05-25-11, 08:46 PM #21
Guess who got the plums, perhaps by over bidding - that's right: China. I am not sure, but think the US is basically shut out. Definitely China got the main producing field near the gulf which is exporting at post invasion rate again. Perhaps the US has some fields up in what will become Kurdistan.
I also watched Schiff's video attacking them for Pump and Dump on that early prospecting only gold company (MCO?). I agree NIA distorted the facts after first telling the truth in their promotion of it. Schiff's did not claim they had to sold any shares to the pumped up suckers. In fact NIA has denied they even own any shares and thus could not dump any. If that claim is false, others (brokers etc., perhaps even the SEC) would know if they did first own and then sell some, so I am inclined to side with NIA on this one.
I don't know why they are fighting - both are singing the same tune - one I know the words to well, as I was singing it here in posts years before either of them were. And neither of them has had the guts to call a date by which the dollar will collapse, as I did more than four years ago (< Halloween 2014)
Last edited by Billy T; 05-25-11 at 08:54 PM.
05-25-11, 09:22 PM #22
05-26-11, 08:02 AM #23
Before Bush's invasion (promoted by Cheney) France's Total had essentially exclusive access to the oil of Iraq. The French had strong general economic ties to Iraq. For example they built all Iraq's telephone system and much of its electric power generation. This of course explains why France was so opposed to the US invasion, and the US anger at the "French cowards." Do you recall the well publicize demonstration of about a dozen people pouring French wine into NYC street gutters? - I saw that staged show on CNN (or BBC?) TV even here in Brazil. I suspect the wine alone costs more than $1000 as they used real French wine, not just bottles filled with red dye water. – Surely a minor cost to the tax payers. Funds probably came from the CIA's petty cash budget as that would hide the true source, even from Congressmen.
After the war, no French company was allowed to even bid on reconstruction contracts. This caused the Baghdad telephone system to be completely non-functional for two years and not fully functional for more than four as there were no repair parts in the US which were compatible with the French designed telephone exchanges. Repair of the mainly French electric power system was easier and quicker as there were US made generators and controls that could substitute for that technologically simpler system, but I think even now there are some "rolling blackouts" in parts of Baghdad (the districts where the poor live, no doubt)
SUMMARY: Oil is fungible so makes little difference to a country's population which country supplies it. I think the US gets very little from the Gulf States (the Mid East) but, which country gets to collect taxes on the oil companies extracting it does make a difference.
Thus, France lost a lot of income when Total was thrown out of Iraq. Cheney was not much interested in the oil itself, when encouraging GWB to go to war, on any convenient or fabricated excuse. He wanted to throw the Russian oilfield supply companies thrown out of Iraq but of course welcome the increase in US tax collections.
From Cheney’s (and Halliburton’s) POV, the Iraq war was a great success. US got more taxes and Halliburton got (without need to bid) all the oil field maintaince contracts, at least for several years. From US taxpayer's POV and the mothers of the killed (both US and Iraqi) the Iraq war was (and still is for the US taxpayers via the debt) a disaster. IMHO, the only national "winners" are Iran and possibly the Kurds, if they get their longed for Kurdistan.
Last edited by Billy T; 05-26-11 at 08:46 AM.
05-26-11, 09:30 AM #24
maybe the international companies in some countries that get all the money profits and etc... to it's original country and the company, while the host country don't gain anything but reducing unemployement? like in brasil, brasil is becoming the world feeder, with a very big agirucultural production, wich is controlled by international companies, that also gain controll on agriculutre, and get rid of the old one, that is used to feed the people of brasil, while the international countries, produce, to sell and export, while the farmers and poor brasilians, get no benefits from itn also the profits of the company, all go to the company, and it's original country, and the other stuff like paying for the goverment for the land, and taxes, wich is nothing infront of it's profits
anyway, the western countries, the developed one, the economy is good, for them, and good to keep the poor countries, poor, and even more poor
western countries give loans to poor countries, that poor countries, use that money to build the infrastucture and etc... and will pay that money, for the international and foreign companies, to build for them, the company get the profits, and the money go back to it's country and the company and etc.. while that poor country, will keep paying back that money to the country that it got money from
like in u.a.e. saudi arabia qatar and etc... the countries that don't have their own oil companies, the oil companies, take a big percentage of the profets, and the rest of it, go to the country, wich most of it, it stolen by the governors and etc... that waste them on building, just to say "hey! we are good! look look what we built for you!" and the rest of investements, are again, the international companies, so the international companies, controll all, and the only side that gets the real benefits, are the mother countries of those international companies
loans and international companies, are a second way to controll a country economicly, so, politicly, and such...
05-26-11, 10:19 AM #25
Not sure I followed your post, much of it seems ill-informed, at least wrt Brazil.
