How many times we have heard this topic being discussed in this election year?
The one in favor always argue: "Human life is not a commodity in capitalist market. It has a value that only the society attaches to it, So health care is something that should be VERY carefully regulated by the government "
Here is what NY Times says:
ATLANTA — A nationwide study has found that the uninsured and those covered by Medicaid are more likely than those with private insurance to receive a diagnosis of cancer in late stages, often diminishing their chances of survival.
Isn't Medicaid carefully regulated? Than why this Government run insurance is not good? or that it is as good as not insured.
Here are my 2 cent on this topic:
Health Insurance is the product that helps you pay the medical expense in case you need one. it’s the service by choice. if you do not take the service you have to pay yourself. its no different than car insurance. if you don’t take it and you need it you pay for it. not having insurance should not be excuse for not taking medical help. and Health insurance is like any other contract you make. and you get what you pay for. so you should have choice to pick the plan that suits your need.
Here is the deal: One who propose universal health care are trying to fix wrong problem. the real problem is the cost of insurance has gone high and solution to this problem is to find ways to reduce cost of health insurance and not abolish the private health care. Being Indian I know the quality of health care we receive in Government run hospitals and Private Hospitals in India. Here is how the circle goes. Government takeover some field like health care, they will not do good job at it, ultimately people ends up going to Private providers and pay them high anyway.
Solutions to real problem could be add more competition. companies will fight for quality, services and price and ultimately it will benefit the people. and that is exactly what capitalism is all about.
I came across an interesting article while reading "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Source: "The Week" Aug 22-29, 2008
Libby Purves - The Times
Face it: Britain is rationing health care, said Libby Purves. In an ideal world, the National Health Service would offer every patient every treatment invented for every illness or condition. Of course that’s impossible. The truth is we have limited health-care resources, and doctors make decisions every day on how to allocate them. Yet because they do so without any guidelines, the rationing of care is “muddled, irrational, and inconsistent.” Doctors’ groups have pleaded with successive governments to make a list of “core services” that would be available nationally, so that local health authorities could then choose which of the less-vital services—stomach stapling, say, or in vitro fertilization—they wanted to cover. But every government has avoided the topic. Who wants to be “the hardhearted monster who rules that under-50s, breadwinners, and parents of young families get formal priority with new cancer drugs, or that there is an age beyond which heart surgery is not offered?” This reluctance is understandable, but it comes at a price. Right now, certain local health trusts won’t give liver transplants to alcoholics, or knee replacements to obese people, while others will. What kind of treatment you get shouldn’t depend on where you live. “As a nation we really do have to sit down and agree on what is in the core national entitlement and what is not.”
Do you want to decides your health care needs or some one sitting in government decides if you need some health care or worse, if it's in national interest to give you open heart surgery or lever transplant? At least with private insurance, you know what you have contracted for. Choice is yours...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Oil Declines Along With the Dollar
What impression you get reading this? May be english is my second language, but it gives me impression that Dollar is going down, tell me what impression you get?
Reality:
This is the headline i got from Todays New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/business/16stox.html?ref=business
Starts like this when you read it:
The rapid rebound of the dollar has led to an across-the-board plunge in commodity prices, with gold falling to a 10-month low and oil extending a decline.
So actually Dollar price is going up... and the dollar rose against the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the yen. NY times Shame on you misleading people like this.
Reality:
This is the headline i got from Todays New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/business/16stox.html?ref=business
Starts like this when you read it:
The rapid rebound of the dollar has led to an across-the-board plunge in commodity prices, with gold falling to a 10-month low and oil extending a decline.
So actually Dollar price is going up... and the dollar rose against the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the yen. NY times Shame on you misleading people like this.
11 indicted senators so far in history. Republicans win 9:2
This is the article, some one sent to me in email published on time.com, I have tried to Analyze it
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1827969_1827972_1827968,00.html
11 indicted senators so far in the history of US senate. Republicans win 9:2 !!!!!!!!!
