jpg)
"We will meet in the shrine at Yashakuni..." final words of Admiral Ito, IJN Yamato

When it all ended, after a stint in the Navy Department in Washington, he took the assignment as Navy Exchange Division Commander  in Jacksonville... TIME FOR THE BABY BOOM! and thus, sister Cheryl (of California) and little brother OCKLAWAHA. So call it Maryland born, Jacksonville raised and deep Oklahoma roots. YEAH, go ahead and call ME AN OKIE... Your DAMN STRAIGHT and I'll say it with PRIDE!  
Ocklawaha
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/CORP_Oklahoma_State_University.jpg)
 

Quote from: Midway on April 26, 2008, 05:52:45 PMLast I checked he was 8 billion $ more correct than you.

So, this means that he is 100% correct?  I didnt think you believed money conferred legitimacy on people.   ???

Quote"speculating on currency and enriching himself off the misery of smaller nations" oh, who's the bleeding heart liberal now? Wahh Wahh Wahh he's enriching himself through speculation, oh mercy me!!! Are you wishing for a Socialist economic system where that activity is illegal?

This is intelligent commentary.   ::)

BTW, I never said that what he does is illegal or even that it should be.  I simply am pointing out that many of his actions which have made him so much money differ from his stated beliefs.  Interesting study in hypocrisy.  Either way, he is an interesting character.

QuoteWhat a foolish post!  What a ridiculous statement!  Sure you hate him for his politics, but to lead people to infer that you are more astute than him in the realm of business is just plain asinine, and bespeaks your warped egotism and constant need for universal acclaim.

Perhaps I should cite some conservative billionaires who disagree with Soros to "prove" my point.

Quote from: Midway on April 26, 2008, 10:48:26 PM
I really wonder how many people who post here have had a close family member explain to them in detail just exactly what the impact of the "great Depression" was on them and their family, rather than just reading about in in a textbook or on Wikipedia? How many people can actually put a human face on what it is really like, and can understand the full and real implications of such a financial disaster?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  The point is not that things were bad back then and people today are unaware of this fact.  The point is we want to avoid having the government implementing the same boneheaded policies now that brought on the Great Depression then. 

QuoteThe point is we want to avoid having the government implementing the same boneheaded policies now that brought on the Great Depression then. 

...........and prolonged it by short-sighted, socialistic policies that only made matters worse.

It has nothing to do with the price of tea on china.

But it has everything to do with the price of bread in the USA.

I just happen to think that when a person has some firsthand knowledge of an occurrence such as the depression, (knowledge such as Ock enumerated above) it makes that person more introspective and adds dimension to their viewpoint. When all a person knows of these things is some disembodied lessons from a history textbook, the opinions tend to be dry and one dimensional and the proposed remedies also tend to discount the human factors.

And as for Soros, no it does not mean that he's 100% correct. It just means that he's $8 billion dollars more correct than you. He came here with less than you ever had. There was no reason that you could have not made $8 billion dollars also, doing just the same thing he did. nothing stopped you. As a matter of fact, you had more advantage than he did. So, in that respect, he bested you by a considerable distance, and made more correct choices than you in the arena of business, which must account for something.

Quote from: jaxnative on April 27, 2008, 11:22:16 AM

QuoteThe point is we want to avoid having the government implementing the same boneheaded policies now that brought on the Great Depression then. 

...........and prolonged it by short-sighted, socialistic policies that only made matters worse.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the depression was prolonged by things like the TVA & the WPA?

Yes, partly.  The TVA and WPA were workfare programs that did nothing to bring us out of the depression. The workfare workers were erroneously counted as employed which made the true unemployment numbers look better than they were and slowed recovery by tying up resources that would have been better employed in the private sector.  I think Louis Armstrong's 1940 hit says it best in these lyrics, "..Sleep while you work, rest while you play, lean on your shovel, to pass the time away, at the WPA..". But these were minor impediments to recovery among the many foisted on the country by FDR and his administration.

As resources, to start, I would suggest FDR's Folly by Jim Powell, Freedom from Fear, by David M Kennedy, and information from Thomas Sowell's writings.

I must disagree with you on this subject.

Having a great deal of first hand knowledge relating to the projects undertaken and built by the TVA & the WPA.

And while i have a great deal of respect and admiration for Louis Armstrong as both an artist and a human being, I must also say that his perspective was very different than that of the people who ran those projects.

You also should keep in mind that the labor content of those projects was the LEAST expensive content of the job.

Jim Powell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and thats his axe to grind, tear down anything democratic, most of that book is pure Rovian propaganda.

As for David Kennedy's book, he is not so clear on that side of things.

And you will find that people with first hand knowledge of this subject would not be so quick to denigrate those solutions.

Ocklawaha, any thoughts on this?

Don't go down the Riversidegator one dimensional path. Thats just his act. Don't make it your life.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2008, 12:52:36 PM

Which would mean that under Reagan, when almost 1/6 of the entire US economy was either military or military related, we must have been going through the worst unemployment crisis in out history.

You think that's bad? 85% of the current domestic manufacturing activity is being done for the US Government.

I am not saying that some of the projects were not beneficial.  We are discussing the policies implemented after the Crash.  You can twist the arguments any way you like but the fiscal and monetary policies of FDR and his administration were a failure.  FDR was a voice of optimism and hope for many people in a society so different from our information age.  But facts are facts no matter how much you disagree with or label those who put the information out.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2008, 12:52:36 PM

Yeah, ever since Bush Sr. and the Clinton's allowed all of the private manufacturing to leave the country.

Why is that Toyota,  BMW, MB, and VW just to name a few have opened plants in america?  I think what you're really trying to say is that they've let the Amercan manufactures go to Mexico.  Well, Bill did that.  I don't think  Bush Sr. could even spell policy let alone implement one.

NAFTA yeah!  I love NAFTA.  I'm gonna go buy some mexican rice before the big increase on Monday.  You ran a  successful restaurant.  What were you noticing about your cost of goods over the last 2 years?  Did Wal-Mart help you keep your cost down?

Quotefew solid examples.

What I need to see is solid proof that the American economy was coming out of the depression as a result of FDR's policies before WWII.  I would be glad to research any information you can point me to showing me those facts.

Stephen, did you notice a little someone who is conspicuous by their absence, in terms of support for the theory that FDR further ruined the economy with the implementation of the New Deal?

I'll report live from the rice isle.

It would appear that the general historical consensus opposes Jaxnative's views on FDR.

That the cato institute seeks to publish a work of revisionist history really does not change that historical consensus.

Given the fact that that consensus exists, then, rightfully, the burden of proof falls upon Jaxnative, not you.

There are literally thousands of sources that support the reasoning behind and the efficacy of the New Deal, and FDR's policies.

Otherwise, it would be like him asking you to prove that gravity exists.

Quote from: gatorback on April 27, 2008, 03:18:18 PM
I'll report live from the rice isle.

Don't bother with flour, though. $2.59/5lb bag. Last year, 98 cents @ Publix.

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2008, 03:15:05 PM
church.

Good. Hopefully it's the Trinity United Church of Christ. He does need some grounding and old time religion.

The US patent office refuses to accept applications for patents on perpetual motion machines.

Live from the rice isle:

(http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/video/T627499A.jsm)

Quote from: stephendare on April 27, 2008, 03:15:05 PM
church.

i would speculate with family as well.  church and family - the 2 things that are destroying the fabric of our society. 

http://www.youtube.com/v/HSFJhOe4iPA

This is scary.   So, is this RICE-PEC?

How does the Wiki article prove that FDR's policies were working?  That's the question here.  Not that other countries were in political hell or failing with the same type's of policies as FDR's.  From the beginning of the Great Depression until the beginning of WWII nothing had improved and all the experimental policies had failed.  I'm not trying to defend Hoover or villify Roosevelt.  Simply put, the great majority of FDR's policies from constant tax increases, moronic agricultural policies, and overbearing interference in the market, made things worse for a hungry population and severely discouraged investment from the private sector.  The historical record is there to see and no amount of rhetorical dexterity or "revisionist" accusations will change the facts.

QuoteConsider just a few of FDR's policies. The New Deal tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940 -- excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, excess profits taxes all went up, and FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. A number of New Deal laws, including some 700 industrial cartel codes, made it more expensive for employers to hire people, and this discouraged hiring.

Frequent changes in the tax laws plus FDR's anti-business rhetoric ("economic royalists") discouraged people from making investments essential for growth and jobs. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. FDR issued antitrust lawsuits against some 150 employers and companies, making it harder for them to focus on business. FDR signed a law ordering the break-up of America's strongest banks, with the lowest failure rates. New Deal farm policies destroyed food -- 10 million acres of crops and 6 million farm animals -- thereby wiping out farm jobs and forcing food prices above market levels for 100 million American consumers.

www.cato.org   12/2/03

QuoteMany economists now believe that the New Deal, apart from its gold policy, probably had little impact on economic activity. At the heart of the early New Deal were the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA). Created in Roosevelt's first hundred days, they sought to promote recovery by propping up prices. The idea was to improve incomes and halt bankruptcies. The AAA tried to eliminate agricultural surpluses (pigs were slaughtered, crops destroyed) and paid farmers not to plant. The NRA allowed companies in the same industry to set wages, prices, and working hours in an effort to check "destructive competition." This approach rested on a remarkable contradiction: the way to get recovery, which requires more production, is to have less production. There never has been much evidence that it worked, and the Supreme Court found the NRA unconstitutional in 1935.

The New Deal did relieve suffering. Perhaps 10 million to 12 million Americans worked at some time on public works or in relief jobs (through the Public Works Administration, the Works Project Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps). People had their bank deposits protected with the advent of deposit insurance. The Securities and Exchange Commission regulated the stock market. Roosevelt maintained faith in democracy.

But there was a cost. The New Deal also caused suffering. Sharecroppers were often thrown out of work, for example, when the AAA paid landowners not to grow. The New Deal also fostered class consciousness. Roosevelt increasingly blamed the depression on the wealthyâ€""economic royalists," as he called them. The loss of business confidence in government policies may have deterred new investment, offsetting any economic stimulus of higher public spending. But by 1933 the economy had been so ravaged that only a partial recovery may have been possible until the huge wartime boom.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html

QuoteThe New Deal's War against Economic Recovery
The New Deal "was not just a matter of staving off hunger," wrote Arthur Schlesinger in The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of The New Deal. "It was a matter of seeing whether a representative democracy could conquer economic collapse." Schlesinger went on to say that, "The only hope lay in governmental leadership of a power and will which representative institutions seemed impotent to produce." Over the years, Schlesinger and many other historians have claimed to find such superior leadership in Franklin Roosevelt. "He lived by his exultation in distant horizons and uncharted seas," Schlesinger swooned. "It was this which gave him confidence and loyalty in a frightened age when the air was filled with the sound of certitudes cracking on every side-this and the conviction of plain people that he had given them head and heart and would not cease fighting for their cause." In Pride, Prejudice, and Politics: Roosevelt versus Recovery, 1933-1938 (New York: Praeger, 1991), Gary Dean Best has shattered these and other myths about Roosevelt's New Deal, replacing them with an objective view of Roosevelt's blind anti-business, anti-free market animus.

A professor of history at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Best has written a multitude of books on interwar America, including The Politics of American Individualism: Herbert Hoover in Transition, 1918-1921 (Greenwood, 1975), Herbert Hoover: The Postpresidential Years, 1933-64 (2 volumes, Hoover Institute Press, 1983), The Nickel and Dime Decade: American Popular Culture in the 1930s (Praeger, 1991), FDR and the Bonus Marchers, 1933-1935 (Praeger, 1992), The Critical Press and the New Deal: The Press versus Presidential Power, 1933-38 (Praeger, 1993), as well as many others.

