Krugman Decapitated!

[JoeB131]

They fought back by invading other countries? You really don't know what words mean, do you?

they invaded other countries that were attacking them- namely Russia and France.

 

[Toro]

About a decade ago, a firm called Cambridge Energy Research estimated that there were 4 trillion barrels of oil in the world. However, at the time, they estimated that only 1 trillion were recoverable.

Since then, we have developed new technologies to extract more oil, and the even newer cutting edge technologies to extract oil are mind-blowing.

Yup, I'm sure that some assholes on Wall Street are really getting rich on that, while the planet is dying.

Way to move the goalposts, JoeAmpad.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They fought back by invading other countries? You really don't know what words mean, do you?

they invaded other countries that were attacking them- namely Russia and France.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

"No, it wasn't. Nobody forced Germany to become militaristic again. In fact, at the first sign of it, we should have crushed them quickly."

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, along with hindsight being 20/20.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

"No, it wasn't. Nobody forced Germany to become militaristic again. In fact, at the first sign of it, we should have crushed them quickly."

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, along with hindsight being 20/20.

Your ignorance is putrid. Americans were begged to help with the war long before Italy and Japan joined in and parts of North Africa were being conquered. Only a complete moron would suggest that an earlier intervention would have saved a lot of lives and destruction.

And that would be you.

 

[JoeB131]

About a decade ago, a firm called Cambridge Energy Research estimated that there were 4 trillion barrels of oil in the world. However, at the time, they estimated that only 1 trillion were recoverable.

Since then, we have developed new technologies to extract more oil, and the even newer cutting edge technologies to extract oil are mind-blowing.

Yup, I'm sure that some assholes on Wall Street are really getting rich on that, while the planet is dying.

Way to move the goalposts, JoeAmpad.

Not moving the goalposts at all. The "New Technologies" you hype are really, really bad for the environment. But it doesn't matter as long as a few assholes get rich, right?

 

[JoeB131]

They fought back by invading other countries? You really don't know what words mean, do you?

they invaded other countries that were attacking them- namely Russia and France.

Someone who obviously learned his history in Catholic School. The ones where they don't tell you the Pope was in bed with Hitler.

 

[Toro]

About a decade ago, a firm called Cambridge Energy Research estimated that there were 4 trillion barrels of oil in the world. However, at the time, they estimated that only 1 trillion were recoverable.

Since then, we have developed new technologies to extract more oil, and the even newer cutting edge technologies to extract oil are mind-blowing.

Yup, I'm sure that some assholes on Wall Street are really getting rich on that, while the planet is dying.

Way to move the goalposts, JoeAmpad.

Not moving the goalposts at all. The "New Technologies" you hype are really, really bad for the environment. But it doesn't matter as long as a few assholes get rich, right?

Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You: "We're running out of oil."

Response: "We have lots of oil because of new technologies."

You: "It's bad for the environment."​

That's you moving the goalposts, as you do all the time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Job has no other debate tactics.

 

[JoeB131]

You: "We're running out of oil."

Response: "We have lots of oil because of new technologies."

You: "It's bad for the environment."
That's you moving the goalposts, as you do all the time.

Well, no, it's making a COMPLETE ASSESSMENT of the situation. something you guys on Wall Street didn't do when you were wrecking America back in the Oughts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

About a decade ago, a firm called Cambridge Energy Research estimated that there were 4 trillion barrels of oil in the world. However, at the time, they estimated that only 1 trillion were recoverable.

Since then, we have developed new technologies to extract more oil, and the even newer cutting edge technologies to extract oil are mind-blowing.

Yup, I'm sure that some assholes on Wall Street are really getting rich on that, while the planet is dying.

Way to move the goalposts, JoeAmpad.

Not moving the goalposts at all. The "New Technologies" you hype are really, really bad for the environment. But it doesn't matter as long as a few assholes get rich, right?

Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You: "We're running out of oil."

Response: "We have lots of oil because of new technologies."