The misconception
First you should understand the difference between indictment and Felony. General misconception about indict-ion is that its criminal proceedings, but not very many people actually understands what it is. here is some verbiage from Wikipedia.
Indictment: In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ (in-DITE-mint)) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.
Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.
Facts in Article
In this article out of 11 - only 3 were actually proved guilty and sentenced of some nature with 2:1 republican : Democrat. But neither here or there...let us talk about ratio of indictment vs. guilty its 9:2 22% for Republican while 2:1 or say 50% for Democrat - much lower for republican.
Because anyone can go and register complain against anyone and that's indictment - its like accusation. it doesn't need any proof. What matters are is the authenticity of the complain.
In other words, in my analysis, Democrats keep spending national time and money on making scoop without any base just to make working republicans' life hell. that later after spending considerable humiliation and efforts just to prove themselves not guilty. isn't it, like what Obama supporters complains about people asking Obama to prove he is US born or if he is not Muslim. in some sense Obama is indicted for those charges and now he has to prove he is not.
Why at this time?
The trend... This article just came out, hours after just after Democrat Edward's Affair. I have many times mentioned in discussion with friends, the typical democratic strategy, the democrat trend i say, is to show others are bad too, and even use half truth to highlight how bad the other side is, when question mark comes to one of them
The counter argument
These are big politicians we are talking about, they will use their power / money / and other resources to find out way to prove they are innocent and will get acquitted (Not guilty verdict)
And since you brought this topic
Here are some other fact you all should know: Only Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and both were Democrats. We are talking Presidents now, not mear senators... Both were acquitted at trial later. - Will the counter argument hold true for them too?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1827969_1827972_1827968,00.html
11 indicted senators so far in the history of US senate. Republicans win 9:2 !!!!!!!!!
The misconception
First you should understand the difference between indictment and Felony. General misconception about indict-ion is that its criminal proceedings, but not very many people actually understands what it is. here is some verbiage from Wikipedia.
Indictment: In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: /ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ (in-DITE-mint)) is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense. In those jurisdictions which retain the concept of a felony, the serious criminal offense would be a felony; those jurisdictions which have abolished the concept of a felony often substitute instead the concept of an indictable offence, i.e. an offence which requires an indictment.
Traditionally an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause. Most common law jurisdictions (except for much of the United States) have abolished grand juries.
Facts in Article
In this article out of 11 - only 3 were actually proved guilty and sentenced of some nature with 2:1 republican : Democrat. But neither here or there...let us talk about ratio of indictment vs. guilty its 9:2 22% for Republican while 2:1 or say 50% for Democrat - much lower for republican.
Because anyone can go and register complain against anyone and that's indictment - its like accusation. it doesn't need any proof. What matters are is the authenticity of the complain.
In other words, in my analysis, Democrats keep spending national time and money on making scoop without any base just to make working republicans' life hell. that later after spending considerable humiliation and efforts just to prove themselves not guilty. isn't it, like what Obama supporters complains about people asking Obama to prove he is US born or if he is not Muslim. in some sense Obama is indicted for those charges and now he has to prove he is not.
Why at this time?
The trend... This article just came out, hours after just after Democrat Edward's Affair. I have many times mentioned in discussion with friends, the typical democratic strategy, the democrat trend i say, is to show others are bad too, and even use half truth to highlight how bad the other side is, when question mark comes to one of them
The counter argument
These are big politicians we are talking about, they will use their power / money / and other resources to find out way to prove they are innocent and will get acquitted (Not guilty verdict)
And since you brought this topic
Here are some other fact you all should know: Only Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and both were Democrats. We are talking Presidents now, not mear senators... Both were acquitted at trial later. - Will the counter argument hold true for them too?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Few creative ideas
Use Electric Cars
my personal, preferred solution would be use nuclear power. I always was thinking if we can reduce the size of Nuclear power generator so that it can fit the car. But this one is not bad either.
Use Nuclear power to generate electricity. and use electricity to run Cars.