This summer, Best is a resident scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. While there, he is working on a book, tentatively entitled When Liberalism Took a Left, which examines the changes that took place in American liberalism during the New Deal years.

Navigator: In your book, Pride, Prejudice, and Politics, you lay down a clear standard by which to measure the New Deal: Did it bring about economic recovery? But let us begin with a logically prior issue: Where did matters stand, economically, before Franklin Roosevelt came to office?

Best: Well, the United States had begun to turn around in the summer of 1932. And that was characteristic of the entire world, not just the U.S. The entire world pretty much hit bottom in the summer of '32 and turned upward. And then we had the election of '32, which threw a great deal of uncertainty into the business situation, with special concerns over the possibility of Roosevelt's pursuing inflationary policies, taking us off the gold standard, for example. All of this contributed to a rush, I suppose you could call it, on the part of large savers and investors to convert money into inflation-proof investments-like land, gold, diamonds, and so on-which eventually trickled down to smaller savers and depositors, who also began to make their runs on the bank. By late February of '33, we had a major crisis in banking. And of course it got worse as we got closer to Roosevelt's Inauguration Day, which was March 4, 1933.

Navigator: Had these inflationary policies been discussed during the election?

Best: Inflationary policies were not discussed during the election as much as they were during the interregnum. A great many people were saying that what the country needed was to go off the gold standard and pursue inflationary policies, and Roosevelt was not saying that he would not do so. He was quite obviously taking counsel with those people. So, the general impression was that Roosevelt was considering such policies and there was also considerable feeling that if Roosevelt didn't take such steps, Congress might go ahead and do so regardless of how he felt.

You see, there was a lot of doubt about what kind of man Roosevelt was, what kind of president he was going to be. Some people saw the possibility in Roosevelt of a very dynamic leader; others wondered if he really had the ability to govern. But those who had doubts about his abilities were afraid that Congress might just take the bull by the horns and push through all kinds of radical things that they had been talking about.

Navigator: Your book mentions that Roosevelt had a weak Cabinet but forceful advisors, and you lay out an interesting division among three groups of advisors, two of which preferred Left-wing political reform to economic recovery. Could you elaborate on that schema?

Best: Well, I don't think this is original with me. But there were the monetarists-people who believed that the solution to the Depression lay in inflationary policies, which would in a sense repudiate the great mass of debt left over from the 1920s and restore purchasing power to the people.

Then there were the planners, who were led by people like Rexford Tugwell, Raymond Moley, and Adolf Berle, who for the most part had the view that production, distribution, prices, wages, and so forth, should be set to one degree or another by the federal government. This was the way not only to bring about the recovery from the Great Depression but also to make sure that there wouldn't be any future depressions. Some of these people owed their ideas to people like Herbert Croly and others of that stripe, to World War I's economic mobilization, and to the new nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt. But for some, like Rexford Tugwell [previously a Columbia University economics professor], the source of their ideas lay in Europe and in the social democracy of the revisionist-Marxists. Tugwell clearly wanted to bring about a collectivized society.

Then, third, there were the Brandeisians who continued to hold to the kind of world-view that [Supreme Court Justice Louis] Brandeis had advocated back in the early twentieth century: that of trying to restore the American economy to an earlier age of small businesses and small labor, absent the control of Wall Street.

Navigator: You just referred to the revisionist-Marxists of Europe. Whom, specifically, were you thinking of?

Best: Well, it would go back to Eduard Bernstein [1850-1932], back to the turn-of-the-century when a great number of Marxists came to the conclusion that revolution was not inevitable and indeed was impractical. But with the growth of Marxist political parties, in countries like Germany, they thought the destiny of Marxism lay in gaining parliamentary control.

Navigator: Now, the Brandeisians: Who was their point man in the White House? Felix Frankfurter?

Best: Frankfurter was generally regarded as Brandeis's disciple. But Frankfurter, by the 1930s, had begun to be heavily influenced by Harold Laski, the British Marxist. So by the early 1930s, Frankfurter was closer to people like Tugwell than he was to Brandeis.

Navigator: Who was a New Deal Brandeisian, then?

Best: Tommy Corcoran was probably the leading Brandeisian in the administration, but there were also Benjamin Cohen and various others. [Corcoran and Cohen had been law students of Felix Frankfurter at Harvard.]

Navigator: Am I correct in thinking that Justice Brandeis was actually in touch with the executive branch at this time?

Best: Oh, Brandeis was very much in touch. In fact, a fellow at Penn State, Bruce Murphy, has done an entire book on the involvement of Brandeis and Frankfurter in the government during their periods on the Supreme Court.

Navigator: That is not supposed to happen, is it?

Best: It's not supposed to, no, but Brandeis especially was very passionate about the things that he believed in. By all accounts, when he described his economic philosophy his eyes turned to fire and people would just sit there amazed, not only because of his passion but because his views were so anachronistic by the 1930s.

Navigator: They were Jeffersonian, economically?

Best: Yes. It was the idea that you could turn back from the big industries of the United States that existed in the 1930s and return to an economy made up of small economic units, and it was just totally impractical by that time.

Navigator: Okay, let's get to the heart of your book, which is judging what the New Deal did and how it affected the economy? What was the "legislation of 1934"?

Best: I don't have the book in front of me, but I was probably referring to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which was primarily a Brandeisian piece of legislation, designed to bring about further federal control over the stock exchanges. There were also some revisions made in the Securities Act of 1933, responding to criticism of it, to try to make it a little more responsive to the needs of Wall Street. The 1933 act was so punitive, against so many people, that it virtually strangled the flotation of any stock issues in '33 and '34, which of course was exactly what some of its supporters wanted-the Brandeisians, for example. If they had had their way, all stocks and bonds would have been floated through the U.S. Post Office.

Navigator: One major theme of your work is that, during the New Deal, businessmen did not dare engage in productive activity because of the rhetoric that was coming out of the administration and the possibility that it would be enacted into legislation. Could you give us some flavor of that?

Best: Well, you could begin with Roosevelt's inaugural address in March of 1933, which started fomenting class antagonisms from the get-go, attacking the profit motive, attacking businessmen, and attacking banking.

Really, nothing happened after his inaugural speech that was any worse than that. A lot of historians dwell on the savagery of his attacks on business during the 1936 campaign and declare that they were only a response to what business had been saying about him. In fact, he said nothing in 1936 that he hadn't said in that inaugural address in March 1933. The war began the day of his inauguration.

Navigator: I gather that there were occasional attempts to patch things up, but they were never carried through.

Best: Yes. You have to remember that Felix Frankfurter was constantly at Roosevelt's ear. Many of the people in the Roosevelt administration were very jealous of Frankfurter's access to Roosevelt; they talked about him being there next to Roosevelt in the evenings, having long conversations. Frankfurter was continually counseling Roosevelt to wage war against businessmen and bankers. And so was Harold Laski, who also had virtually unlimited access to the White House whenever he was in the United States. These people were continually counseling Roosevelt not to let up, to keep the war against business going.

Navigator: So, whenever they saw the administration making a peace overture, they would squelch it?

Best: Yes. They were telling Roosevelt that businessmen and bankers were only going to see this as a sign of weakness, and he couldn't let them think that he was giving into him. They knew all of the ways to fire him up.

continued:

QuoteNavigator: Why, if there was a "Roosevelt depression" in 1934, was he re-elected by a landslide in 1936? He took all but two states in the Electoral College.

Best: Well, the straw man of the '36 election was a Literary Digest poll, which was very unscientific and showed [Republican candidate Alf] Landon beating Roosevelt. But on a more scientific note, [George] Gallup was already doing very scientific polls and early in 1936 these showed Roosevelt being defeated, even by an unnamed Republican candidate. The Democratic National Committee polls were also showing that Roosevelt would be beaten. So Roosevelt's popularity in '36 is largely a myth.

The Republicans, however, had no really attractive candidates to put up against Roosevelt, and Landon turned out to be a disaster. No sooner had Landon been nominated than Roosevelt quickly took the lead in the polls and by the last week before the election Gallup showed Landon carrying only three states. In those days, Gallup did not poll right up to the evening before the election, otherwise he probably would have shown Landon winning only the two states-Maine and Vermont-that he actually did win.

You have to remember also that a large percentage of the American people were being subsidized in one way or another by the Roosevelt administration. In 1936, there were at least ten million people who were still on welfare, and the Gallup polls consistently showed that 85 to 90 percent of them voted Democratic. Plus the farmers, for all of their displeasure over aspects of AAA [Agricultural Adjustment Administration], were nevertheless dependent to a considerable extent on its subsidies.

Navigator: And there was a fairly large disbursement of federal money in '36, wasn't there?

Best: There was an incredible disbursement of money just before the election. In my book, I quote some White House conversations that took place just prior to the elections, and it is interesting that right up until election day Roosevelt was afraid that he was going to lose. He was literally screaming at his people to "get that money out there." Even though the money wasn't supposed to go out until a week or two after election day, he wanted it out there before election day. He did not want to let any vote escape unbought.

Navigator: Speaking of polls, I had not realized the extent to which the American people genuinely feared that Roosevelt would become a dictator.

Best: You certainly don't get that from other New Deal histories, do you?

Navigator: No. But your work has some fascinating poll results and some quotations from Walter Lippmann that are relevant to the subject. I was wondering if you could elaborate on them.

Best: As early as 1933, many people had begun to experience a great deal of anxiety over the kind of powers that Roosevelt was acquiring through various laws. One of the greatest difficulties was the fact that many of these laws were discretionary. Congress was not telling Roosevelt "You will do this" or "You won't do that." It was telling Roosevelt that he could do this if he wanted to, and so the decision about whether he actually did it was left to Roosevelt. What this did was create an enormous uncertainty. I think it was the progressive Amos Pinchot who referred to Roosevelt as "the great uncertainty," because one never knew which of these discretionary powers he would use and which he wouldn't. They were just sitting there like time bombs, smoldering.

But certainly by 1935, people like Walter Lippmann, who had been critical of journalists's raising fears of dictatorship, came around to an understanding of what Roosevelt had in mind and began to experience the same kinds of concerns; Lippmann then began to voice these fears in his column. As I point out in the book, a Gallup poll showed that 45 percent of those responding believed that Roosevelt's policies were leading to a dictatorship. And apparently Roosevelt felt so much pressure because of this that he got up in the middle of the night while he was down in Warm Springs and released a letter to the press corps disclaiming any interest in or intention of becoming a dictator. All of which is a little startling. It's startling that a pollster would even ask that question, never mind the fact that almost half of the American people responded yes.

Navigator: How did the second Roosevelt Depression begin?

Best: There were a lot of different factors, including the massive election-eve spending in 1936, the payment of the veterans' bonus, and then all of the millions that had to be paid out by companies as dividends, bonuses, and increased wages as a result of the Undistributed Profits Tax. As a result, there was an upward wage-price spiral, and this began to frighten people in the Treasury and in the Federal Reserve. Now, whether these fears were valid or not, I don't know, but that is beside the point because people were terrified. They saw the prospect of rising interest rates and realized that would jeopardize the massive bank holdings of low-interest government bonds, by which the deficit had been financed. [Treasuary Secretary Henry] Morgenthau took great pride in the fact that he had been able to sell these bonds at ridiculously low interest rates. But now there was the prospect of banks' being able to lend money at higher rates and just jettisoning federal bonds for whatever they would bring, with possible detriment to federal credit and maybe even to the whole banking system. So for that reason, more than the reasons generally given by historians, there was a great deal of pressure on Roosevelt to balance the budget in order to head off this price-wage spiral and all of the potentially detrimental results that might come from it.

