US Elections 2008

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

At least you dropped the biofuel argument, that's an improvement.

I haven't dropped it: it's the biggest thing I have against Obama.

Originally Posted by Sokar

You predictions are ludicrous because you actually think Obama will do every single thing he says he will do. That shows you don't know anything about politics. Realistic predictions will say that Obama will keep significant amounts of American troops in Iraq because the conditions on the ground dictate it.

Even if he manages to do 10% of his original plans, the results will be huge.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I haven't dropped it: it's the biggest thing I have against Obama.

Even if he manages to do 10% of his original plans, the results will be huge.

Your paranoia really amuse me. You take everything Obama says to the extreme and just refuses to apply common sense to it. What is said in the campaign is not the same as what happens when making policies in government. Your views even contradict each other. Apparently in your world more biofuel production doesn't do anything to dent oil prices.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Apparently in your world more biofuel production doesn't do anything to dent oil prices.

Biofuel may dent oil prices, but what are you going to do about the food prices? Tell me.

[cors8]

Even if Obama's president, he won't be able to do anything without Congress to back him up. It'd also take many months to years before his policies would even take effect, if implemented.

All the fear-mongering and paranoia is just pathetic really. It's also absolutely naive to think that McCain couldn't possibly screw up worse than Obama. Experience? Cheney and Rumsfeld had tons of it. Look how well that turned out.

Bottom-line is both candidates have made statements and policy decisions that are questionable. Both sides appealed to their base in the primaries. They'll have until November to clarify their positions for the general election.

PS: I voted for Hillary given the choices.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Biofuel may dent oil prices, but what are you going to do about the food prices? Tell me.

Ok, at least oil prices aren't going to be $300 a barrel anymore, another improvement, or are you going to take it back again? Let's go back to when I first mentioned biofuel, BIOFUELS ARE NOT THE MAJOR REASON FOR FOOD PRICE INCREASES. More biofuel development still doesn't make it the major reason for food price increases. Food prices fluctuate, high prices destroys demand and increases supply. People will start eating less meat since it's so expensive, and plant more crops. Even now big farm corporations are planting more crops. It's call market economics. High prices aren't going to last forever. You also assume that biofuel will rely on food crops such as corn, when there are 2nd generation biofuel technology that rely on plants that are not food crops, or discarded parts of food crops.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Ok, at least oil prices aren't going to be $300 a barrel anymore, another improvement, or are you going to take it back again?

Stop mixing arguments. Oil prices will jack up if there's destabilzation (although $300 is an overestimate )

Originally Posted by Sokar

Let's go back to when I first mentioned biofuel, BIOFUELS ARE NOT THE MAJOR REASON FOR FOOD PRICE INCREASES. More biofuel development still doesn't make it the major reason for food price increases.

You're mixing the development of biofuel technology and Obama's subsidies for corn biofuel. Plus, the rate of the percentage of foodstuff used in biofuels is rising at a fast rate. In the case of the uS, it went from 5% in 1995 to over 35% in 2007. The subsidies will only speed things up.

Originally Posted by Sokar

Food prices fluctuate, high prices destroys demand and increases supply. People will start eating less meat since it's so expensive, and plant more crops. Even now big farm corporations are planting more crops. It's call market economics. High prices aren't going to last forever.

If they're planting more crops to make biofuel (because of the subsidies), food prices itself will not go down.

Also, do you think people in China are going to decrease their meat consumption just because someone tells them to do so?

Originally Posted by Sokar

You also assume that biofuel will rely on food crops such as corn, when there are 2nd generation biofuel technology that rely on plants that are not food crops, or discard parts of food crops.

Which will happen in 5 years. Until then, what are you going to do?



Your overall ignorance of the situation is pretty sad. Try researching a bit before you come up.

[Reckoner]

I've studied a bit of biofuel and the basic fact of the matter is that we are not Brazil, it cannot work. Time to look for some other form of energy. I hear they're finding cleaner ways to process coal nowadays...

