Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I say your reasoning here is invalid. Somolia has imports per capita far lower than either the US or Canada. By your reasoning, people in Somolia must really not need anything. Really! They like starving to death!

No, the reason the US imports more is because the US has a lot of very rich people, and they like to buy things, lots of things. Sometimes they never even use what they buy, or use them once but never again. They don't need these things, but they want them. Also, on the particular subject of imports from Canada (since we're talking about a trade deficit with Canada), I believe a large portion of that deficit is from timber and beef. While people in the US may enjoy their wood-finish interiors, printing out emails instead of reading on a screen, and their Big Macs and steak dinners, we in no way need them.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

But yes, if all economic activity between the US and Canada stopped, it would hurt for both. Using a completely arbitrary example, and one that has absolutely no facts whatsoever to back it up, I would imagine it would be like what would happen if everyone in Texas suddenly decided they weren't going to buy or sell anything made outside of their state anymore. Both economies would take a pretty big hit. However, I would have to agree with Hunpecked here. If the same were to happen between the US and Canada, it would have a much worse impact on Canada, simply because it is the smaller economy.

Anyway, back to the topic of Ethanol... after looking a bit more into just how much gasoline the US consumes per annum, and how much ethanol an acre of land can currently yield, and how much an acre could theoretically yield... I don't think it could replace gasoline unless there are some major changes. Specifically, we would need the equivalent of a hybrid car for ethanol fuel and have them be the dominant type of personal vehicle. There would also need to be a decrease in single commuters and a corresponding increase of carpooling and mass transit usage. And even then, if all available land went towards production of ethanol, I'm not sure if it would entirely cover the needs of a still-growing population. Yes, it sort of worked in Brazil, but that included the domestic oil production, and the number of vehicles per capita is much much smaller, etc. It seems the best option is to use agricultural waste to produce ethanol to be used in blends with gasoline, to lower the usage of oil (and probably the price per unit of fuel, with the way things are going now), while pursuing more agressive conservation and "greener" energy production methods.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

As you may expect, I'll have to disagree here as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Seems I'm in a disagreeable state of mind right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Your Somalia example is a poor example, since their domestic economy does not allow them to even meet the most basic needs of their people. They don't import much because they don't have the money to, not because they don't need to to meet their people's needs. Totally different situation than either Canada or the US.

Again, the idea that $100 Billion in trade deficits comes solely from the ultra-rich in the US is rather ridiculous. After all, Canada has it's ultra-rich as well and I'm sure they like their luxuries as much as their American counterparts. Not to mention it takes a lot of useless luxuries to equal $100 Billion in trade deficit! No, I believe the reason is more along the lines that your heavy industry down there, which you have far more than us of course (larger population and all that) doen't have the domestic supply of basic materials, materials that our mines, forests, farms and ranches have in abundance. Why else would you be importing them in such huge quantities? Also following your example of beef and lumber; perhaps you are correct, but only partly. Beef, sure it's somewhat of a luxury. After all, people could get by eating tofu and bread all day and supplementing with vitamins missed out on when not eating meat. But I'm sure they wouldn't like it! Like you said though, the States could get by fairly easily without our beef. Our lumber; yup, again you're partly right. You don't need wood-finished interiors or printed emails. But what else are you going to use for the floor joists in your house? Or the frame, or other such things. Construction is the major usage of Canadian softwoods in the US, and events such as the annual series of massive hurricanes you can expect every year makes the construction of thousands of replacement homes, not to mention all the repair that needs done, necessary. You need it.

I believe that, contrary to your belief, the mining industry is the largest exporter to the US from Canada, though forestry may be ahead slightly. Without our iron, our molybdenum, our copper, our metals of many varieties, your industry would grind to a near halt. It is not economical for countries to import metals from overseas; the huge weight:volume ratio makes it extremely costly, so in a trade war, all that heavy industry, in the American North-East especially, is going to hit a massive stumbling block.

I'm also not sure why you think that a trade war would have a bigger impact on Canada due to our smaller economy. As has already been demonstrated in this thread, the economies are roughly equal in terms of GDP per capita, average income, etc. Our economy is smaller because our population is nearly 10 times smaller! We don't need as large an economy as the US to support our population. Sure, when we could no longer export our minerals, our lumber, our farm products to the US, it would be a hit, a big hit. But Canada is working on establishing markets for our lumber and farm products in Asia, and is doing a good job of it so far. Our lumber could go overseas, and our beef already does. On the other hand, American beef is still fully banned in a lot of countries Canadian beef isn't (Japan comes to mind). We'd find alternate outlets for our surplusses. The States would have, I think, a harder time finding an alternate source of the raw resources that are imported from Canada.