Air Cars:
I was browsing internet and found so many material, where people are trying air to use to drive car. its practicle. we all have seen small and big power tools working with Compressed air, didnt we? Its not new technology. i am surprised why we havent have used it in car so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041209.html
The Air Car is a six passenger, multi-use commuter vehicle being developed by European firm MDI. It runs entirely on compressed air.
The vehicle may soon be available in the United States, company officials say, and they're promoting it as a viable alternative at a time of rising gas prices.
Designed for use as a family car, mini-delivery van and taxi, the Air Car has an estimated range of 124 to 186 miles (100-300 kilometers) on a charge of compressed air. It has a top speed of 68 mph (110k/hr). Recharging the tank takes about 4 hours.
The Air Car's built-in compressor can be powered by any electricity source. It's builders tout the fact that one need not worry about battery life. The expansion of air drives the engine's pistons.
my personal, preferred solution would be use nuclear power. I always was thinking if we can reduce the size of Nuclear power generator so that it can fit the car. But this one is not bad either.
Use Nuclear power to generate electricity. and use electricity to run Cars.
Air Cars:
I was browsing internet and found so many material, where people are trying air to use to drive car. its practicle. we all have seen small and big power tools working with Compressed air, didnt we? Its not new technology. i am surprised why we havent have used it in car so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041209.html
The Air Car is a six passenger, multi-use commuter vehicle being developed by European firm MDI. It runs entirely on compressed air.
The vehicle may soon be available in the United States, company officials say, and they're promoting it as a viable alternative at a time of rising gas prices.
Designed for use as a family car, mini-delivery van and taxi, the Air Car has an estimated range of 124 to 186 miles (100-300 kilometers) on a charge of compressed air. It has a top speed of 68 mph (110k/hr). Recharging the tank takes about 4 hours.
The Air Car's built-in compressor can be powered by any electricity source. It's builders tout the fact that one need not worry about battery life. The expansion of air drives the engine's pistons.
Solution for Energy Crisis
You know what is the biggest problem of being programmer - programmers, always underestimate time it takes to program something. and I have faced that over and over from my own experience.
Same is true for scientists, they are so enthusiastic about new R&D, they forgot the basic fact that its Research and it has very high risk associated for failure, or going over budget in terms of time and money
We all know what are the problems associated with Ethanol, Wind or solar power. And as I have mentioned in my previous post, "it would be a positive development and great for the US economy, it would open up some wonderful strategic opportunities if we chose to exercise them...and the fact remains that oil is not in infinite supply, and that's something we had better begin thinking about."
I see us as being in a transitional period here when it comes to energy, and what's really needed is a solution that gets us from where we are now to the point where new energy technology is both feasible and practical and able to be implemented.
The answer, surprisingly, is not some new techno-whiz miracle. Instead, it involves using proven technology and resources we already have.
During WWII, Adolf Hitler and the German military had a major problem: the British Navy had essentially cut off most of Germany's traditional sources of oil and gasoline, and Germany's military and industry were in danger of running dry. What Hitler did was to put his scientists to work on the idea of synthetic oil...and they came through for Der Fuhrer, using a resource Germany had available in the Ruhr, in the Saar and in Silesia, among other places - coal. The Germans perfected the technology of the gasification of coal and kept the Nazis in the war. And that technology still exists today.
Here in the US, we could be said to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, with an estimated 400-600 years worth of supply. And in fact, the US actually created something called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation back in 1980 to refine and streamline this gasification process after the original OPEC oil embargo, and it made significant progress until around 1986. What happened then is that oil prices tanked and made synthetic oil uneconomical to pursue, because it costs around $50 a barrel to manufacture. When oil was at $16 a barrel, it made no sense to continue to produce our own synthetic fuel. Now, with prices Above $100 per barrel, it does...especially in light of what some of the profits from imported oil sales are being used for, and by whom. The problem Associated is smaller compare to other technologies, how to make Coal Green.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
And it also makes sense to start actually building refineries again, something that hasn't been done in the US for over twenty years. Anyone involved with the energy biz who's actually being honest with you will tell you that the bottleneck that causes shortages and price rises mostly occurs at the refining end of things.