And Roosevelt did move, in '37, to balance the budget. The problem was that, at the same time the federal government was reducing its spending and its contribution to consumer purchasing power, consumer purchasing power was already being eroded by rising prices. As a result of this outlook for buying power, there was a precipitous collapse of the stock market in late 1937 and the onset of a new depression. The collapse of the stock market this time was worse than in 1929. And the depression that began pretty much continued on until 1941.

Navigator: What happened on the political front, after the '36 election?

Best: Well, Roosevelt was not in the same position that he was in early '33. All of his recovery programs had failed. The old cry of "We're on our way" just didn't ring true anymore. By the winter of '37-'38, he was trying to ignore what was happening all around him; he hadn't a clue about what should be done. Finally, under the pressure of his advisors, he decided to revert to the tried-and-true, that is, another massive spending program. As I recall, he was asking for $3 billion in deficit spending. But Congress wouldn't give him that much; I don't recall how much they gave him but I think it was closer to $2 billion. That was the best he could do in 1938. So, the impression in the government was that Roosevelt had shot his bolt, that the New Deal had lost its popularity, that the happy days were over.

Then, in the Florida primary, during the summer of 1938, Claude Pepper-an avowed, 100 percent New Dealer-won the Democratic primary. That gave a new vigor to Roosevelt and to the New Dealers and convinced them that they weren't as unpopular as they had thought they were. So they began to press for all sorts of New Deal legislation again.

The interesting thing is that the press gave enormous coverage to that Pepper victory in Florida, but on the same day a 100 percent pro-New Dealer in South Dakota came in third in the Democratic primary, and the Republican primary vote was much larger than the combined vote in the Democratic primary. That turned out to be much more indicative of where the New Deal's fortunes were in 1938 than was Pepper's primary victory.

Anyway, on the strength of this new vision of his popularity, Roosevelt set out to use the Democratic primaries to purge those Democratic Senators who had opposed him on the Supreme Court packing bill in 1937. As I recall, he took on seven or eight different Democratic Senators from all across the country and lost in every case. His only victory was against a Democratic Representative from New York who was a thorn in his side, but that was an entirely different situation. The Senators that he went after were opponents of his on the Supreme Court issue, and they all won.

Then, of course, in the 1938 congressional election, the Republicans staged a major turnaround, gaining 81 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and 13 Governorships. That signaled that the New Deal was dead in the water and wasn't going anywhere.



Navigator: As I understand it, that electoral rebuke, along with the continuing depression, initiated a change of mood within the administration. In December 1938, Roosevelt appointed as his Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins, one of the earliest and strongest New Dealers, one of the last people anyone would expect to be Commerce Secretary. But along with Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Hopkins turned from being a leftist reformer to being pro-recovery.

Best: Yes, Early in 1939, Morgenthau and Hopkins began to work on Roosevelt to pursue policies that would be beneficial to business and to recovery, against the wishes of the Brandeisians, who wanted to continue to pursue the old class warfare. Morgenthau and Hopkins succeed in blunting the Corcorans and the Cohens. Also, in '39 and '40, businessmen began entering the administration as Roosevelt prepared for war.

Navigator: So, unlike many historians of this period, you see the origins of recovery rooted not in World War II spending, but in an attitudinal shift prior to the war.

Best: Well, Robert Higgs argues that recovery didn't take place even during the war, that it didn't take place until the election of a Republican Congress after the war, because all of the seeming recovery during the war was based on government spending rather than on the resumption of private investment, and the resumption of private investment didn't take place until well after the war. But certainly to the extent that there was a recovery during the war years I don't see it simply as a result of the expenditure of billions of dollars.

I think that if Roosevelt had increased his expenditures to wartime levels earlier in his presidency but had used the money in exactly the same New Deal way, then we still wouldn't have had a recovery. The difference is, with World War II, the money is not being flooded into the economy for consumer spending or consumer purchasing power. Instead, it is the old trickle-down approach, where it's going to businesses and industries to build things, and then the money is trickling down to the workers. More workers are being hired and so on.

During the New Deal, Roosevelt had pursued what I call the bubble-up theory. You throw the money out to the consumers, and the consumers buy stuff. By that process, eventually you fuel an economic recovery. Keynes advocated a combination of the two. He didn't advocate throwing money to the consumers but having the government spend it in such ways that it would not only bring money to the consumers but also encourage the expansion of industries. So the spending, yes, contributed to the recovery but it was also the difference in the way in which the money was being spent.

Above all, however, the end of the war on business and the end of the preferences shown to labor were, in my view, the main things that contributed to the beginning of the recovery.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-267-The_New_Deals_War_against_Economic_Recovery.aspx

I doubt this thread will Ever go anywhere....so...here...this is right to the point. Don't click play.
Stephen, I see your point however, unfortunately there's no point to the other side IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/v/vUnqjmdSoOM

I'm interested in an argument that isn't based on one side proving a point;  rather both side should be engaged, and I just don't see jaxnative putting forth the effort.  I validate your point and think jaxnative's is just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Not unlike all the climate change arguments put forth by others you pointed out in myriad different threads.  Sorry if that vid offened.  PS.  Long story short, I've been discussing the food issue for weeks now, so sorry if you don't think I'm interested.

OK.  Arguing a moot point is a button I have.  But arguing something that is clearly wrong I just don't have time for. I didn't get to the rice isle today...lets see what happens on Monday...I like the idea of the rice producers causing the increase, but I think the futures traders are the culprits here.

So, Brasil is now not exporting rice, on a lighter now flexFuel production is up.  Great.
http://www.youtube.com/v/KC22wWHKRHQ

Sometime back up the thread I was asked for an opinion on the "social welfare or workfare" of the depression.

As one with close knowledge of the era, and as a historian, I'd say a major point has been overlooked. At the end of the 1800's as other nations were starting to follow their own version of the up-coming American Dream the path divided into several directions. Extreme traditional, such as Japan and the Emperor god. Kingdoms, where family rule remained unchanged. Democratic and Democratic Republics with often rough copies of our own system. A new thought, that through industrial and science advances the world would get better for all started taking root in the peasant communities of Asia and Europe. By 1918, this new Marxist doctrine of "Socialism had control of Russia, and was sweeping the world. America was oblivious to the starvation fostered on Germany, Austria, Turkey and Hungary after WW-1. We were swept up in "World Power Victory Fever". Liberals began to spread and openly teach Communist ideals as a fad or vogue here in the states. By the time the farm belt crashed in the 1920's, every little town in the Midwest and southwest had it's own Communist newspaper. Starvation breeds contempt, the American system without ANY social brakes had failed the very workers that fed us. Now the industrialist bankers in panic started calling in loans, small independent banks without reserves, called the farm loans, people were cast out in masses. Streets of former thriving little oil patch towns were empty as starving farm families moved west or to the bright city lights in hope of a loaf of bread. These men and women were not "Laying on the Shovel", they frankly didn't have one.
Society was very much in layers, no races were equal, people had rank based on origin or skin color or eye shape. Yet starvation made no such choices, hitting black, Jew, white, Oriental and Hispanic alike.


(http://static.flickr.com/2287/2205401822_3cba48b48b.jpg)
New York Communist Protest Parade, Mar 25, 1933. Meanwhile 20,000 Nazi's met at Madison Square Garden.

This same effect was much more mature in Germany and Italy where a form of Socialist Government was taking hold. The message was simple, the PURE man will rule the earth. So YOU Mr. Superman, YOU deserve to own the black, or the Jew, or any other "defective merchandise". This new NATIONAL SOCIALISM even took root here with our own massive million plus member Nazi Party. This was an answer with a Long Knife in it's hand. So your the out of work starving factory worker, farmer, or German, or Euro-Peasant. Suddenly you join the party. You are elevated simply by numbers and race to the top of the order, majority rule, Darwin said survival of the fittest, thus the Nazis claimed to be doing God's work. Everyone of any importance will eat and have a home and someday even a Folks-Wagon or "peoples car".

(http://static.flickr.com/49/156949845_eb67607e3b.jpg)
Northwest Texas Farm Country about 1928

During this whole experience, the dust bowl and record drought destroyed what remained of the faith most of our pioneer families had in the farm belt. We reached a point of no return, teetering on Socialism of our own making. Real estate couldn't be given away, there was simply no money to be had, factories closed and store shelves and bank vaults were empty. Communism under Stalin had taken a bloody turn and perhaps that kept us from making that leap. Concurrent with that era, was the rising Sun of Japan. Clearly we needed an answer and plain old free market was no longer trusted nor could it support the sudden need. Imagine Katrina hitting every town and community in the nation at once to get this image. Some form of social workfare was needed and be it Roosevelt or whomever, it was too big and far too volatile for anyone but government. Face it, communism and national socialism works. A worker earning a Reich mark, Ruble or Dollar, still has something to spend. I'm not here to grade their effect, only to say as a system, you get a government promise from cradle to grave no matter how shitty it might be. We either would go with Stalin, Hitler or Roosevelt's brand, and THANK GOD we chose the American way. When England and France declared war on Germany, after the invasion of Poland, we saw ourselves getting deeper into the hole. Hadn't WWI produced some of this horror? We sure as hell didn't want another one!

(http://www.irwinator.com/126/w557.jpg)
Will work for food or National Defense

Japans sudden attack on Pearl Harbor didn't end the depression overnight. Frankly the last few years had show modest improvement and things were starting to look better. As Roosevelt got us on a war footing, suspecting correctly that we were (like it or not) going to have to fight in Europe, thousands returned to work or the military. The war did serve to crush our national socialist party, and unify our national purpose.
Communism survived the war and in my opinion is still a cancer on the world, many of our troops in WWII including General Patton, thought we were supporting the wrong side by helping Russia. But the sudden rush to supply the world, feed the world and save the world, saved us perhaps from ourselves.

(http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/5d/images.art.com/images/-/Rosie-the-Riveter--C10397155.jpeg)How much did we change? EVERYONE knew Japanese people were "stupid", "near-sighted" and known for "inferior tin toys", hell they even worshiped their leader as a god! No such race could ever equal, let alone best the great white hope of America... or could it? They kicked the SHIT OUT OF US!

How quick and how big was the turnaround? Well on December 7, 1941, when Japan attacked us, the Imperial Japanese Navy outnumbered and out classed us something like 3 to 1. Our pacific fleet was so shattered we had 3 carriers, and a hand full of support ships, mixed with Australia, Dutch and English. We even nicknamed the pathetic fleet "The bow and arrow Navy". But by 1945, when Admiral Ito, sailed the super-battleship (biggest ever built) and his 9 escorts toward Okinawa (a mission that ended the Imperial Japanese Navy, they never reached the battlefront, jumped by 400 American aircraft and sunk) he faced an American fleet with over 1,200 warships. In a few weeks the war would end and Americas depression was over... and so is my long story! Oh but one last photo... you see, someone you know has one of the surrendered swords at one of my places. Ahhh So!

(http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/LeyteImages/BattleshipYamato.jpg)(http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Images10July22-2005/BattleshipYamatoBlowsUp.jpg)
Death of the Yamato, largest battleship of all time, only 3 small escorts escaped us only to be sunk at their Inland Sea anchorage 2 weeks later.  

Ocklawaha
son of a son of a sailor

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 09:54:54 AM
http://wonkette.com/384942/65-million-foreclosures-186-million-vacant-homes

QuoteHere are some cheery housing numbers, as the bankrupt truckers impotently beep their horns at Congress and the food is rationed and "consumer expectations" hit lows not seen since the early 1970s: More than 6 million homes will go into foreclosure before this housing collapse is finished, and the number of houses now sitting empty in America has reached a staggering 18.6 million â€" including 2.3 million currently on the market.

