為什麼?

[Rubber Duck]

I think the Democrats will present a less aggressive and much more cooperative America to the World and that should be welcomed.

However, for the US economy to find a solid stable base there needs to an acceptance of the New World Order. America needs to understand that the last 50 years have been something of an extended all expenses free holiday, but now they need to get back to economic fundamentals and redefine their role in the World. At the moment, what we are getting from the democrats is more Government Stimulus packages and Gas Tax Holidays. This is going to do nothing to rectify America's economic woes. Unless, they are prepared to bite the bullet and get their house in order, we are likely to see hyper-inflation, economic destruction and dire poverty.

Am I mocking them? No, I don't believe I am. I have lived through the kind of problems that they are now facing. Hopefully, my insights and experience will be of benefit to them. If they had listened to me a while back they might have already mitigated some of the damage. However, it would seem that few have heeded such advice to date. The way things are it is going to be like turning up at the Family Planning Centre with six kids and asking for the Plan.

What people need to understand is that this is not just another recession. This is an end of empire scenario.

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, and if you are still struggling to understand where I am coming from you might start by reading this:

More Consumption Isn't An Oil Strategy -- -- Courant.com

More Consumption Isn't An Oil Strategy

By ROBERT YARO
May 11, 2008


It's now been 35 years since the first Arab oil embargo provided America with a wake-up call about the dangers associated with the nation's over-reliance on oil imports from countries that don't really like us.

Since then, Americans have been in a permanent state of denial about the dangers that our energy profligacy has created for our economy and environment. We now know that our excess fuel consumption is undermining not only our national defense, the value of the dollar and the well-being of the U.S. economy, but the health of the world's climate as well.

So what have our policy responses been to this challenge? Over the past three decades, cars and trucks have gotten larger and less fuel efficient, total vehicle-miles traveled have burgeoned, and we have taken virtually no steps to develop alternative fuels or alternatives to ever-longer commutes on increasingly crowded highways.

Consequently, the nation's energy supply has gone from one-third to two-thirds reliant on foreign oil. America's energy and tax policies have been stuck in the 1950s, when we were the world's largest petroleum exporter, instead of the largest importer that we are today.

With oil hovering around $120 per barrel and gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon, political leaders are looking for scapegoats, not real solutions, to the mess that is our national energy policy.

Most are blaming greedy oil companies and commodity speculators for high prices, not the nation's wasteful use of energy, growing consumption, and competition from China and India for scarce resources.

Presidents and Congresses from both parties can fairly share the blame for ducking this issue and continuing to pander to voters instead of proposing real solutions. The last serious presidential candidate to propose raising gas taxes to limit consumption and fund alternative energy research and mass transit was Sen. Paul Tsongas in his 1992 presidential bid. His campaign ended in the Michigan primary, when voters resoundingly rejected his proposed 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase.

Since then, we've gotten only gauzy promises for increased ethanol production or energy independence from both Republican and Democratic candidates — responses based largely on results of focus groups, not on the urgent need to reduce the nation's overconsumption of imported oil.

The bipartisan failure of leadership on this issue reached a new level this month with the announcement that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was joining John McCain in calling for a "gas tax holiday" for the summer.

This "holiday" will save the average U.S. family anywhere from $0 to $70 over the course of the summer, depending on whose estimate you use, and speed the bankruptcy of the transportation trust fund, already expected to move into deficit by the end of 2009. It won't do a thing to focus the nation on what we really need: national energy and related tax policies designed to reduce oil consumption and oil imports and put us on the track to an alternative energy future.

This isn't just a national issue. Proposals to suspend state gas or petroleum taxes have circulated in the legislatures of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. What America and the region really need is leadership, not pandering on an issue that is fundamental to the nation's future security, competitiveness and the success of global efforts to manage climate change.

[Burnsinternet]

More Consumption Isn't An Oil Strategy.... How true!

It took this kind of shock to push alternatives to the forefront. Once the USA realizes that Ethanol should be made of sugar cane and not corn, the better. Look to Brazil...

[Rubber Duck]

It is not just about how to produce energy but it is also very much about how to conserve.