Nor is coal the only arrow in our energy independence quiver.
There are millions of potential barrels of shale oil just sitting in the Rockies in the western United States, another potential bonanza for the US economy using already tried and tested technology. There's also nuclear power, something the Europeans and the Japanese embraced after the Arabs turned off the spigot in the 1970's.
Add this to ramping up our domestic production and some basic conservation measures and and the US could achieve energy independence in a remarkably short space of time.. certainly within one four-year presidential term. That would buy us the time we need, and then some to develop the new energy technologies for the future. Not to mention a slew of high paid US jobs, a boost for our economy, more oil to sell to other countries and strategic leverage in certain areas where we need it.
So....why haven't we done this? Nothing I'm pointing out here is exactly a deep, dark secret.
The answer, I think, lies in what I like to refer to as the Arab Oil Producers Government Pension Augmentation Plan, where Presidential libraries, honorariums, consulting fees, retainers, investments in certain financial instruments and foundations get paid out by certain cash flush oil producing nations.
Another part of the puzzle lies in the fact that government in general loves the status quo, because higher gas prices mean higher tax revenues. In some States / counties, the state and the feds garner about sixty cents plus per gallon in taxes - the higher the price, the more they make. State is charging up to 64 cents per gallon, on top of 18.4 cent federal tax which makes almost 80 + cents a gallon
Tax Source: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
But the price for continuing this scam is getter larger by the minute, in blood as well as money. The US can indeed achieve energy independence if we want to, and these are the way to get it in a relatively short time. And the sooner we hold our politicians' feet to the fire to make it happen, the better off we'll be.
I don’t care if Obama does it or McCain - but these are my thoughts on it
Same is true for scientists, they are so enthusiastic about new R&D, they forgot the basic fact that its Research and it has very high risk associated for failure, or going over budget in terms of time and money
We all know what are the problems associated with Ethanol, Wind or solar power. And as I have mentioned in my previous post, "it would be a positive development and great for the US economy, it would open up some wonderful strategic opportunities if we chose to exercise them...and the fact remains that oil is not in infinite supply, and that's something we had better begin thinking about."
I see us as being in a transitional period here when it comes to energy, and what's really needed is a solution that gets us from where we are now to the point where new energy technology is both feasible and practical and able to be implemented.
The answer, surprisingly, is not some new techno-whiz miracle. Instead, it involves using proven technology and resources we already have.
During WWII, Adolf Hitler and the German military had a major problem: the British Navy had essentially cut off most of Germany's traditional sources of oil and gasoline, and Germany's military and industry were in danger of running dry. What Hitler did was to put his scientists to work on the idea of synthetic oil...and they came through for Der Fuhrer, using a resource Germany had available in the Ruhr, in the Saar and in Silesia, among other places - coal. The Germans perfected the technology of the gasification of coal and kept the Nazis in the war. And that technology still exists today.
Here in the US, we could be said to be the Saudi Arabia of coal, with an estimated 400-600 years worth of supply. And in fact, the US actually created something called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation back in 1980 to refine and streamline this gasification process after the original OPEC oil embargo, and it made significant progress until around 1986. What happened then is that oil prices tanked and made synthetic oil uneconomical to pursue, because it costs around $50 a barrel to manufacture. When oil was at $16 a barrel, it made no sense to continue to produce our own synthetic fuel. Now, with prices Above $100 per barrel, it does...especially in light of what some of the profits from imported oil sales are being used for, and by whom. The problem Associated is smaller compare to other technologies, how to make Coal Green.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-02/turning-black-coal-green
And it also makes sense to start actually building refineries again, something that hasn't been done in the US for over twenty years. Anyone involved with the energy biz who's actually being honest with you will tell you that the bottleneck that causes shortages and price rises mostly occurs at the refining end of things.
Nor is coal the only arrow in our energy independence quiver.
There are millions of potential barrels of shale oil just sitting in the Rockies in the western United States, another potential bonanza for the US economy using already tried and tested technology. There's also nuclear power, something the Europeans and the Japanese embraced after the Arabs turned off the spigot in the 1970's.