Most oil producing countries do have their own oil companies (and this is part of the reason why their oil production has fallen - funds needed for production maintaince are often used for social purposes - Mexico is an extreme example of this.) Brazil's national oil company, PetroBras, does have stock but is more than 50% owned by the government. It is somewhat an exception to the problem just cited as is Norway's Statoil. BTW, just yesterday they announced their intention to more closely associate in some form of partnership for the development of Brazil's new and very large "Pre-Salt" deep-water oil field.
Your view of the benefits the population of Brazil is getting is entirely wrong (if I understood your post). Mainly because of the huge and very effective "Bolsa Famila" program, which lifted many millions out of poverty in last 8 or so years. Read some detail on this program at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=15
The world health organization, and many others, have held "Bolsa Famila" up as a model for all underdeveloped countries to follow. Basically it gives modest sums of monthly cash to poor families IF they keep their kids in school until age 18 and get their free vaccinations. Prior to it, the children of most poor (living in rural areas) dropped out of school at approximately age 10 to work in the fields beside their father or to help their mother, when they could read, not well, and do addition and some multiplication in math.
Now they are more valuable by staying in schools and then getting a job in the city when they graduate. They are now buying refrigerators, motor cycles, washing machines, etc. and ceasing to cook on wood fired stoves and use horse for transportation, etc. and are now paying taxes on their city salaries. Program has already basically paid for itself as these aided people are now part of the cash economy buying things with the multiplier effect of their purchases aiding merchants in small towns to pay more taxes too.
There are some associated problems: One is their demands are forcing real interest rates to be the highest in the world to control inflation. Socially it is a problem too, as many young men still stay on the family farm or work in the local town. Girls however tend to get better jobs in the major cities. About a month ago my paper had story on one rural area where there were more than 250 un-married young men and only one un-married girl still living in the area. My paper had a photo of her. - She is nice looking and perhaps smarter than her friends now living in the big city where women are a surplus.
Last edited by Billy T; 05-26-11 at 10:51 AM.
05-26-11, 10:31 AM #26
05-26-11, 11:16 AM #27
As far as your concern about energy consumption – yes Brazil is struggleing to keep up with the growing demand for electric power, but has the world’s largest hydo-electric production dam (and currently is building what will be No. 3. China has No.2) About 80% of Brazil’s electric power now comes from hydro sources!
As far as CO2 polution, neither industry or cars make much (Many cars use sugar cane alcohol, which is CO2 negative due to leaves and roots left in the field and carbon in fuel storage and car's tanks.) However, Brazil does have the world’s largest cattle herd – their belches is the main CO2 source in Brazil!
I might explain why mortgage debt is so low in Brazil: Many live in high rise apartments* (I do on 14th floor of typical 22 floor building). They start paying monthly to buy their unit before, typically more than a year before, the builder first turns a shovel full of dirt. This gives the builder the funds with which to build (as bank interest rates would kill the project). By the time they get the keys to unit buyer usually has ~40% paid, so they continue to pay until the builder transfers ownership. - There never was any mortgage, not for the buyer or the builder. The main waste is the model unit built on the site for sales purposes, which may be built several years before construction - it is simply torn down when most units, not yet existing, are sold. I think it is a small waste -probably the sinks, toilets etc. never were functional. They and the stove, refrigerator etc. get installed in one of the last real units or used in another projects model. All the builders are big corporations - they rarely go bankrupt, but when they do this finance system is a big legal mess. No little guy can start up in competition (real risk he may go bankrupt) - the big guys like that.
*Clusters of buildings with the complex's entrance controlled and often a central private park with fountains, many trees, etc. (I run in ours most eves for exercise.) This is a much more energy efficient life style than the US suburban sprawl and makes for efficient public transport too. I don't own a car any more and because I am over 60, buses and metro are free to me.
Last edited by Billy T; 05-26-11 at 01:24 PM.
05-26-11, 11:24 AM #28
How many people do you think will watch a THREE AND A HALF HOUR film because you said to? BT states: I would remove this but that won't save space.
Last edited by Billy T; 05-26-11 at 11:53 AM.
05-26-11, 01:52 PM #29
More on last part of post 21 (NIA vs P. Schiff & pump & dump):
Today NIA's Email states:
"NIA has NOT been paid by MGP or any third-parties for our coverage of the company and we do NOT own any shares of MGP. NIA is in no way benefiting financially for suggesting MGP. We are only suggesting the company to help our members learn about a stock that we believe could become one of our biggest long-term gold winners in history. Anybody who says anything otherwise is lying because they are jealous of NIA's success."
But while that may be true, it does not rule out a possible large position with big losses held by one of NIA's financial backers, who despirately wants to get out of, after a little pumping up of the prices by NIA.