You: "It's bad for the environment."​

That's you moving the goalposts, as you do all the time.

Saying that we have lots of oil because of new technologies does not refute the claim that we are running out of oil.

 

[Toro]

About a decade ago, a firm called Cambridge Energy Research estimated that there were 4 trillion barrels of oil in the world. However, at the time, they estimated that only 1 trillion were recoverable.

Since then, we have developed new technologies to extract more oil, and the even newer cutting edge technologies to extract oil are mind-blowing.

Yup, I'm sure that some assholes on Wall Street are really getting rich on that, while the planet is dying.

Way to move the goalposts, JoeAmpad.

Not moving the goalposts at all. The "New Technologies" you hype are really, really bad for the environment. But it doesn't matter as long as a few assholes get rich, right?

Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You: "We're running out of oil."

Response: "We have lots of oil because of new technologies."

You: "It's bad for the environment."​

That's you moving the goalposts, as you do all the time.

Saying that we have lots of oil because of new technologies does not refute the claim that we are running out of oil.

At some point, we will run out of oil, but not in our lifetimes.

The amount of recoverable oil is greater today than it was 10 years ago, and will probably be greater 10 years from now.

 

[asterism]

Better idea: get rid of every Liberal/Democrat in government.

"U.S. lawmakers don’t drive around in 1970s-era cars, yet they don’t seem to mind energy policies that are equally out of date. Attempts to export shale oil and gas, for example, have run smack into legal and regulatory barriers as old as a Gran Torino.

Energy companies have been urging Congress to lift the lid on exports and start treating oil and gas again like any other commodity that’s freely traded in world markets. Tapping global demand for U.S. shale oil and gas, they say, will spur domestic production and create even more jobs in a sector that’s already racked up robust employment gains."
Bringing U.S. Energy Policy Into the 21st Century - The Daily Beast

Answering only yes or no, is crude oil a non-renewable resource?

Nope.

It isn't? Where is previously non-existent crude coming from?

Can you show us empirically that there is no more oil being made anywhere on/in the earth?

Now setting aside the impossibility of finding empirical answers to either of our questions, we didn't have the Bakken discovery a decade ago.

Peak Oil was a theory that was avant-garde at the time but it was wrong.

Oil by the known nature of its creation has to be non-renewable.

By that same logic solar is non-renewable too. What's your point?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Keynesian Krugman was a huge supporter of the 'Stimulus,' and actually wanted far more than the trillion dollars. Paul Krugman Stimulus Too Small Second Package Likely VIDEO He says: "I am still guessing that we will peal out at around 9% [unemployment] and that would be late this year [2009]." It peaked at 10% and remained above 9 for two more years.


2. Krugman embraces the Keynesian idea that there is value in increasing spending for its own sake, no matter if jobs are temporary, or unskilled...digging ditches and filling them in...as long as workers are employed, and pay taxes.

"Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.[of the Depression]...

...If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –"
Watch GPS Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U.S. economy 8211 Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs



a. Really? It doesn't matter how resources are spent? Was 'Cash for Clunkers' the way to go? Spending on alternative energy companies? Ethanol, when gasoline costs half as much and produces more energy? Give that man a prize!



3. For the Liberal, the Keynesian, i.e., Krugman, government spending is the panacea for all that ails ya.' What is forgotten is that the level of government spending determines the level of taxation ( well, for conservatives....for liberals it must be multiplied to advance 'equality), And financing spending through borrowing simply means even higher taxes in the future. Most importantly, taxes discourage investment and work. Despite Keynes, and Krugman's happy theories, taxes are a drag on the economy.

a. The same plan goes back to FDR, those rotten rich! But, guess who scolded FDR: John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.

b. And as long as Democrat education system keeps citizens really, really ignorant, they won't realize that 'saving' isn't such a bad idea. The money saved doesn't disappear, and contrary to Keynesianism, it isn't an enemy to a flourishing economy. Banks take 'savings' and lend them to others who spend it or invest it.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 86-89.