Imagine every housing unit in the entire state of California suddenly empty. That's about how many houses are vacant today.

Meanwhile, about one in eight households will meet Mr. Foreclosure in the next five years, according to the probably-too-rosy Credit Suisse.

Hey, maybe the 10 million new homeless families can move into some of the 18.6 million vacant houses ... ha ha, just kidding. That's not allowed! But if they try anyway, guess what all those mentally ruined home-from-Iraq soldiers will be put to work doing?

Columbia professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz did an interview with CNBC on Friday. Guess what he said about the combination of food and energy inflation plus the housing collapse?

"This is going to be one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression."

1)  I dont know if the 18.6 million figure is accurate, but even if it is how does this compare with the figures historically in terms of percentages?
2)  Stiglitz is a permabear.  He always thinks the sky is falling.
3)  I would be very careful about using wonkette as a source for economic news or analysis (or anything else, for that matter).
4)  I thought we had recently discussed the Great Depression and its causes.  As a result (and because I have been very busy) I did not post on it again.  But, I can offer a refresher course for you if you would like, Stephen.   :)

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 11:27:51 AM
Maybe you should mail it ( a copy of the refresher course) to Stiglitz and ask for his Nobel Prize back.  Also Warren Buffett. ::)

Actually you should recheck this thread.  Quite a good discussion on the Depression.  As usual, it turns out you were completely wrong. ;)

hahaha.  Surely you dont think the Nobel Prize committee is an impartial, nonpartisan body.

Nobel, didn't he invent modern war technology, ie nitroglercin the component of all IEDs?

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 11:51:27 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 11:46:58 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 11:27:51 AM
Maybe you should mail it ( a copy of the refresher course) to Stiglitz and ask for his Nobel Prize back.  Also Warren Buffett. ::)

Actually you should recheck this thread.  Quite a good discussion on the Depression.  As usual, it turns out you were completely wrong. ;)

hahaha.  Surely you dont think the Nobel Prize committee is an impartial, nonpartisan body.

Isnt this the same bunch who gave Al Gore the Prize for Peace?   :D
Isnt it?  Why dont you tell us about your personal experiences with it? :o
btw, congratulations for learning swedish!  Its a very difficult language.

Exactly what peace did Gore help foster?

Bush Blair Endless Love!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nupdcGwIG-g

Yes, and Schumer is a leader of the American people who is only in office to serve the people. ::) I'm sure he is also a great economic analyst...we've already seen his genius in war strategy. Good night.

Opening up the reserves, more domestic drilling, and creating more oil refineries (in addition to more nuclear plants and clean coal plants) will have OPEC s***ing in their pants, because they will lose control over their stranglehold of the supply. They will have no choice but to decrease their prices because speculation of higher supply will force them to, or they will eventually lose business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCim7mmLWRA

My political Statement on saving the world...

Ocklawaha

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 02:06:59 PM
dave, would solar, wind, and hydro do the same thing without destroying the wildlife?

You've got to be able to transition effectively without affecting the economy, and current technologies with those sources of power have yet to be as effective as current resources. Besides, geniuses like Kennedy have prohibited building massive wind farms off the U.S. coast for fear of spoiling the oceans natural beauty and scenery. Solar power currently would have to be used by massive solar farm building...taking up thousands of acres of land while the cells themselves are made from toxic substances. Seems to me that those alternatives can destroy wildlife as well.

Oil drilling techniques contribute negligible impact on wildlife, and in the case of the Alaskan pipeline, oil drilling has enhanced it; caribou and other wildlife thrive around the pipeline.

I'm all for alternative forms of power...if they provide the same power and energy as oil, coal, and nuclear. Also, the transition to those forms should be smooth and should not inhibit the current economies and lifestyles of the people.

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 12:17:44 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 12:10:14 PM
Exactly what peace did Gore help foster?

Exactly River!

Call that warmongering asshole out for what he really is!
Who the hell does he think he is, promoting all this 'less pollution is healthier' nonsense?
Especially all that crap about non polluting 'alternative energy sources' and 'breaking our dependence on OPEC' drivel.

Why this kind of bullhockey is practically a declaration of war on its own merits.!

I agree, with you River.   Kill the Blood and Gore monger.! 

What did oxygen ever do for us anyways?

Or trees?

So you cannot offer a straightforward answer then?

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 03:10:03 PM
Sounds like alaskan oil drilling is 10 years away, though.

The Mojave Desert could provide an enormous national scale amount of solar power without disrupting anything at all.

Except that we dont have the technical ability to do this now.  You are talking pie in the sky stuff here.

But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

QuoteCommodities Tumble Most in Five Weeks After Dollar Rebounds

By Ron Day

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Commodities fell the most in five weeks as a rally by the dollar eroded demand for energy, metals, crops and livestock as alternative investments.

The weighted UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index fell 1.9 percent to 1,508.21 at 4:11 p.m. New York time, the biggest drop since March 19. Wheat prices tumbled to a five- month low, crude oil slid more than $3 a barrel and silver dropped almost 3 percent.

The dollar was poised for the first monthly advance against the euro this year on speculation the Federal Reserve will signal that it has finished lowering U.S. interest rates after six reductions since September. A week ago, the dollar plunged to a record against the euro, boosting demand for raw materials as a hedge against inflation.

``This may be a major change in perception about the dollar,'' said Dale Durchholz, a market analyst for AgriVisor Services Inc. in Bloomington, Illinois. ``The run-up in commodities prices has been tied to a weakening, and now it appears it may be reaching a bottom.''

The UBS Bloomberg index has dropped 4.2 percent from a record 1,573.84 on Feb. 29. Before today, the gauge climbed 20 percent this year, while the Standard & Poor's 500 Index declined 4.9 percent and the dollar slid 5.5 percent against a weighted basket of the euro, yen, pound and three other major currencies.

Futures on the Chicago Board of Trade show an 82 percent chance the Fed will cut the target rate for overnight lending by a quarter-percentage point to 2 percent tomorrow and odds of 71 percent that the rate will be held at that level in June.

`Take Money Out'

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is persuading investors that the financial markets are working again, some analysts said.

The S&P 500 Index has rallied since the central bank backed the purchase of Bear Stearns Cos. on March 16. Companies sold $45.3 billion of debt last week, the most ever. High-yield bonds are poised for their best month in five years, and mortgage securities are outperforming Treasuries for the first time in 2008.

``Commodities have been the darlings of the investment space recently,'' said Eric Wittenauer, an energy and metals analyst at Wachovia Securities in St. Louis. ``Some investors may be looking at these developments as a sign to take money out of commodity markets.''

Oil, gold, copper and tin have climbed to records this year as demand outpaced supplies. Rice, corn, soybean and wheat prices have also jumped to records, partly because of adverse weather and soaring consumption in Asia. Suring food costs have sparked protests and riots in countries including Haiti, Indonesia, Mexico and Egypt.

`Fundamental Imbalance'

``The rising dollar won't change the fundamental imbalances driving commodity prices, but it may slow the climb as commodities traded in dollars become more expensive internationally,'' Matt Sena, co-manager of New York-based Castlestone Management LLC's Aliquot Commodity Fund, which oversees $900 billion in assets, said in an e-mail.

Crude-oil futures for June delivery dropped $3.14, or 2.6 percent, to $115.61 a barrel the New York Mercantile Exchange. Yesterday, the price surged to a record $119.93. Natural gas tumbled 3.9 percent, and gasoline declined 3 percent.

Wheat futures for July delivery fell 32.5 cents, or 3.9 percent, to $8.085 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. Earlier, the price touched $8.0175, the lowest for a most-active contract since Nov. 21. Corn and soybeans also dropped.

Silver futures for July delivery declined 48.3 cents, or 2.8 percent, to $16.64 an ounce on the Comex division of the Nymex. Gold, which often moves in the opposite direction of the dollar, fell 2 percent to $876.80.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ron Day in New York at rday1@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 29, 2008 16:12 EDT

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aTj0khncwXfI

I also believe that the market will respond to higher prices and supplies will rise to meet the demand thereby causing prices to go down over the next 6-12 months.  We shall see.  It will be interesting, as always.

Quote from: stephendare on April 29, 2008, 03:10:03 PM
Sounds like alaskan oil drilling is 10 years away, though.

The Mojave Desert could provide an enormous national scale amount of solar power without disrupting anything at all.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 07:01:04 PM
Except that we dont have the technical ability to do this now.  You are talking pie in the sky stuff here.

Quote


Largest Solar Farm Ever to be Built in California
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07. 9.07
Science & Technology


We know you're probably getting tired of reading these "world's largest" stories day in and day out, but bear with us: as long as these companies keep building them, we'll keep on reporting on them. Case in point is the latest endeavor by Cleantech America LLC, a San Francisco-based company that claims to be building the world's largest solar power "farm."

The 80-MW San Joaquin Valley Customer Choice Solar Farm, which will be located near Fresno, California, will, at 640 acres, be 17 times the size of the current U.S. title-holder, the 4.6-MW Springerville Generating Station near Tucson, Arizona. It will also be approximately 7 times larger than the world's biggest existing plant and twice the size of the largest planned farm, both in Germany. "We're pretty confident that solar farms on this scale are going to have an industry-changing impact. We think it's the wave of the future. This scale of project, I think, creates a tipping point for renewable energy," said Bill Barnes, the CEO of Cleantech.

Upon completion, Barnes hopes to sell the solar-generated energy (enough to supply 21,000 homes, he claims) to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that provides power generation for 12 cities and 2 counties in the surrounding area. In addition, Cleantech announced last week that it also planned on building a 5-MW solar farm on 40 acres near Mendota, whose energy will be delivered to PG&E.

Quote from: Charleston native on April 29, 2008, 03:04:53 PM
Solar power currently would have to be used by massive solar farm building...taking up thousands of acres of land while the cells themselves are made from toxic substances. Seems to me that those alternatives can destroy wildlife as well.

Yeah, Stephen, stop being such a jerk. There is no technology to do this that is presently in existence. And even if there was it would be using the deadly poison, silicon for the PV cells. What is wrong with you anyways? And be careful, because silicon is the second most abundant element on earth, so it's everywhere, especially at the beach!!!

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 07:57:18 PM
But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

Thanks. Things are considerably less dreadful than they appear.

Who knows, maybe next we will be looking a $3.45 / gallon gasoline!

I wonder if kamikaze pilots the world over are stocking up on sake or rice? lol

No gatorback, the REAL KAMIKAZE pilots prefered a small Japanese rice ball and sweet bean paste. It was the regular issue ration for the Imperial Navy and Army flyers. By the way do you know who taught the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?

Ummm?

Gee?

Who?

The English, in their similar raid on the Italian Navy, Japan was a quick study.

Guess who was the first Kamikaze of the war?

Ummm?

Gee?

Who?

An American, flying a outdated Wildcat, he was shot to hell at Midway and aimed his crashing aircraft right onto the bridge of a Japanese Carrier. The Japanese were horrified that the bridge (control center of the ship) was knocked out, but not unlike the UK, they had only honor and respect for the BRAVE American who gave his life.

Only 3 countries in World history lay more honor on their lost battles, over their victorys.

