Originally posted by Borbarad
[B]And...after some days of absense...Since when do people make rational decissions? Especially when talking about economics. If that was the case, advertizing would be utterly useless and people actually wouldn't try to get their money out of banks suffering under the financial crisis, dealing the death blow to that banks themselves. Obviously, people are anything but - usually - not "rational".
Easy answer. The way people think is coined by their enviroment, which is in turn, mainly coined by certain moral values. And those moral values are coined by a certain set of rules, based on either philosophy, religion or ideology. In any case, philosophy - if studied correctly - helps you to understand the foundation of thoughts that people can (and will) develop. And American people can differ in that quite a lot from Europeans or Asians (or Christians from Muslims...and so on).
That aside: During my last three years in school, I "enjoyed" 3 hours of business administration, 2 hours of economics, 2 hours of management accounting and 2 hours of commercial law per week. So, urm...not that much of a surprise that I'm not totally clueless when it comes down to economic issues.
And why do people by cheap products? Right. Because they can't afford expensive products. What happens in the crisis now? The people that could afford expensive products before the crisis, will most likely still be able to do so - why the people that were "forced" to buy the cheap stuff might not have enough money any longer to afford that stuff any longer. And because of that, I think that China will be suffering far worse than Germany.
That aside: Yes. Employees in Germany are paid much more than in China. Result? Our domestic demand actually remained the same when the crisis started. As far as I know, there was nearly no change in the domestic demand until now, while exports were just three percent lower than before the start of the crisis.
This is the most recent graph I could find and it's what I was basically saying. Germany is having to cut down on its exports because less and less people are buying, and their real(not inflated) gdp is going down, while the unemployment is still rising.
I'm not really sure that it's dropping or if the same problems of reporting statistics here are also occurring there.
^That is what you should be worrying about. Low consumer confidence=nobody buying expensive products=more layoffs=recession and economic contraction.
Here, you have to look at actual politics. Obama wants to reduce CO2 emissions in the USA, and the same was enacted by all the member states of the EU. What do you need to archive this call? Either technology to use alternative energies, or technology to reduce the emissions while using fossil energy sources. And...who produces that stuff? Right...Germany. So the investments in that field will be made - and they will be huge.
Nope. We're working with a far higher efficiency over here. We're known for that. The few companies who did produce to much did set their workers on a time-work shedule. So the workers get less money. The nice thing is that the state compensates a lot of the money that those people earn less now - for at least 18 months. Thus the people can keep their jobs, while the companies aren't "forced" to produce too much.
And as I said: The domestic demand over here almost staid the same, while the exports just dropped by three percent. I'm rather sure that's not enough to fill too many warehouses with stuff that is now produced and not sold any more.
Both German exports and imports keep falling. This is bad.
I doubt that because I believe alternative energy will be nothing but the next bubble, and natural gas as well as peak oil will be in huge demand for decades to come, even centuries. I have long term investments in both and they're paying off thus far.
jawdrop
Do you know what the words you are using mean? Peak Oil is an event. It cannot be "in huge demand."
Also: I'm sure that someone had long term investments in Zephyrs and they paid off great! Until someone invented the airplane/Automobile. (Shanghai Knights reference?) The point is that we can't use past performance to predict how things will work *after* a paradigm shift.
Also x2: Alternative Energy *can't* be the next bubble. A). Because it has yet to become profitable/viable (lol solar photovoltaic cells) ((less lol @ solar collectors, but still...)) B). Because if it ends/bursts and emissions go unchecked we won't be worried about bubbles much longer- drastic climate change will be a bigger problem.
Red Nemesis is like the knew Radu (I miss that guy ❌ ). He knows stuff.
Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
link, nebaris?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdxRmcgsKDQ
This one also features the Bocelli and the ice skating is just... beautiful.
It occurs to me that Sunday is almost over. DS has less than two hours now to rebut my total domination of his interpretation of the Bible Torah. In less than two hours I will have won (by his own admission) the argument and proved that his interpretation of Genesis flies in the face of established facts and is, inherently, anti-rational.
