Posts Made By: Paul Kammueller

Rod Kaufman said:
Today on KNX news radio, an oil analyst predicted $300.00/barrel if the US strikes Iran.

Then apparently Cheney and his ilk are eager to bring the U.S. economy to its knees for the next president. I cannot believe the economy would survive $300 oil (or $12 gas?) for any length of time in the near term. A lot of business models start breaking. The trade and budget deficits explode. The wheels come flying off the wagon.

I think you'll see a little bit of this in every state -- you're going to get a few disaffected handfuls of republicans here and there defecting because even they're fed up with Iraq or the cronyism or what have you. It's been a long 7 years.

Part of it is the comet's history. The fact that there was a previous outburst a century ago suggests that this particular chunk of ice has some unique "geology" that makes it prone to such events. There's a history of something 'unusual' here.

If one is to chalk it up to an impact, then it implies one would suggest the same for the previous outburst. To have two such collisions within less than 20 orbits of each other, on such a small object, that happen to be just large enough to produce a spectacular outburst, but not large enough to destroy the comet, requires a pretty fair leap of faith, imho.

It's not just a matter of an 'unlikely event' -- it's a matter of two highly unlikely events, of similar magnitude, happening in the same place, at (from a cosmic perspective) nearly the same time.

The problem is the dollar isn't just falling relative to other currencies. It's falling relative to actual stuff, i.e. commodities (oil, gold, raw materials, etc.)

This means that the old assumption that a weaker dollar makes cheaper exports doesn't hold for very long, because the prices of most exports are simply going to inflate to compensate for the higher cost of production in devalued dollars. Which ultimately nulls out much of the competitive advantage of the currency drop.

Israel is an ancillary factor. What is really at the center of it is oil. Has been since the 1920's.

Iraq War I pretty well set the stage. That got us our presence in the 'Holy Land' that became Al Qaeda's rallying cause. Bin Laden, being from a wealthy family, moreover didn't want Americans controlling what should be muslims' oil in Saudi Arabia any more than he liked the thought of 'Shia dogs' controlling oil in Iraq. Their grand vision is a Muslim Fundamentalist Oil-Rich Caliphate spanning Arabia, Iraq, etc. etc.

Oil is the source of their money. Our thirst for oil is the reason for our constant interaction and animosity. It always has us in each other's faces. It drives the hate, the regional politics, and the regional trade in arms and explosives. The soaring price of oil paid to the Middle East is funding their growing purchases of our treasury bonds to finance the war. The escalating price of oil IS the war tax. The soaring imports in dollar terms are driving the dollar into the sewer. Oil is at the root of it all. The war cannot be won with finality until we free ourselves from self-enslavement to the oil. It will NOT be easy, which is why almost no one will face it. But it is inescapable. It needs to be tackled as a grand mission in a big, BIG way as central to the war effort.

Iran's desire for nukes probably derives from the proximity of a nuclear adversary (Israel) and bad past experience with unruly neighbors (i.e. Saddam Hussein). Iran doesn't have a big recent history of invading its neighbors. While they've been in bed with terrorist groups, of course, this has been largely for tactical/strategic reasons in the absence of effective military reach.

Getting nukes forces a nation into a kind of quick maturity regarding who they're going to give what. They know that if they give somebody a bomb it won't take a "made in Iran" sticker to trace it to them. Even if they weren't worried about tracing, they would have to be worried about espionage or a classic double-cross: Iran has enemies in the Middle East as well, and the results of dealing with the wrong person would be cataclysmic to them.

The fed has been steadily losing its power to guide the rates over the years. The market has already bid short-term safe-money well south of the Fed's target rate.

The Fed still has its open-market operations to influence things of course -- and if the situation becomes highly illiquid it may have substantial impacts. But anything they do has dollar-related consequences. Once seemingly all-powerful, the Fed today is largely awash in the tides of an enormous global market of debt and currencies.

The dollar devaluation that has been progressing over the last 5 to 7 years is a natural result of imbalances in an increasingly globalized, increasingly 'free-trade' economy: the bottom line is the standard of living of American workers is at a level such that they cannot be competitive with foreign workers willing to do the same work at a lower standard of living. This means that (1) on balance, we will have a trade deficit, and ultimately (2) the differentials in labor costs will trend toward a more homogeneous distribution, i.e. American wages will decline until they are internationally competitive again -- if not by outright pay cuts, then by currency erosion.

Sit down and try measuring your salary over the last 7 years in barrels of oil, tons of copper, or in pounds of rice. It'll be a real eye-opener. 8O

Rod Kaufman said:
I wish they could impeach both Bush and Cheney for perjury.

They can't. They've definitely learned from Clinton's experience. Bush and Cheney are very careful to never, EVER speak under oath, steadfastly refusing when asked or told to do so. They've made sure of this so that they can lie freely to the Congress and to the public not be prosecuted for it.

Jim Babcock said:
When the President immediately goes to a disaster site, his detractors call it a photo op. When he stays out of the way to give the local authorities a chance to do their job he is also criticized.

'Stays out of the way'? This is the problem with the modern republican mentality -- that you can look at a disaster of such epic magnitude, so obviously beyond the scope and resources of the 'local authorities' and still think it's beneficial on any level for the federal government to 'stay out of the way'. Total disconnect from reality here.

Sorry, but in my book when a major American city is practically DESTROYED, as a President you don't quietly 'stay out of the way', you get IN there in a BIG way, show serious leadership and stay on top of it and you'd better not be sweating over something as petty as whether someone is accusing you of a photo op.

Jim Brown said:
You all know how one thing leads to another. There I was thinking, "I wonder what's happened to Paul Kammueller?" So I search for his last post. It was in December, 2007, and it led me to this hilarious report card from Stevie C. VCS.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=561313&poll_id=&news_id=&page=

Heh heh. I took a little vacation from here. In late November I started a new job and was outrageously busy learning it and really just had no mental energy to spare debating with people on internet forums late into the night. Sadly I almost totally missed the Mars opposition as well. Got in a couple of glimpses, that was it.

But I'm still alive, and things have stabilized so I'm checking in again here and there. 8)