Japan
England
The Southern USA

Just some fun depression/WWII era fun facts thought someone might enjoy. Someday we'll all meet at the shrine.in Yashakuni

Ocklawaha

QuoteThe 80-MW San Joaquin Valley Customer Choice Solar Farm, which will be located near Fresno, California, will, at 640 acres, be 17 times the size of the current U.S. title-holder, the 4.6-MW Springerville Generating Station near Tucson, Arizona. It will also be approximately 7 times larger than the world's biggest existing plant and twice the size of the largest planned farm, both in Germany. "We're pretty confident that solar farms on this scale are going to have an industry-changing impact. We think it's the wave of the future. This scale of project, I think, creates a tipping point for renewable energy," said Bill Barnes, the CEO of Cleantech.

Upon completion, Barnes hopes to sell the solar-generated energy (enough to supply 21,000 homes, he claims) to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that provides power generation for 12 cities and 2 counties in the surrounding area. In addition, Cleantech announced last week that it also planned on building a 5-MW solar farm on 40 acres near Mendota, whose energy will be delivered to PG&E.

Let's see, a 640 acre footprint to supply, hopefully, 21000 homes.  The JEA northside generating plant will supply around 250,000 homes and I'm not sure how much acreage it covers but I belive it's operating efficiency is a taaadddd bit better than the solar monstrosity.  I would also be interested in the difference in costs and rates.

QuoteGuess who was the first Kamikaze of the war?

Ummm?

Gee?

Who?

An American, flying a outdated Wildcat,

OCK, I kinda doubt he left the deck that day with with the clear intention of the Kamikazi even though he turned out being very successful at it!! :) :)

Quote from: Midway on April 29, 2008, 08:01:27 PM
Yeah, Stephen, stop being such a jerk. There is no technology to do this that is presently in existence. And even if there was it would be using the deadly poison, silicon for the PV cells. What is wrong with you anyways? And be careful, because silicon is the second most abundant element on earth, so it's everywhere, especially at the beach!!!

You do know that toxic chemicals are used to create the batteries for those solar cells? Or are you also aware of the energy expenditure that is actually used to create the PV cells from silicon, and this expenditure far outweighs the energy produced by the cells?

How much "sun-filled" land are we going to use for the solar farms? We're already complaining about the decimation of forests for suburban homes...but clearing the way for solar cells, that's better.  ::) I think jaxnative's point about CA's plan and JEA's plan says it all.

Quote from: Midway on April 29, 2008, 08:01:27 PM
Yeah, Stephen, stop being such a jerk. There is no technology to do this that is presently in existence. And even if there was it would be using the deadly poison, silicon for the PV cells. What is wrong with you anyways? And be careful, because silicon is the second most abundant element on earth, so it's everywhere, especially at the beach!!!

If this is feasible, then I say great.  Let's do it.  I am no fan of burning coal.  A few questions though:
1)  How does this compare with say coal fired plants in terms of total energy generated?
2)  How do you do this in non-desert areas?
3)  How do you transport electricity long distances without losing much of it?
4)  What are the differences in cost per kilowatt hour between coal generated power and solar generated power?
5)  Why are many environmentalists opposed to using nuclear power as it produces no CO2?

Quote from: Midway on April 29, 2008, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 07:57:18 PM
But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

Thanks. Things are considerably less dreadful than they appear.

Who knows, maybe next we will be looking a $3.45 / gallon gasoline!

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s. 

(http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png)

In fact, based on the chart, we may soon be entering a period of low gas prices.   :)

I know the low gas prices theory is popular, and in fact, I even talked about this for over 3 years; however, talk to the people who are pawning their CDs and DVDs today to pay for gas, I doubt they'll substantiate low gas price theory.  Maybe what we need are more subsidies for methonal production.  How 'bout backing a farm bill that keeps fields out of production!  Write Nancy and  demand less production.  ::)

Yes, the pictures are real and ugly.  Thanks for not showing the really bad ones.   I could post pictures like this untill the co-eds come home. lol

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) teamed with the General Land Office GLO) and private industry to develop this commercial wind power plant, the first in Texas.  The Texas Wind Power Project, located in Culberson County in West Texas, has 112 Kenetech 33M-VS wind turbines capable of generating 35 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 12,000 to 15,000 homes.  Since the ribbon-cutting for the Texas Wind Power Project in 1995, the Texas' Permanent School Fund earned more than $750.000 from it. The project is expected to earn more than $3 million for the PSF and create $300 million in increased economic activity over the 25-year lease period.  For additional information see this GLO web page.

(http://www.infinitepower.org/images/sDmwf1.jpg)
(http://www.infinitepower.org/images/hrcol2.gif)

   

Texas Renewable Energy Projects
   

This page presents information on notable renewable energy projects around the state, representing the major renewable energy technologies.

The following is a list of Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) renewable energy projects:

    * Wind Energy
    * Solar Energy
    * Biomass Energy
    * Geothermal Energy
    * Solar for Schools
    * Renewable Energy Education
    * Energy Education Outreach
    * Energy Education Curriculum
    * Alternative Fuels
    * Pollution Mitigation

Wind Power Projects

Delaware Mountain Wind Farm      A photo of wind turbines on a mesa in West Texas.

(http://www.infinitepower.org/images/swmesa.jpg)

Owner: 
   



American National Wind Power
Size:        30 MW
Location:       Culberson County, Texas
Installed:    1999

American National Wind Power is a subsidiary of National Wind Power. This wind farm is National Wind Power's (NWP) first project in Texas and is located in Culberson County, northeast of the town of Van Horn in West Texas. The ranch on which it is built is used for raising cattle and deer and is also the site of the West Texas Wind Farm Power Project, described below.  Given the right legislative environment, NWP plan  to develop it to a full potential of 250MW. The power produced by the Delaware Mountain Wind Farm is purchased by the Lower Colorado River Authority (Austin, Texas) and Reliant Energy HL&P (Houston, Texas) for distribution to their customers.

Texas Wind Power Project    
A photo of the LCRA's wind turbines in Delaware County, near Guadalupe peak.



Owner: 
   



General Land Office & Lower Colorado River Authority
Size:        35 MW
Location:       Culberson County, Texas
Installed:    1995

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) teamed with the General Land Office GLO) and private industry to develop this commercial wind power plant, the first in Texas.  The Texas Wind Power Project, located in Culberson County in West Texas, has 112 Kenetech 33M-VS wind turbines capable of generating 35 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 12,000 to 15,000 homes.  Since the ribbon-cutting for the Texas Wind Power Project in 1995, the Texas' Permanent School Fund earned more than $750.000 from it. The project is expected to earn more than $3 million for the PSF and create $300 million in increased economic activity over the 25-year lease period.  For additional information see this GLO web page.

Big Spring Wind Power Project    



Owner: 
   



TXU Electric
Operator:    York Research
Size:        34 MW and 6 MW
Location:       Big Spring, Texas
Installed:    1999


The Big Spring project was conceived and implemented by TXU Electric & Gas, a subsidiary of TXU, Dallas, Tex, and York Research Corp, New York, NY. Turbines were supplied by Vestas, Lem, Denmark (US office: North Palm Springs, Calif). Projected annual generation is 117-million kWh.  This project is part of TXU's renewable energy program, called "TU Renew". Customers in the Waco, TX area can designate what percentage of their monthly electricity use is generated by wind power.

Phase I
The first phase of the project consists of 46 Vestas wind turbines: 42 V-47 models and four V-66 models. The V-66 units are the largest wind turbines in the Western Hemisphere. They stand 371 feet tall with rotor blades of 216 feet in diameter. Annual energy production of the facility will approximate 117 million Kilowatt-hours of electric energy, enough to power 7300 homes. At their highest point, the four 1650-kW turbines reach 371 ft, taller than the Statue of Liberty.

Phase 2
The second phase includes four V-66 wind turbines generating an additional 6.6 Megawatts of power, or a net of 19.7 million Kilowatt-hours annually, enough to power 1300 homes near Waco.

The farm is located between Dallas, El Paso, Del Rio, and Amarillo, where wind resources, ranging between 14.3 and 15.7 mph, fall into the desirable wind power Class 3. Construction began in July 1998, and the first 600-kW machine was commissioned on Dec 2, 1998, the last 1650-kW machine on April 22, 1999. Rich Nerzig, facility manager, commented that commissioning and startup proceeded on schedule, although some crane erection days were lost because of high winds that made lifts impractical. 


Southwest Mesa Wind Project      
Southwest Mesa Wind Project at sunset
Photo courtesy FPL Energy

Owner: 
   

West Texas Energy Partners LP,
a subsidiary of FPL Energy
Size:        75 MW
Location:       McCamey, TX
Installed:    May 1999


This project consists of 107 Multipower 48 NEG Micon WTGs.  Located 350 miles southwest of Dallas, the Southwest Mesa Wind Energy Project sits atop a 2000 feet mesa. The local communities and local landowners welcome the project and the long term business activities it provides. During the construction of the project more than 200 jobs were provided on-site and many local subcontractors were involved. The wind farm was completed in only 4 months. American Electric Power purchases the power in a response to their customer’s demand for renewables. The wind farm generates sufficient electricity to meet the demand of more than 20,000 households.

In 2001 by resolution of the Texas legislature McCamey was declared the "Wind Energy Capital of Texas"


More information on wind power in Texas:

    * Fact sheet - Wind Power Basics
    * Fact sheet - Roping the Texas Breezes
    * Wind Power Plant Chart
    * Wind Project Data Base


Solar Power Projects

Watts On Schools
A map showing the locations of the Watts On Schools solar installations.


Watts On Schools is American Electric Power's way of bringing solar power to schools in communities throughout Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. Through Watts On Schools, AEP has installed nineteen solar energy systems totaling 76 kW at public elementary, middle, and high schools located within the service areas of three of its electric utility operating companies:

    * AEP - Central Power and Light Company
    * AEP - Southwestern Electric Power Company, and
    * AEP - West Texas Utilities Company

Each system is capable of producing enough energy each month to power a typical Texas home. Participating schools receive the energy produced by the systems for free, lowering the schools' electric bills every month. In addition, participating schools receive solar energy educational materials and conduct solar energy events on an annual basis.

(http://www.infinitepower.org/images/systemmap.jpg)

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 12:55:46 AM
Riverside, I am stepping out of my area of familiarity, but I think I can answer several of these questions.

1)  Why does this matter?  The resource doesnt have to be mined, doesnt cause blacklung, is free and infinitely renewable.

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

Quote
2)  The sun is everywhere.   While the mojave is a great place to start, its not the only place  but It is a pretty big place that multiple examples of the idea could be implemented.   Its a hell of a lot better use of the desert than simply writing it off as 'the bad lands'.  The mountains and the great plains have access to cheap land and available sunlight.

So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

Quote
3)  The Grid.  That magical grid we all hear about.   Surely it has the ability to transmit magical electrical beams across its griddiness.  It seems like we (florida) were beaming some electric waves or something out to california when their own grid started blinkering them a year or so ago.(ok I dont really know this one, and would be also very interested in knowing not only the answer to this question, but also how this mysterious but compelling "Grid" works.)

The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

Quote
4)  This answer is totally dependent on two infinitely changing variables.   1.  How long of a period does the solar equipment last before needing replaced, since the basic resource--sunlight---is free.  The cost would be the Construction of Plant, plus O&M divided by the kilowatts produced until the equipment wears out.

Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

Quote
5)These are some of the children of chernobyl.

Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

Quote from: riversidegator
The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power.

But we're doing it anyway. 

Quote from: Industy News
Texas Will Move Forward With Electric Deregulation;. 'Everything California Did was Wrong,' Lawmaker Says

    LCG, Jan. 15, 2001Problems with California's deregulated electricity market may be deterring efforts by other states to restructure their own power sectors, but not Texas', CBS Market Watch reported over the weekend.