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Stop mixing arguments. Oil prices will jack up if there's destabilzation (although $300 is an overestimate )

Glade to see you admit your prediction was false.

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

You're mixing the development of biofuel technology and Obama's subsidies for corn biofuel. Plus, the rate of the percentage of foodstuff used in biofuels is rising at a fast rate. In the case of the uS, it went from 5% in 1995 to over 35% in 2007.

If they're planting more crops to make biofuel (because of the subsidies), food prices itself will not go down.

Also, do you think people in CHina are going to decrease their meat consumption just because someone tells them to do so?

I see you still fail to grasp market economics. More supply of corn = lower cost of corn. Biofuel and Corn as food draw on the same supply, more supply lower prices. You also assume that all the planted crops will go to biofuel, which is quite wrong. Guess what, it's a world market. People around the world will plant more crops because the prices are high, which will increase supply and lower prices. Thus even if all the increase in crops that are planted in the U.S. goes to biofuel (impossible by the way), the prices will still decrease since people elsewhere will plant more crops for food. The people in China will eat less meat because meat is more expensive, because pigs and cow feeds require food crops like corn. I repeat, high prices destroys demand and increases supply.

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Which will happen in 5 years. Until then, what are you going to do?

Your overall ignorance of the situation is pretty sad. Try researching a bit before you come up.

The above pretty much covers it. You need to do more research.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I've studied a bit of biofuel and the basic fact of the matter is that we are not Brazil, it cannot work. Time to look for some other form of energy. I hear they're finding cleaner ways to process coal nowadays...

It can work, corn biofuel still reduces carbon emissions, just not very much. Right now the goal is to use plants like switch grass and discarded parts for biofuel, so they don't conflict with the planting of food crops. Good things are happening already.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Glade to see you admit your prediction was false.

It's called exaggeration, not prediction.

Originally Posted by Sokar

I see you still fail to grasp market economics. More supply of corn = lower cost of corn. Biofuel and Corn as food draw on the same supply, more supply lower prices. You also assume that all the planted crops will go to biofuel, which is quite wrong. Guess what, it's a world market. People around the world will plant more crops because the prices are high, which will increase supply and lower prices. Thus even if all the increase in crops that are planted in the U.S. goes to biofuel (impossible by the way), the prices will still decrease since people elsewhere will plant more crops for food. The people in China will eat less meat because meat is more expensive, because pigs and cow feeds require food crops like corn. I repeat, high prices destroys demand and increases supply.

What you say is a classical economic theory, which works only if THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES. Market economics doesn't work as it should if there is an outside force.

Originally Posted by Sokar

The above pretty much covers it. You need to do more research.

It's you who needs to do research on the political effects of subsidies.

[Fipskuul]

Originally Posted by Sokar

I repeat, high prices destroys demand and increases supply.

Logically, there is a limit to supply, while there is almost no limit for its use. So, you cannot guarantee that the prices will not increase.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

It's called exaggeration, not prediction.




What you say is a classical economic theory, which works only if THERE ARE NO SUBSIDIES. Market economics doesn't work as it should if there is an outside force.

First of all, world market. Biofuel subsidies in America doesn't stop people from other places from planting more food crops. I'm glad to see that you ignored that completely. Second of all, subsidies distort the laws of the supply and demand, but doesn't destroy it. Higher prices still leads to destruction of demand and increase of supply.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Logically, there is a limit to supply, while there is almost no limit for its use. So, you cannot guarantee that the prices will not increase.

Food is an elastic supply, plenty of farmland out there, plenty of ways of making existing farmlands more productive.

[Fipskuul]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Food is an elastic supply, plenty of farmland out there, plenty of ways of making existing farmlands more productive.

The same can be said for the population in demand, the demand per person, and the resources to produce that food. Unless you implement the system, you cannot really say what will happen. You can always make a guess, but, there is a good chance that it may fail.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

First of all, world market. Biofuel subsidies in America doesn't stop people from other places from planting more food crops. I'm glad to see that you ignored that completely. Second of all, subsidies distort the laws of the supply and demand, but doesn't destroy it. Higher prices still leads to destruction of demand and increase of supply.