Add this to ramping up our domestic production and some basic conservation measures and and the US could achieve energy independence in a remarkably short space of time.. certainly within one four-year presidential term. That would buy us the time we need, and then some to develop the new energy technologies for the future. Not to mention a slew of high paid US jobs, a boost for our economy, more oil to sell to other countries and strategic leverage in certain areas where we need it.
So....why haven't we done this? Nothing I'm pointing out here is exactly a deep, dark secret.
The answer, I think, lies in what I like to refer to as the Arab Oil Producers Government Pension Augmentation Plan, where Presidential libraries, honorariums, consulting fees, retainers, investments in certain financial instruments and foundations get paid out by certain cash flush oil producing nations.
Another part of the puzzle lies in the fact that government in general loves the status quo, because higher gas prices mean higher tax revenues. In some States / counties, the state and the feds garner about sixty cents plus per gallon in taxes - the higher the price, the more they make. State is charging up to 64 cents per gallon, on top of 18.4 cent federal tax which makes almost 80 + cents a gallon
Tax Source: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
But the price for continuing this scam is getter larger by the minute, in blood as well as money. The US can indeed achieve energy independence if we want to, and these are the way to get it in a relatively short time. And the sooner we hold our politicians' feet to the fire to make it happen, the better off we'll be.
I don’t care if Obama does it or McCain - but these are my thoughts on it
Monday, July 14, 2008
And Big news about Small addition to the Family
i almost forgot to give news regarding the newest addition to my family. we had our second child, "Arth" on May 21. He is cute (Right.....) so in my family now we have one American National (By Birth). Now America has become official part of my Family.
I am writing this in positive sense. I am no language professor, so please do not take it otherwise :0)
Like Michelle Obama - “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country"
Here is the link for some photos, if you are interested: http://picasaweb.google.com/KintuShah/ArthKShah
from where i came (India / Gujarat), in our community we are taught - "Fare Te Chare - Bandhyo Bhughe Mare" - Rough translation - in order to feed your self - you need to go away from Family place. if you are stuck to same place - you may have to sleep houngry. For years / centuries, people from my community goes abroad on business and make that land as mother land. Africa, America, Germany, Britan. you will find indian population especially Gujaratis.
:0) this remind me one more saying - "Jya na Pahoche Ravi, Tya Pahoche Kavi. Ane Jya na Pahoche Ravi, Tya Pahoche Gujarati" - Rough translation, Poets can Reach places with his imagination where Sun can not reach, but you will Find Gujarati's (People from State of Gujarat, India) in places even Poet can not reach :0)
Any way this was side talk - talk to you guys later
I am writing this in positive sense. I am no language professor, so please do not take it otherwise :0)
Like Michelle Obama - “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country"
Here is the link for some photos, if you are interested: http://picasaweb.google.com/KintuShah/ArthKShah
from where i came (India / Gujarat), in our community we are taught - "Fare Te Chare - Bandhyo Bhughe Mare" - Rough translation - in order to feed your self - you need to go away from Family place. if you are stuck to same place - you may have to sleep houngry. For years / centuries, people from my community goes abroad on business and make that land as mother land. Africa, America, Germany, Britan. you will find indian population especially Gujaratis.
:0) this remind me one more saying - "Jya na Pahoche Ravi, Tya Pahoche Kavi. Ane Jya na Pahoche Ravi, Tya Pahoche Gujarati" - Rough translation, Poets can Reach places with his imagination where Sun can not reach, but you will Find Gujarati's (People from State of Gujarat, India) in places even Poet can not reach :0)
Any way this was side talk - talk to you guys later
Stand on Energy Policy
Here was the question killing me - what should be done to control the high rising gas pricing
here is from BarakObama.com
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
I hate to say but this guy has no clue what pinch we are having on pocket filling the tank of Gas. May be because we are not earning 1.67 Million USD a year. - if we are than probably i dont mind paying $80 instead of near $43 a year ago.