    Texas state Sen. David Sibley, who wrote the legislation that will open the Texas retail electricity market to competition next January 1, said of California's power crisis "There's a lot of smart people out there, trying to do the right things, and everything they did was wrong."

    While California politicians and bureaucrats have been blaming out-of-state power producers for the high wholesale electricity prices that have driven the state's two major utilities to the door of bankruptcy, there is a growing awareness that the economic law of supply and demand has played a part.

    In 1995, Texas passed a wholesale electric deregulation law that has stimulated power plant construction, said Tom Baker, president of TXU Electric & Gas Co., the largest utility in the Lone Star State. But according to Baker "It's been difficult to site and locate plants in California, so there hasn't been any significant capacity added in the last 10 years."

    According to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state has added more than five times as much generating capacity as California just since 1995 and construction of nearly 14,000 megawatts of capacity has begun.

Texas kept CA from going black.  What we need is a tax!  A BTU Tax!

We've been killing kids for decades...

Quote from: human health studies
Q. What have the studies of cancer in people living near power lines found?

A. Of children ages 14 and under, in the United States, about 14 in 100,000 develop some form of cancer each year. Almost one-third of these cases are acute lymphocytic leukemia, the most common form of leukemia in children. For childood leukemia victims, chances of survival are about 60%.

To date, 14 studies have analyzed a possible association between proximity to power lines and various types of childhood cancer. Of these, eight have reported positive associations between proximity to power lines and some form(s) of cancer. Four of the 14 studies showed a statistically significant association with leukemia.

The first study to report an association between power lines and cancer was conducted in 1979 in Denver by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper. They found that children who had died from cancer were 2 to 3 times more likely to have lived within 40 m (131 ft) of a high-current power line than were the other children studied. Exposure to magnetic fields was identified as a possible factor in this finding. Magnetic fields were not measured in the homes. Instead, the researchers devised a substitute method to estimate the magnetic fields produced by the power lines. The estimate was based on the size and number of power line wires and the distance between the power lines and the home (see p. 34).

A second Denver study in 1988, and a 1991 study in Los Angeles, also found significant associations between living near high-current power lines and childhood cancer incidence. The L.A. study found an association with leukemia but did not look at all cancers The 1988 Denver study found an association with all cancer incidence. When leukemia was analyzed separately, the risk was elevated but not statistically significant. In neither of these two studies were the associations found to be statistically significant when magnetic fields were measured in the home and used in the analysis. Studies in Sweden (1992) and Mexico (1993) have found increased leukemia incidence for children living near transmission lines. A 1993 Danish study, like the 1988 Denver study, found an association for incidence of all childhood cancers but not specifically leukemia. A Finnish study found an association with central nervous system tumors in boys. Eight studies have examined risk of cancer for adults living near power lines. Of these, two found significant studies involving cancer in people living near power lines.

Please note: you must be using NCSA Mosaic 2b3 or later or Netscape 1.1 or later to view the table below.

Summary of Residential Power-Line Cancer Studies
Study   Location   Leukemia   Other Cancers
Child Cancer Studies
Wertheimer & Leeper '79   Denver   OR = 2.35*   All Cancer OR = 2.22*
Fulton et al. '80   Rhode Island   OR = 1.09   Not Studied
Tomenius '86   Sweden   OR = 0.30   CNS Tumors OR = 3.70*
Savitz et al. '88   Denver   OR = 1.54   All Cancer OR = 1.53*
Coleman et al. '89   U.K.   OR = 1.50    Not Studied
Lin & Lu '89   Taiwan   OR = 1.31   All Cancer OR = 1.30
Myers et al. '90   U.K.   OR = I .14**    All Cancer OR = 0.98
London et al. '91   Los Angeles    OR = 2.15t   Not Studied
Lowenthal et al. '91   Australia   O/E = 2.00   .
Feychting & Ahlbom '93    Sweden    OR = 3.80*    All Cancer OR = 1.30
Olsen et al. '93   Denmark   OR = 1.50   All Cancer OR = 5.60
Petridou et al. '93   Greece   OR = I .19   Not Studied
Verkasalo '93   Finland   SIR = 1.60   All Cancer SIR = 1.50,
.   .   .   CNS Tumors in Boys, SIR = 4.20*
Fajardo-Gutierrez et al. '93   Mexico   OR = 2.63*   Not Studied
Adult Cancer Studies
Wertheimer & Leeper �82   Denver   OR = 1.00   All Cancer OR = 1.28*
McDowall �86   U.K.   SMR = 143   Lung Cancer SMR = 215*
Severson et al �88   Seattle   OR = 0.80   Not Studied
Coleman et al. �89   U.K.   OR = 0.90    Not Studied
Youngson et al. �91   U.K.   Leukemia & Lymphoma OR = 1.29
Eriksson & Karlsson �92   Sweden   Not Studied   Multiple Myeloma OR = 0.94
Feychting & Ahlbom �92   Sweden   OR = 1.00   (Leukemia Subtypes OR = 1.70)
Schreiber et al. �93   The Netherlands   No Cases   All Cancer SMR = 85,
.   .   .   Hodgkins Disease SMR=469
Notes: This table is intended to summarize briefly some of the selected, often-cited results of the residential cancer studies. Consult the full papers for details (see References, p. 56).

OR = Odds Ratio. An OR of 1.00 means no increased or decreased risk.
SMR = Standardized Mortality Ratio. An SMR of 100 means no increased or decreased risk.
SIR = Standardized Incidence Ratio. An SIR of 1.00 means no increased or decreased risk.
CNS = Central nervous system.
O/E = Observed number of cases divided by the expected number of cases.
* The number is statistically significant (greater than expected by chance), p. 11.
** For nonsolid tumors, which includes leukemia and lymphomas.

Although often characterized this way, these diverse studies can't simply be "added up" to determine weight of evidence or to reach a conclusion about health effects because many types of studies are included in these lists. Also, many studies that reported no statistically significant elevations in risk did report elevated risks (above 1.00). The risks in some cases may not be reported as "significant" because of small sample sizes. For studies included as significant, some found only one or a few significant risks out of several that had been calculated. When many risks are calculated, some can be "significant" due to chance. It is also worth noting that studies which report positive associations tend to receive more publicity than do studies which find no association

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM

Quote from: Midway on April 29, 2008, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 29, 2008, 07:57:18 PM
But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

Thanks. Things are considerably less dreadful than they appear.

Who knows, maybe next we will be looking a $3.45 / gallon gasoline!

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s. 

(http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png)

In fact, based on the chart, we may soon be entering a period of low gas prices.   :)

Interesting chart.  Thanks for digging it up. 270% increase in the price of gasoline since January 20, 2001. While the official annual rate of inflation was 5-6%. Thanks, GWB.

You can spin the numbers any way you want. Gas is still 3.80/gallon, but on the other hand it IS cheaper than milk. I have heard that DARPA is working on milk powered cars.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

A coal fired power plant (or any power plant for that matter) does not create energy, it converts from another energy source to electricity. if you are going to consider the spatial efficiency of a power plant, then you should also include the infrastructure needed to obtain the fuel for that plant. But, Kwh/Sq.ft would be a meaningless rating for a power plant so there are no specs on that. The closest you can come to that is watts per sq ft for a PV cell. And besides, there's plenty of land thats not good for anything else out west. I don't think Stephen was saying that there should be solar farms everywhere, just where they make economic sense. The extension to everywhere was your contribution. In a country this big, the spatial efficiency of a power plant is a meaningless number.

By the way, the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal fired power plant is about 39%. The rest is waste heat. So about 60% of the coal burned produces no electricity, just pollution and waste heat.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

Once the phosphate runs out, put them over those strip mines. How about in the California, Arizona and Utah deserts? And to compare oil drilling with the placement of PV cells is foolishness and you know it. They are two totally different kinds of activities. Oil drilling is an active endeavour in a delicate ecosystem, and placing PV cells is a passive activity in a desert.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

Oh, really? You know those big tower looking thingys with the wires on them? Those are called electric transmission lines. In this modern age they have actually figured out how to make them work with about a 96% efficiency!

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

Solar electric farms are not appropriate everywhere, but you are trying to make the case that they are not appropriate anywhere.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

Yes nuclear power is wonderful, and it is a mature and reasonably safe technology. Just one small problem.... nobody knows what to do with the waste plutonium that the fissile reactors produce. It has a half life of 24,000 years. Thats a long time to store something safely. Look up Yucca mountain.  I am all for nuclear power, if you can devise a strategy for disposing of the spent fuel. Could you please work on that, because to date, no one else has been able to crack that nut, and being that you are so smart, I'm sure that you could figure this out during your lunch break, probably with the mere wave of your hand, just like everything else.

Sorry, your black/white views work even less well in the area of technology. Technology is a constant compromise between the desired result and the immutable realities of physics. So, if you are not able or willing to make constant compromises, you'd better keep your day job.

And sorry, Jaxnative, theres no batteries in a solar farm. and as for fuel efficiency, if you think about if for 1 second, even if coal cost 5 cents per ton, solar would still be cheaper, because the sunlight is free. And if you think that a coal fired plant costs less to build or maintain than a solar plant, you'd be totally wrong there as well.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM
Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Quote from: Lunican on April 30, 2008, 10:55:26 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM
Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Translation: The article's basic premise is wrong.

Quote from: Lunican on April 30, 2008, 10:55:26 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM
Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Unfortunately, we arent in recession now either (at least in the 1st quarter of 2008).  We are in a very slow growth period but a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  Here is the chart:

(http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SBhqida4F7I/AAAAAAAAEWs/sr1K2EZdz_Q/s400/gdp.bmp)

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: Lunican on April 30, 2008, 10:55:26 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM
Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Translation: The article's basic premise is wrong.

And so is yours.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:57:50 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: Lunican on April 30, 2008, 10:55:26 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 12:35:27 AM
Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Translation: The article's basic premise is wrong.

And so is yours.

Yeah, says you......  And only you..... An army of one.

here's another timely article fron the Riverside Gator archives:

Quote
Wilson wins landslide victory

Democrat Woodrow Wilson is elected the 28th president of the United States, with Thomas R. Marshall as vice president. In a landslide Democratic victory, Wilson won 435 electoral votes against the eight won by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and the 88 won by Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt. The presidential election was the only one in American history in which two former presidents were defeated by another candidate.

Highlights of Wilson's two terms as president included his leadership during World War I, his 14-point proposal to end the conflict, and his championing of the League of Nations--an international organization formed to prevent future armed conflict.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 02:40:50 PM
here's another timely article fron the Riverside Gator archives:

Quote
Wilson wins landslide victory

Democrat Woodrow Wilson is elected the 28th president of the United States, with Thomas R. Marshall as vice president. In a landslide Democratic victory, Wilson won 435 electoral votes against the eight won by Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and the 88 won by Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt. The presidential election was the only one in American history in which two former presidents were defeated by another candidate.

Highlights of Wilson's two terms as president included his leadership during World War I, his 14-point proposal to end the conflict, and his championing of the League of Nations--an international organization formed to prevent future armed conflict.

How nonresponsive.

Makes more sense than your postings. Not timely, but at least it's accurate. I guess it is too contemporary an article for you.

How about this one:

Breaking News: 300 Spartans’ Battle at Thermopylae

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 04:07:53 PM
Makes more sense than your postings. Not timely, but at least it's accurate. I guess it is too contemporary an article for you.

How about this one:

Breaking News: 300 Spartans’ Battle at Thermopylae

He has nothing to offer but sarcasm.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 05:10:30 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 04:07:53 PM
Makes more sense than your postings. Not timely, but at least it's accurate. I guess it is too contemporary an article for you.