Edit: oh and Neb? The Quark is an indivisible unit of mass (energy). I think. I asked a theoretical physicist (yay nerd camp) and he said the answer was way simplified (and that they aren't quite sure yet) but yes.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
jawdropDo you know what the words you are using mean? Peak Oil is an event. It cannot be "in huge demand."
Also: I'm sure that someone had long term investments in Zephyrs and they paid off great! Until someone invented the airplane/Automobile. (Shanghai Knights reference?) The point is that we can't use past performance to predict how things will work *after* a paradigm shift.
Also x2: Alternative Energy *can't* be the next bubble. A). Because it has yet to become profitable/viable (lol solar photovoltaic cells) ((less lol @ solar collectors, but still...)) B). Because if it ends/bursts and emissions go unchecked we won't be worried about bubbles much longer- drastic climate change will be a bigger problem. [/B]
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[B]It occurs to me that Sunday is almost over. DS has less than two hours now to rebut my total domination of his interpretation of theBibleTorah. In less than two hours I will have won (by his own admission) the argument and proved that his interpretation of Genesis flies in the face of established facts and is, inherently, anti-rational.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Errr I meant to say crude oil, we are in "peak oil" in my opinion, or are seriously getting there. I know 100% what it means, my mistake.
Sorry for the Wikipedia entry
In mid-2006, the National Energy Board of Canada estimated the operating cost of a new mining operation in the Athabasca oil sands to be C$9 to C$12 per barrel, while the cost of an in-situ SAGD operation (using dual horizontal wells) would be C$10 to C$14 per barrel.[62] This compares to operating costs for conventional oil wells which can range from less than one dollar per barrel in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to over six in the United States and Canada's conventional oil reserves.The capital cost of the equipment required to mine the sands and haul it to processing is a major consideration in starting production. The NEB estimates that capital costs raise the total cost of production to C$18 to C$20 per barrel for a new mining operation and C$18 to C$22 per barrel for a SAGD operation. This does not include the cost of upgrading the crude bitumen to synthetic crude oil, which makes the final costs C$36 to C$40 per barrel for a new mining operation.
That's how desperate they're getting.
Actually, we can. Not that we necessarily need to. For instance, most of my investments are in gold. It's the most sound and reliable money over thousands of years, and it shares an inverse relationship with the dollar. I made a considerable profit when I was buying at $350 an ounce, to where it is now at $950 an ounce(about $15,000 profit).
What does this have to do with anything? It CAN be the next bubble because it MIGHT be sustainable for a few years until it reaches its maximum optimization, and goes downhill. Oil will always be there, however.
Oil will not always be there. Hence: Peak oil. Anyway, Global warming will put an increasing pressure on oil, possibly sustaining the 'bubble' long enough to the point where oil wouldn't be used to fill in the gaps when interest wanes. Oil is on the way out.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Not really, I've just been lazy with the research. You'll just end up proving that you researched these things more thoroughly than me, not that you actually debunked anything. It's been less and less of a priority for me when I realized the nonsense of trying to disprove religion.
I still won. At this point that's all that matters; I'm not sure I could tell you the specifics of my argument without looking them up.
Originally posted by Red NemesisSo then we're ok. That you're counting a resource already becoming scarce (look at the Oil Sands are being mined (and expanded) should illustrate just how far supply is falling; especially if you look at this:
That's how desperate they're getting.
Gold hasn't had a paradigm shift. Liek, at all. I'm saying crude will become next to worthless (as well as rare)- all its uses will have been adapted into the new source.
Oil will not always be there. Hence: Peak oil. Anyway, Global warming will put an increasing pressure on oil, possibly sustaining the 'bubble' long enough to the point where oil wouldn't be used to fill in the gaps when interest wanes. Oil is on the way out. [/B]
When I say "always be there", I mean oil is not a bubble, nor will it ever be. It's a precious commodity that will keep on rising, with both cost push and demand pull inflation.
Global warming lobbyists are in for a surprise seeing as how big oil companies and their partners run this planet(technically). Oil will never be on its way out.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I still won. At this point that's all that matters; I'm not sure I could tell you the specifics of my argument without looking them up.
Yea, you did more research than me so I give you credit for that. But I think it's foolish for me to convince an atheist/secularist, just as its foolish for an atheist/secularist to do the same to a religious person.