05-26-11, 03:28 PM #30
05-26-11, 03:33 PM #31
05-26-11, 05:33 PM #32
"... Iraqi oil fields currently produce 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Core Labs has 11 new projects in Iraq, and expects its technology can help Iraq surpass its peak pre-invasion output of 3.6 million barrels of oil per day. ..." From: http://www.moneyshow.com/investing/a...p052611&page=2
2.5/3.6 = 69%
06-17-11, 01:40 PM #33
"... IMF has reduced its growth forecasts for 2011 and 2012. The headlines are from a press conference being held in Sao Paulo.
For the United States:
2011: IMF cuts economic growth forecast to 2.5% (from 2.8%)
2012: economic growth forecast reduced to 2.7% from 2.9%
2011: Euro area growth upped to 2% from 1.6%
2012: growth forecast cut to 1.7% from 1.8%
For Emerging Markets:
China’s growth forecast unchanged at 9.6%
Brazil’s growth forecast reduced to 4.1% from 4.5%
Comments on state of public finances:
Countries in need of restoring public finances to reasonable levels of debt include: Greece, Ireland, Japan, and the U.S. ..."
From: TopstockPortfoiios.com 's Email to me also. Bloomberg should have soon.
BTW WSJ has article telling SEC will investigate Moodies rating agency for fraud. I.e.granting AAA rating to toxic trash without doing adequate investigations, etc. Fraud is serious - someone may go to jail AND more importantly other rating agencies may cut the US's AAA down to where it should be. (BB- ? even though the US will never default - just pay off with low-value, freshly-printed, green paper instead.) Agency rating are to advise about the quality of investments, not just the probability the bond issuer will technically avoid default.
IMHO Greece has pasted the "point of no return" & will default. Continuing the airplane analogy, the US is approaching that point at supersonic speed.
Last edited by Billy T; 06-17-11 at 02:06 PM.
06-17-11, 06:06 PM #34
If by Western we are talking US, then:
Bush 2 wars/ Obama 4
Bush tax cuts/ Obama extended them
Bush too much spending/ Obama quadrupled spending
Not really meant as a defense of Bush as much as to point out that Obama has done everything Bush did and more, including blaming Bush.
Don't like Bush, never did/ but like Obama's policies far less
Bush closet socialist/Obama open marxist (whether supporters refuse to see it or not)
06-19-11, 10:41 PM #35
Hi John TG
Can I correctly infer from your dislike of debt increase and wars started or continued by GWB & Obama, that you like Clinton who did not start any war and reduced the US debt?
If not Bill, is there any POTUS you admire? Or has it all been "down hill" since the first George (Washington that is, not GWB's father)?
PS- I'll let someone else comment on the facts of your post as I don't want you to think I am picking on you.
I add one thing clearly wrong: Marilyn Monroe's used dress was just sold for more than 5.6 million dollars!
Last edited by Billy T; 06-19-11 at 11:13 PM.
06-24-11, 09:29 AM #36
Answer to thread question is here:
People are paying off debt, not buying on credit cards, except necessities.
That may be a good thing, in the long run, but as Shaw (I think) said:
"In the long run, we are all dead." Victims of the coming (in 2015) depression following the run on dollar I predicted long ago is by or before Halloween 2014.
Western economies depend upon continuous growth to thrive, which is unsustainable on a finite planet, in the long run. Perhaps these natural limits (Such as no more cheap oil) are starting to appear now, and that too is part of the reason western economies, which don't have China's funds to buy the ever more expensive items extracted from the Earth, are in trouble.
Last edited by Billy T; 06-24-11 at 09:52 AM.
06-25-11, 04:19 PM #37
Indeed, finite resources can't fuel infinite growth like is called for in the way western economies operate.
Some might feel it is too late to fix the problems, but with everyone helping out, the effort can be multiplied.
One thing is to realize that nature doesn't care about us and we have to do things more carefully and evaluate what needs to be done differently.
The biggest alteration of our way of doing things might be to change the way of thinking about reproduction. It should be considered a rare privilege from now on, maybe allowed on the basis of a lottery, at least until technology could remove most of the personal human involvement from the process.
06-25-11, 08:59 PM #38
07-01-11, 01:14 PM #39
The reason all the western economies are collapsing is that eastern economies are developing . The FDI that used to go to west is now going to countries like India , china and brazil .
07-01-11, 02:32 PM #40
By munty13 in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 02-22-09, 10:00 PMReplies: 146
By man2008 in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 01-13-09, 12:39 PMReplies: 62
By pharaohmoan in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 02-27-08, 10:18 AMReplies: 23
By fishtail in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 07-13-07, 02:34 PMReplies: 46
By Athelwulf in forum HistoryLast Post: 02-17-07, 02:01 AMReplies: 14