Source of Obamas' income:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060926obamareturn-story,0,736232.story
Look at his policy: Next Generation Bio fuel, Set America on Path of oil independence, Improve efficiency by 2030
the closest idea in his plan is 2013 - after 5 year. Its just me or any one else also see this - whats in his suggestion is all vaporware - Something in 2013, soimething in 2020, something in 2023, something in 2030. So there is nothing he can do in his period of presidency - if he become one - he has no results he would need to show. What ever he is suggesting is all are experimental technology. nothing concrete. nothing proven.
I do not think i want this guy running this country. Do you?
Let us see JohnMcCain.com.
Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production - no new technology, Nuclear technology - no new technology. along with long term plan of all experimental technologies.
It does make sense, isnt it? if you have to solve some problem. Do what you already know first, and give resource in the area you need to experiment. isnt this common sense.
When OBAMA says that embracing ethanol as a substitute for gasoline ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth and America's oil dependence, makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term. He conveniently does not tell the following:
here is from BarakObama.com
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
I hate to say but this guy has no clue what pinch we are having on pocket filling the tank of Gas. May be because we are not earning 1.67 Million USD a year. - if we are than probably i dont mind paying $80 instead of near $43 a year ago.
Source of Obamas' income:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060926obamareturn-story,0,736232.story
Look at his policy: Next Generation Bio fuel, Set America on Path of oil independence, Improve efficiency by 2030
the closest idea in his plan is 2013 - after 5 year. Its just me or any one else also see this - whats in his suggestion is all vaporware - Something in 2013, soimething in 2020, something in 2023, something in 2030. So there is nothing he can do in his period of presidency - if he become one - he has no results he would need to show. What ever he is suggesting is all are experimental technology. nothing concrete. nothing proven.
I do not think i want this guy running this country. Do you?
Let us see JohnMcCain.com.
Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production - no new technology, Nuclear technology - no new technology. along with long term plan of all experimental technologies.
It does make sense, isnt it? if you have to solve some problem. Do what you already know first, and give resource in the area you need to experiment. isnt this common sense.
When OBAMA says that embracing ethanol as a substitute for gasoline ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth and America's oil dependence, makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term. He conveniently does not tell the following:
- In the US, most of our ethanol comes from corn, and frankly it's a political football rather than a solution. According to some estimates, it may take as much as 11 acres of farmland to produce enough ethanol to power a car for one year
- Even worse, to harvest all that corn and manufacture the ethanol, you need to use - you guessed it, oil, electricity (including fertilizer, much of which is petroleum based) and gasoline. Right now,it costs 1.29 gallons of gas to manufacture a gallon of ethanol...and that's not factoring in any of the other costs!
- The biggest funders of jihad worldwide are the Saudis, the UAE and Iran. And guess what...out of these three, only one of them, Saudi Arabia, exports a significant amount of oil to the US, roughly 12% of our total imports. As a matter of fact, the US gets 74% of it's oil imports from countries outside the Middle East, with Canada, Mexico, Ecuador, Columbia and Nigeria accounting for over 50% of our total imports.
- If US suddenly stopped buying Middle East oil, they would still sell it to India, China or someone else, and Islamism is still going to get funded. In any case, the Saudis and the UAE learned from the oil boom/bust of the 1970's; oil is no longer their whole economic basis, and those petro-billions have been invested in financial instruments and infrastructure around the globe.
- People argue if Brazil can do it why US Can't? Answer is simple, Brazil managed to achieve energy independence using ethanol made out of cane sugar, but that was largely successful because can sugar has a higher ethanol output than corn, and because Brazil's energy needs as compared to the US are simply not in the same ballpark. The two countries may be somewhat similar in physical size but the level of population, development, infrastructure and cars on the road couldn't be more different.
Nevertheless, it would be a positive development and great for the US economy, it would open up some wonderful strategic opportunities if we chose to exercise them...and the fact remains that oil is not in infinite supply, and that's something we had better begin thinking about.
Its long time i had written on this blog. I wrote a long one to componsate - and there is more still to come. May be next time i will write, what i think is best policy, instead of finding problems in others
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