How about this one:

Breaking News: 300 Spartans’ Battle at Thermopylae

He has nothing to offer but sarcasm.

And you have nothing to offer but twisted logic, political dogma, half truths, and ignorance. Sorry to s**t on your birthday cake, but as you continue with your inane and ridiculous posts, I will continue to comment on them for what they are.....regurgitated trash. You want intelligent discourse? Then put up things that make some sense instead of your recycled garbage. The intellectual level of your posts don't even rise to the status of political hack.   

And as for sarcasm, your obtuseness prevents you from distinguishing between irony, juxtaposition, humor or any other subtle device. The only way to reach you is through the use of a sledgehammer. You are capable of understanding nothing less.

You are factually inaccurate 30% of the time and downright wrong 60% of the time. The other 40% of the time you could be marginally correct. But then again, I could get better results from a coin toss.

Still have not seen any responses from you on this either, big boy:

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 04:04:54 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

A coal fired power plant (or any power plant for that matter) does not create energy, it converts from another energy source to electricity. if you are going to consider the spatial efficiency of a power plant, then you should also include the infrastructure needed to obtain the fuel for that plant. But, Kwh/Sq.ft would be a meaningless rating for a power plant so there are no specs on that. The closest you can come to that is watts per sq ft for a PV cell. And besides, there's plenty of land thats not good for anything else out west. I don't think Stephen was saying that there should be solar farms everywhere, just where they make economic sense. The extension to everywhere was your contribution. In a country this big, the spatial efficiency of a power plant is a meaningless number.

By the way, the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal fired power plant is about 39%. The rest is waste heat. So about 60% of the coal burned produces no electricity, just pollution and waste heat.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

Once the phosphate runs out, put them over those strip mines. How about in the California, Arizona and Utah deserts? And to compare oil drilling with the placement of PV cells is foolishness and you know it. They are two totally different kinds of activities. Oil drilling is an active endeavour in a delicate ecosystem, and placing PV cells is a passive activity in a desert.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

Oh, really? You know those big tower looking thingys with the wires on them? Those are called electric transmission lines. In this modern age they have actually figured out how to make them work with about a 96% efficiency!

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

Solar electric farms are not appropriate everywhere, but you are trying to make the case that they are not appropriate anywhere.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

Yes nuclear power is wonderful, and it is a mature and reasonably safe technology. Just one small problem.... nobody knows what to do with the waste plutonium that the fissile reactors produce. It has a half life of 24,000 years. Thats a long time to store something safely. Look up Yucca mountain.  I am all for nuclear power, if you can devise a strategy for disposing of the spent fuel. Could you please work on that, because to date, no one else has been able to crack that nut, and being that you are so smart, I'm sure that you could figure this out during your lunch break, probably with the mere wave of your hand, just like everything else.

Sorry, your black/white views work even less well in the area of technology. Technology is a constant compromise between the desired result and the immutable realities of physics. So, if you are not able or willing to make constant compromises, you'd better keep your day job.

And sorry, Jaxnative, theres no batteries in a solar farm. and as for fuel efficiency, if you think about if for 1 second, even if coal cost 5 cents per ton, solar would still be cheaper, because the sunlight is free. And if you think that a coal fired plant costs less to build or maintain than a solar plant, you'd be totally wrong there as well.

It is hard for the average person to understand that an "Educated' person could have such primitive and devolved views related to the sciences.

But, in my field, I have encountered an astonishingly large number of highly educated Neanderthals. At first blush, it would seem counterintuitive, but there are an amazingly large number of behaviours related to humans that are counterintuitive, but nonetheless, true.

Of course there is one eminently logical explanation for his posts: agent provocateur.

This is why I read the forum, it's colorful language from people like Stephen that keep me coming back; however, I’m not sure if language, and language alone will cause people to start stockpiling food. I wonder how much of that $600 or $1200 economic stimuls check will go to stockpiling food.

Let's see, where were we, of yeah:

QuoteThe reasons solar energy was barely mentioned as a promising alternative energy source was because it is more expensive and requires more space then virtually any alternative energy source. In the January 2008 edition of Scientific American magazine the authors of a pro solar power article envision 30,000 square miles of American Southwest covered with photovoltaic farms. In an atmosphere where natural gas pipelines takes decades to be approved and critical refineries and high power transmission line construction are held up indefinitely with never ending environmental challenges and other legal obstacles, what chance is there to cover tens of thousands of square miles of pristine desert habitat with solar farms?
It would take two nuclear reactors occupying two city blocks to power all New York City. It would take the entire state of New Jersey covered with photovoltaic arrays to provide a like amount of power. Even in the more optimal solar areas of the United States Southwest the land required is vast and virtually unimaginable that it could be converted into solar farms without fanatic environmental opposition.
Equally importantly to size is cost. Power now from even the most efficient solar energy schemes is many times the construction and operational costs of any other electrical generation method. Only through vast subsides is any solar power generation possible.
Solar power enthusiasts have promised dramatic reductions of costs for decades without realized results. What should also be kept in mind is that solar power provides energy only during the daytime. The generation method requires an elaborate and expensive infrastructure to store that energy for night time usage. In the most optimistic projections solar power will be many times the cost of virtually any other type of electrical production method.
For those that promote the solar alternative ought to do some math. Go to the sites that sell solar cell arrays and add up the cost that it would take to generate adequate power for their home. Find out what the DC to AC conversion equipment will cost. Ponder the enormous expense for batteries for night time power. Find out how long the equipment will last until it breaks or loses it capacity. What you will discover is it will cost a good fraction of the worth of your home and by a factor of five you will never pay for it with savings before it needs to be replaced.

Solar energy is limited by the per square foot energy output of the sun. With one hundred percent efficiency at the most intense part of the day a solar cell can produce slightly less then 100 watts per square foot. Unfortunately no one can produce solar cells with more then 40.7% conversion efficiency. Moreover the sun is only at peak intensity around 25% of daytime and there are many other systems drains that reduce the overall efficiency.

QuoteThe least expensive method of producing electricity is by hydroelectric plants at 2 cents a kWh. Equally efficient is power generation through nuclear fission; a nuclear power plant produces electricity at around 2 cents a kWh. This is compared with a coal-fired plant at 4 cents per kWh, Natural Gas at 8 cents per kWh, Fuel Oil at 9 cents per kWh, Wind Power for 8 cents per kWh, and solar photovoltaic at 25-160 cents per kWh.
Wind power has been much promoted by the Environmentalists. However, wind is not a constant, requires large areas for construction and is only practical in certain locations. Other forms of electrical generation are required to supplement wind power. It is doubtful that acceptance of wind generation will persist if sea and entire landscapes are covered with wind generators. At best wind power will fill a small percentage of electrical needs.
Experience in countries such as the Denmarkâ€" where 16% of the country’s total electricity needs come from wind â€" has shown that fluctuations of the wind put the electrical grid under enormous strain. In certain periods there can be as much as 30% power available differences. High winds can provide excess power, followed by insufficient generation capacity and a grid incapable of bringing new power online fast enough to respond to wind speed shifts.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/15/energy-2008-the-coming-economic-meltdown/

Sometimes the things that don't make sense are the right things to do.  Toyota  built the Prius, and Honda build the Accord Hybrid.  Both products were bad business decisions, but Toyota and Honda build it.  Not unlike the W16 Bogatti, that produced 1001 horsepower, and cost $1.1M US. The video is below.  Point is, business decisions are not always the right decisions.

http://www.youtube.com/v/VEL5ABddZ0k
[flash]http://[/flash] 

1. Jaxnative, It might help if you were to give attribution to the article you posted.

2. Thats the present technology. But, the way things work, improvements are made that advance a technology forward. For instance, in 1980, flat screen TV's DVD's hand held cell phones, Ipods, personal computers, the internet, MP3 players, flash memory, USB, CD roms, blue ray, satellite radio, white LED's, pentium 1,2,3,4 and core duo did not exist, to name a few things. The development of these things follows a principle known as "Moores Law", that is, that the complexity of technological devices develops exponentially.

3. In a world where everything remains static, your statements would be true. We would be living in caves and eating raw wilderbeast. But this world is different. There are actually people out there who have intelligence, vision and the ability to move the state of the art forward through their research and scientific understanding. These are the people you commonly would refer to as "eggheads".

4. These "eggheads" will and are addressing the issues of PV efficiency and will make forward strides in this field just as they have in other technical endeavours.

5. The current 40.7% conversion efficiency (your number?) is quite spectacular, given that the best efficeincy for a coal plant is about 42%, and enough energy from the sun reaches earth every second to meet the electricity needs of the whole planet for a year.

QuoteHow much solar energy reaches the earth?
Frequently Asked Questions - Energy
The sun’s energy reaching the earth surface is 15,000 times more than our energy demanded. In each fully sunlit hour, about 1kW of power is available to each m2 of surface.
Before reaching the earth surface, about 30% of the 177x1012 kW is reflected back to outer-space. 47% out of the 70% reaching the earth converts to heat. It keeps our earth warm. The rest absorbs by water.
In the environment, about 0.2% of the energy transforms and carries by winds and currents, while photosynthesis absorbs about 0.02%.

6. Its painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about here, so it would behoove you to do a little research and put some thought into what you are saying here so that it makes sense. For you to take a stance against this technology when you don't really know anything about it and totally discount the fact that technology is an evolutionary process is a very backward position.

7. And, BTW none of you rocket scientists have picked up the ball and run with it to come up with a proposal for disposal of that spent nuclear fuel, you know, that plutonium with the half life of 24,000 years. And while you're working on that just remember that you can't put a whole bunch of it too close together, or BOOM!


My most favorite quote:

QuoteIt would take two nuclear reactors occupying two city blocks to power all New York City.

Ha Ha Ha, yeah we could put them north of 96^th St. Nobody cares about what's North of 96^th St. They wouldn't even notice! You could disguise them as Monty Burns High School for Technology.

And if you want to solve Denmark's lack of wind problem, just send them RiversideGator.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 05:57:07 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 05:10:30 PM

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 04:07:53 PM
Makes more sense than your postings. Not timely, but at least it's accurate. I guess it is too contemporary an article for you.

How about this one:

Breaking News: 300 Spartans’ Battle at Thermopylae

He has nothing to offer but sarcasm.

And you have nothing to offer but twisted logic, political dogma, half truths, and ignorance. Sorry to s**t on your birthday cake, but as you continue with your inane and ridiculous posts, I will continue to comment on them for what they are.....regurgitated trash. You want intelligent discourse? Then put up things that make some sense instead of your recycled garbage. The intellectual level of your posts don't even rise to the status of political hack.   

And as for sarcasm, your obtuseness prevents you from distinguishing between irony, juxtaposition, humor or any other subtle device. The only way to reach you is through the use of a sledgehammer. You are capable of understanding nothing less.

You are factually inaccurate 30% of the time and downright wrong 60% of the time. The other 40% of the time you could be marginally correct. But then again, I could get better results from a coin toss.

Bile..  vitriol..  vitriol..  bile..  Ad hominem attack..

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 05:14:51 PM
what do you say to boone pickens announcement of 150 barrels upcoming River?

We are in for a radical readjustment of the economy.

Could be true.  He is certainly a knowledgeable commentator.  I do not think that such a development would result however in a "radical readjustment of the economy".

What did you think about the weather today?

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 11:52:22 PM
Bile..  vitriol..  vitriol..  bile..  Ad hominem attack..