I think few have been persuaded of this, but it clear that much of the US Aviation Industry can no longer afford to fly at a time when passenger demand is severely curtailed. Much of the rest of the US Market has similar problems. The US Car Industry is being decimated due to it unwillingness to produce more fuel efficient cars, and it does not stop there. Everything has been set up to run on cheap oil, so most of it just isn't viable. Undoubtedly large swathes will be able to adjust and adapt but other large sections of the economy are just going to go under. The numbers just don't add up, and whatever Moody's and the other agencies may tell us, we all know that the return from investment in US isn't worth the risk, and isn't going to be for a long-time. Few US Companies have the cash to invest, and most that do are pouring it into Eastern Europe and Asia, and even the EU. The US Government doesn't actually have any money beyond what it can raise on taxes or by selling securities. It is going to struggle on both counts. Of course it can always print more bills and the democratic imperative is going to force them to do that, unless they can educate the populous in to complete change of culture. It is going to years and severe deprivation to even get the notion across that something drastic needs to be done. And that is before the hard task of implementation even begins.

[touchring]

Big business control of the government is starting to have detrimental effects, it's ok to have some control, but not to the extent that almost every government policy is geared to boost short term company profits and CEO stock options.

[Burnsinternet]

Will the Democrats be any different, I wonder? If the US can become more conservation-oriented, the environment is the winner. Other emerging & booming economies should take note.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by touchring

Big business control of the government is starting to have detrimental effects, it's ok to have some control, but not to the extent that almost every government policy is geared to boost short term company profits and CEO stock options.

It is just as important that business keep out of government as that government keep out of business.

Herbert Hoover

[jacksonm]

Dave, you certainly do have a unique way of looking at things - your way.

I am not out to harm you, Jose, or dnlocal - reference "Dave, it's your chance". I made a move because you refused. It was purely out of necessity, not opportunity.

When Giant writes that I have all of the essential characteristics of a loser - rude, arrogant, selfish, and high-handed, well that is a fairly personal attack, even when disguised in chinese so that most people won't be arsed to decode it. It does not hurt my feelings at all; I simply asked you if you allow these sort of attacks here at dnlocal as you have stated in the past that you would not allow them. My response that at least I can tell time was in fact quite mild and benign relative to what I was responding to.

Regardless of what you may think, IDNChannel is not in any sort of competition with dnlocal. We are not going to engage in a game of oneupmanship by giving away the family silver in an attempt to get listed at dnjournal, deliberately trying to raise our post or thread count, or any other type of competitive behaviour. If someone says on your marks, get set, go, and you decide to call it a race and start running, well that's fine - we are just going to keep on walking and wish you good luck.

In fact, Jose and I are arranging some discussions with one another right now. Yes, Jose and I do talk to one another, on an entirely polite level, I might add. You seem to be the only one who is holding any sort of a grudge, regarding something which was, quite frankly, none of your business in the first place. Jose and I are just fine, so just forget about us and proceed with improving your own lot in life.

If you come to Paris, I will buy you a beer or six, maybe seven if you can talk about something other than the economy.

.

[Giant]

Originally Posted by jacksonm

...
When Giant writes that I have all of the essential characteristics of a loser - rude, arrogant, selfish, and high-handed, well that is a fairly personal attack, even when disguised in chinese so that most people won't be arsed to decode it. It does not hurt my feelings at all; ...

I don't invent the golden rule that people with such characteristics will fail, we learn it from history.

Let me know if you want me to elaborate your "characteristics" to see if my comment was a personal attack.

My comment was based on your decision to ban sellers selling at multiforums:

Originally Posted by IDNer

...
不再允许多论坛拍卖或销售。

您一旦在这个网站上销售或拍卖域名，将不能在其他的网站上同时销售或拍卖同样的域名。如果被抓到，您将会为初犯被禁止一个月。 如果您没有将域名转让给在这个网站上与您成功交易的人，即使您在其他网站上与他人成功交易，您也会被永远禁止。

此规定即时生效。

[Rubber Duck]

Look, I had a choice when I got Olney involved and in hindsight I screwed up.

I wasn't given any say in who what or if was setting up the new forum, so I am under absolutely no obligation to support it.

I have to say I don't have a good feeling about your sincerity, so I am not going to waste my time and effort supporting your forum.

It is not really about having a grudge, it is just about protecting my own interests and as I perceive it those of the wider community.