Krugman, the paid pimp for Progressives.

 

[asterism]

You have no way of knowing that, especially if the "fossile fuel" has been busted and oil is an abiotic generation commodity.

Are you some kind of fucking retard? Oil take MILLIONS of years to generate. We can't produce more of it, we can only tap what exists... of which we have maybe 50 years left.

Until new sources are found.

Notice how the proved reserves estimate keeps increasing over time:

source


Then there's the faulty logic in using the reported "proved reserves," which is merely a tax accounting data point.

How Big Are The Currently Known Oil Reserves And What Are The Chances Of Finding New Ones - Forbes

 

[NYcarbineer]

Answering only yes or no, is crude oil a non-renewable resource?

Nope.

It isn't? Where is previously non-existent crude coming from?

Can you show us empirically that there is no more oil being made anywhere on/in the earth?

Now setting aside the impossibility of finding empirical answers to either of our questions, we didn't have the Bakken discovery a decade ago.

Peak Oil was a theory that was avant-garde at the time but it was wrong.

Oil by the known nature of its creation has to be non-renewable.

By that same logic solar is non-renewable too. What's your point?

My point is, you're an idiot.

If you think there is no material difference between the supply of oil on earth and the lifespan of the sun, then you can't be anything other than an idiot.

 

[asterism]

Nope.

It isn't? Where is previously non-existent crude coming from?

Can you show us empirically that there is no more oil being made anywhere on/in the earth?

Now setting aside the impossibility of finding empirical answers to either of our questions, we didn't have the Bakken discovery a decade ago.

Peak Oil was a theory that was avant-garde at the time but it was wrong.

Oil by the known nature of its creation has to be non-renewable.

By that same logic solar is non-renewable too. What's your point?

My point is, you're an idiot.

If you think there is no material difference between the supply of oil on earth and the lifespan of the sun, then you can't be anything other than an idiot.

Both are the same, the only difference is when they will run out. How long has oil existed and how long will it continue to exist? We keep finding more oil than we can use. The environmental concerns are valid, but "peak oil" is just a rehash of old failed Mathusian predictions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't? Where is previously non-existent crude coming from?

Can you show us empirically that there is no more oil being made anywhere on/in the earth?

Now setting aside the impossibility of finding empirical answers to either of our questions, we didn't have the Bakken discovery a decade ago.

Peak Oil was a theory that was avant-garde at the time but it was wrong.

Oil by the known nature of its creation has to be non-renewable.

By that same logic solar is non-renewable too. What's your point?

My point is, you're an idiot.

If you think there is no material difference between the supply of oil on earth and the lifespan of the sun, then you can't be anything other than an idiot.

Both are the same, the only difference is when they will run out. How long has oil existed and how long will it continue to exist? We keep finding more oil than we can use. The environmental concerns are valid, but "peak oil" is just a rehash of old failed Mathusian predictions.

Why would any of that justify the war against renewables?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument against alternative renewable energy development is that it's too expensive.

The argument for staying dependent on oil is that technology advances in exploration, extraction, and refining justify it.

Anyone need help with the inconsistency there?

 

[asterism]

Can you show us empirically that there is no more oil being made anywhere on/in the earth?

Now setting aside the impossibility of finding empirical answers to either of our questions, we didn't have the Bakken discovery a decade ago.

Peak Oil was a theory that was avant-garde at the time but it was wrong.

Oil by the known nature of its creation has to be non-renewable.

By that same logic solar is non-renewable too. What's your point?

My point is, you're an idiot.

If you think there is no material difference between the supply of oil on earth and the lifespan of the sun, then you can't be anything other than an idiot.

Both are the same, the only difference is when they will run out. How long has oil existed and how long will it continue to exist? We keep finding more oil than we can use. The environmental concerns are valid, but "peak oil" is just a rehash of old failed Mathusian predictions.

Why would any of that justify the war against renewables?

Where did I ever claim to justify anything? I pointed out the flaw in your logic.