Crybaby.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 04:04:54 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

A coal fired power plant (or any power plant for that matter) does not create energy, it converts from another energy source to electricity. if you are going to consider the spatial efficiency of a power plant, then you should also include the infrastructure needed to obtain the fuel for that plant. But, Kwh/Sq.ft would be a meaningless rating for a power plant so there are no specs on that. The closest you can come to that is watts per sq ft for a PV cell. And besides, there's plenty of land thats not good for anything else out west. I don't think Stephen was saying that there should be solar farms everywhere, just where they make economic sense. The extension to everywhere was your contribution. In a country this big, the spatial efficiency of a power plant is a meaningless number.

By the way, the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal fired power plant is about 39%. The rest is waste heat. So about 60% of the coal burned produces no electricity, just pollution and waste heat.

I never said coal fired plants are the best source of energy ever imagined.  But they are apparently the cheapest and easiest way to generate power at present or the experts at the power generating companies (they are commonly known as power generators, hence my use of the word "generate") would not be advocating their construction.  Or, do you know more than them too?

Quote

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

Once the phosphate runs out, put them over those strip mines. How about in the California, Arizona and Utah deserts? And to compare oil drilling with the placement of PV cells is foolishness and you know it. They are two totally different kinds of activities. Oil drilling is an active endeavour in a delicate ecosystem, and placing PV cells is a passive activity in a desert.

If there is a way to efficiently and cheaply do this, I am for it.  If you would drop the bitter, angry liberal routine you would have read above where I posted that I was not opposed to solar energy but was concerned that it was not feasible at present.  Get it?

Quote

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

Oh, really? You know those big tower looking thingys with the wires on them? Those are called electric transmission lines. In this modern age they have actually figured out how to make them work with about a 96% efficiency!

Ok Mr. Scientist.  Now tell us much energy is lost (as a percentage of the total originally generated) by transmitting x amount of energy from Arizona to Florida.

Quote

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

Solar electric farms are not appropriate everywhere, but you are trying to make the case that they are not appropriate anywhere.

Actually, no I wasnt. 

Quote

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:09:04 AM
Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

Yes nuclear power is wonderful, and it is a mature and reasonably safe technology. Just one small problem.... nobody knows what to do with the waste plutonium that the fissile reactors produce. It has a half life of 24,000 years. Thats a long time to store something safely. Look up Yucca mountain.  I am all for nuclear power, if you can devise a strategy for disposing of the spent fuel. Could you please work on that, because to date, no one else has been able to crack that nut, and being that you are so smart, I'm sure that you could figure this out during your lunch break, probably with the mere wave of your hand, just like everything else.

Perhaps you should look up Yucca Mountain and read a little more about it.  This was a near perfect solution to the problem of where to store spent fuel.  It was perfect that is until libs like you decided that there should be no such space for safe storage of spent fuels because their ulterior motive was to discourage nuclear power.

In addition, spent fuel can be reprocessed.  From the hated wikipedia:

QuoteNuclear energy use in the EU creates problems with disposal of nuclear waste. On average, the EU creates about 40,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste per year. Eighty percent of that is short-lived low-level radioactive waste.[5] France and the United Kingdom are currently the only EU countries that recycle its waste into new fuel. However, the reprocessing of spent fuel in the UK is being phased out but is expected to continue in France. The countries that currently use this reprocessed fuel (MOX) include Germany, Belgium, France and Switzerland.[6] Recycling spent fuel significantly decreases the amount and it produces the by-product plutonium. Although plutonium is regularly related to nuclear weapons, the plutonium created from these reprocessing facilities has too much of the isotope Pu-240, making them inefficient for nuclear weapon use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_the_European_Union

QuoteTechnology is a constant compromise between the desired result and the immutable realities of physics.

Did I ever say that this was not so?   ???

BTW, perhaps you should remind yourself of this rule when you are speaking of your pie in the sky solutions to our present problems.

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 06:10:21 PM
Still have not seen any responses from you on this either, big boy:

My response is above.  And, I am quite certain that you would not be so bold if you were not hiding behind your computer screen.   ;)

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 06:55:25 PM
It is hard for the average person to understand that an "Educated' person could have such primitive and devolved views related to the sciences.

Anyone who does not agree with you = primitive.  Interesting world view.  Well, I guess this is an effective psychological defense mechanism to convince yourself of your own imagined superiority. 

Quote
But, in my field, I have encountered an astonishingly large number of highly educated Neanderthals. At first blush, it would seem counterintuitive, but there are an amazingly large number of behaviours related to humans that are counterintuitive, but nonetheless, true.

And what is your "field" again?

Quote
Of course there is one eminently logical explanation for his posts: agent provocateur.

Yes, this is a sting operation to provoke you into acting unhinged.   :D

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 11:52:22 PM
Bile..  vitriol..  vitriol..  bile..  Ad hominem attack..

Crybaby.

More personal attacks.  This really proves your point, little fellow.   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 10:18:38 PM
Overall though, I do find River to be intelligent and insightful, and definitely the master of Devil's Advocacy.  I feel privileged to have argued with him these past two years.

I have enjoyed it also.  You can disagree without being disagreeable.  This is a lesson about which we all should be reminded.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 12:25:04 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 30, 2008, 10:18:38 PM
Overall though, I do find River to be intelligent and insightful, and definitely the master of Devil's Advocacy.  I feel privileged to have argued with him these past two years.

I have enjoyed it also.  You can disagree without being disagreeable.  This is a lesson about which we all should be reminded.

Stephen, You must either be reading a different set of posts than me, or grading him on a curve.

When did we ever discuss transmitting power from Arizona to Florida? I suppose that there's nothing in between those two points.

Your responses are a bunch of sanctimonious crap.

Why don't you reprint a few pages from Wikipedia and go out to Yucca Mountain and straighten the whole project out. To portray the myriad problems out there as being caused by liberal politicians and environmental do gooders belies your ignorance of the subject. But again, your great passion is the oversimplification of everything.

And while you're at the printer pick off a few pages about reprocessing spent fuel rods so you can take care of that too. Do you honestly think that if it were possible and feasible, they would not be doing it now? Why go through all of the trouble to build a site to store the stuff for thousands of years? Just make new reactor fuel out of it and make electricity for free forever. Put up breeder reactors all over so that we have more.

Your one line answers are not only misinformed, they are technically incorrect and dismissive. These are complex problems whose answers cannot be found in Wikipedia. You think you're a nuclear physicist because you read Wikipedia? You might as well have stayed in a Holiday Inn express, your chances would have been just as good.

And actually, if you are this ridiculous when you are not behind your little computer, consider yourself fortunate to not have met me in person. Remember, I don't push papers, I flip burgers all day long and have quite a bit of strength from that, and using riversideGator logic, since a burger is about 100 times heavier than a piece of paper, I'm probably about 100 times bigger and stronger than you. The only thing is, please don't head butt me with your giant inflated head, ok?

I think you guys need to take a break from this tread.  Do some browsing elsewhere and cool down a bit.  We're all here to learn from and interact with others interested in the same things, but the personal attacks are getting the debate nowhere.

They're not personal insults. It's just good clean American fun.

And, you won't learn anything here as long as all of the arguments are based upon misinterpretations of Wikipedia clips.

And jump out of your box, already.

Quote from: stephendare on May 01, 2008, 10:38:15 AM

Quote from: Midway on May 01, 2008, 09:53:05 AM
They're not personal insults. It's just good clean American fun.

And, you won't learn anything here as long as all of the arguments are based upon misinterpretations of Wikipedia clips.

And jump out of your box, already.

it is kind of refreshing, after 2 years of hearing anyone who disagrees that the world is flat and that CO2 is our friend, or that conservative doesnt and shouldnt mean 'fascist' being called names, harrassed and ridiculed to see the same treatment meted out in kind.

socialist, liberal, idiot, fool, moron, easily taken in, lemming, fatuous, fraud, fake, messianic complex etc, etc......   If I happen to be the one disagreeing, then because I don't use a screen name, private details from my life are then ridiculed and challenged as though switching the subject were as effective as actually winning the debate.  It has taken a fairly thick skin and iron discipline not to return the same extremely rude treatment over the years, but its nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.

Well then, I take back all the nice things I said about you, Stephen.   ;) ;D

And once again, I must reiterate,

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Now I did post this once before, and it seemed to just fly over river & company's  head. please let me know if y'all require further explanation, which I will be happy to provide.

Quote from: Midway on May 01, 2008, 09:53:05 AM
They're not personal insults. It's just good clean American fun.

And, you won't learn anything here as long as all of the arguments are based upon misinterpretations of Wikipedia clips.

And jump out of your box, already.

1) I am always ready to learn.
2) My arguments are not wikipedia based.  I mainly post links to wikipedia for your benefit.   ;)
3) You consistently have been personally obnoxious with me and anyone else with whom you disagree.  I have been guilty of some of this too.  Going forward, I will attempt to end this on my part.

OK, thats fine.

Reasonable debate is good.

But there many aspects of your postings that are specious, technically inaccurate, and / or deliberately misleading.

Now, I'm not saying that you are or are not any of those things, just that the posts are such. You are not open to correction of those posts, and usually respond by putting up pictures, or moving on to another subject, but seldom, if ever address the issues raised.

If thats the style that you wish to pursue, that's fine. I am capable of responding in kind to any style of post, and find none of it personally offensive.

But, if your wish is to have an interchange of ideas, and feel that you are sufficiently well versed in the subject to do so, I would also be interested in doing that. The key is, to be sufficiently well versed in the subject, not just to think that you are. For instance, when the Civil war came up, I did not participate, because I am not as well versed in that subject as Ock is, and had nothing to add. I recognize that fact.

On the other hand, with regard to the subjects that I do engage in, I am well versed, and can speak on the basis of real knowledge. That's my purpose here. However you should wish to respond to that is your business.

With regard to our respective identities, professions and education, I don't think that has relevance here. What has relevance is putting up items that make sense, and if they don't make sense, it does not matter if you are a lawyer of if I am a McDonald's counter person. Both of of would be just as unqualified to speak to global warming issues by virtue of our training and education or lack thereof, therefore the posts have to make scientific and logical sense. This is not Fox news. And it doesn't need to be either, because if that's what someone wants, they can turn on their TV and get a full motion version of that for free.

So, being the main catalyst and prime mover on these types of posts, the choice regarding the texture and tone of them is solely up to you. I merely respond in kind. I will always parse for factual errors and inconsistencies, and I will point them out, but the rest is up to you.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 12:37:56 PM


1) I am always ready to learn.
2) My arguments are not wikipedia based.  I mainly post links to wikipedia for your benefit.   ;)
3) I have been guilty of some of this too.  Going forward, I will attempt to end this on my part.

OK.  Great ground rules.   

Could I quote something like this and still be playing by the rules?

Quote
WASHINGTON - Soaring prices for food, gas and other everyday needs pushed consumer spending to a faster pace than expected in March.


The Commerce Department reported Thursday that consumer spending was up 0.4 percent, double the increase that economists had forecast.

Yeah, if you tell us where it came from.

Shall we break out the guitar for another stirring rendition of Kum Ba Yah?

Quote from: Charleston native on May 01, 2008, 02:34:34 PM
Shall we break out the guitar for another stirring rendition of Kum Ba Yah?

harlesto  ative, As GWB said, bri g it o !  sorry about the the typi g someo e stole the " " & " " letters from my keyboard.

Quote from: stephendare on April 25, 2008, 01:25:02 PM
more interestingly is that I am posting from the downtown library where there is in fact a copy of the oxford. 

Not to mention a listing for seperate. I will see if I can post a cellphone photo of the listing.

we still are waiting for this...  waiting...   

ps - i did take note in one of your recent posts where you actually spelled separate correctly.  i hereby deem you rehabilitated.  :)  just on that small, insignficant matter though.

Why are you bringing up something that is old and done?