1. Farming isn't something that can be done in a few months, unlike manufacturing. Also, the artifically low agricultural prices caused by the farm subsidies of US and EU had already destroyed agriculture as a way of life for many. Also, the lack of agricultural development since the Green Revolution is holding things up

2. And just how long are you going to wait until production goes up?

Originally Posted by Sokar

Food is an elastic supply, plenty of farmland out there, plenty of ways of making existing farmlands more productive.

You're basing your thoughts on a perfect, text-book world. Food in its current state is an inelastic supply, with an increasing percentage used up as biofuel. Sorry, but your ignorance amazes me. You’re a lost case, person who ignores reality and see things in terms of perfectness.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

1. Farming isn't something that can be done in a few months, unlike manufacturing. Also, the artifically low agricultural prices caused by the farm subsidies of US and EU had already destroyed agriculture as a way of life for many. Also, the lack of agricultural development since the Green Revolution is holding things up

2. And just how long are you going to wait until production goes up?




You're basing your thoughts on a perfect, text-book world. Food in its current state is an inelastic supply, with in increasing percentage used up as biofuel. Sorry, but your ignorance amazes me. You’re a lost case, person who ignores reality and see things in terms of perfectness.

Well, duh, we are talking about the future remember. You know, after the election. Of course it takes time for food prices to go down, it takes time for food to grow. I'm basing my thought on simply laws of supply and demand. High prices will cause people to plant more crops, it's not textbook, it's not theory, it's practice, it's reality. It's called a price cycle, food just happens to expensive right now, the price will go down. Also, in the spirit of pointless name calling across the anonymity of the internet, you paranoia towards Obama amazes, you ignore reality and see things in the worst possible place they can be.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

{reference: Keating Scandal)
Is this similar to the Rezko scandal? Or a now forgotten piece of history about a politician attending the sermons of a banished person's and the leader of a banished church (with respect to Obama's life) for nearly 20 years? I don't think there is any innocent politician out there, so there is no reason to even look at those parts to decide on someone.

No, this was a huge banking/finance scandal that McCain was in the thick of:
Here, you don't even have to google for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five or google on Keating Scandal for a plethora of news reports and analyses.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Our current system is broken, without a doubt, but these halfway-socialized-but-still-run-by-major-even-more-consolidated-corporations things sound insane to me. Not that supporting major corporate consolidation and squeezing out individual and small business advancement and saying it's "for the little guy" hasn't been the Democratic party modus operandi for years now...

Actually, I concede that the total situation with insurance is highly complicated with many variables and force vectors. And I totally agree with you that the Democratic "halfway-socialized-but-still-run-by-major-even-more-consolidated-corporations" is completely insane.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Also, in the spirit of pointless name calling across the anonymity of the internet, you paranoia towards Obama amazes, you ignore reality and see things in the worst possible place they can be.

I base everything I say on reality. It would be nice if reality follows the "laws" perfectly, but it doesn't. Seems like it's no use arguing with a idealist person. Shall we move onto another topic?

[Fipskuul]

Originally Posted by Vexx

No, this was a huge banking/finance scandal that McCain was in the thick of:
Here, you don't even have to google for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five or google on Keating Scandal for a plethora of news reports and analyses.

That article says McCain had minimal part in that scandal, which usually means he did something unethical but he did not cross the lines and go beyond the legal limit. That is, if I am not mistaken, an acceptable standard in politics.

[Vexx]

Interesting how the article is written because I was actually around as an adult during the Keating Scandal and remember the events --- basically, McCain got away with it due to very good connections and less hard evidence. He simply managed not to get caught unlike the others. Keep in mind that Wiki articles are battlefields of interpretation. The Google will get many more perspectives --- especially those written at the time of the scandal.

This was a huge mess the public ended up having to pay to clean up.