In other words, I think Canada's economy would do all right. But at least we can agree that it wouldn't do either economy any favors! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

On the subject of Ethanol, I agree with your assessment Will. It may work as a supplement to gasoline, but I doubt it's up to the task of full replacement. For that, we need something else. Hopefully we can find that something else relatively soon, with the way fuel prices are going...

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade: "Actually, you should think about it in another way. Canada is better off exporting more, since we really don't need those resources, or else we obviously wouldn't be exporting them."

Exactly. A great reason to export what you have lots of is to import what you don't have much of. Economics 101.

"On the other hand, the US obviously does need those very same resources, or else they wouldn't be buying them.'

Yup. We export dollars we have lots of and import all sorts of "stuff" we have less of.

"Therefore, in a trade war, Canada has the advantage since there's more 'stuff' that the US needs that Canada has, and less stuff Canada needs that the US has. In other words, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs the US, giving us the advantage in a trade war."

Canada depends on the US to buy 85% (!) of its total exports, which are worth about 36% of GDP. It gets some 59% of its imports from the US. The US gets 17% of its imports from Canada, which absorbs about 23% of US exports; all US exports are worth less than 10% of US GDP. The Canadian economy is 1/12 the size of America's. Everybody in the world wants to sell to the the USA (and Canada). It's less clear that the world, which happily maintains a trade surplus with Canada, would be willing to buy over six times what it already buys from Canada (Japan, Canada's second largest buyer, currently takes only 2% of Canadian exports). Let's get real here, folks.

"Then again, we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking either country would "win" a trade war."

Well of course. The juxtaposition of two world class economies along an extended border is a match made in heaven. The only way it could be better would be if Mexico had an economy as advanced as Canada's, which would make the US and Canada even richer.

BTW, the close integration of the two economies is yet another reason Renegade's initial claim is obviously wrong: the US economy couldn't be "in the crapper" without dragging the smaller Canadian economy down with it--an unfortunate side effect of an otherwise lucrative partnership.

"I'm forced to disagree with you here. It's a very foolish economic policy to borrow endlessly; it'll end up biting you in the rear end."

Renegade misunderstands me here. I don't advocate deficit spending; quite the opposite. I was just pointing out that an economy "in the crapper" can't support US-scale budget deficits, at least not at today's low-by-historical-standards interest rates. Continued deficits may well bring down the US economy in the future, but as we've seen from recent economic statistics, that hasn't happened yet.

"I also disagree that it takes a strong economy to support such huge deficits, since if the economy was truly strong, such borrowing wouldn't be necessary in the first place!"

Renegade is confusing politics with economics. Borrowing isn't "necessary" as he suggests, it's just a choice American politicians have made. They could just as well finance government spending through taxes, as Canada has since 1997, and take the political heat for it. If Canada's government chose to lower taxes tomorrow and finance 20% of its spending through borrowing, would the Canadian economy suddenly be "in the crapper?"

"It's not so much that the lenders have great confidence in the future economy of the country, it's that there such a huge collateral to secure it!"

The US government's only "collateral" is its promise to repay its bonds; creditors don't get the pink slip to an aircraft carrier or the deed to the White House. The Treasury can only repay those bonds if the economy provides enough revenue to do so. Now creditors can use these bonds to buy "collateral" anywhere in the world, but only if sellers are themselves willing to accept these bonds, i.e. if they're confident of repayment. If Brazil, for example, were to default on its foreign debt, would its creditors suddenly own Rio? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

"Also, perceived as being great does not necessarily translate well into reality, as SJ mentioned."

In today's modern financial markets I'm sure there are a number of ways to make money "betting" against the US economy. No doubt SJ and Renegade have already done so. Right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

"However, I do think I'd rather be in charge of the Canadian economy than the American. I think it has better prospects."

I hope to God that nobody is ever "in charge" of either economy. It didn't work for the Soviet Union and it wouldn't work for either Canada or the US.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

No, but I would call the country "going down the tubes" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Think of it this way:
Imagine how much lower taxes could be, if you didn't have to pay interest on your debt! Better yet, calculate it.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

What it boils down to is I'm not going to convince you, and you're (Thermodyne, Will, Hunpecked) not going to convince me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Might as well leave it at that. I'm sure everyone is getting tired of me rebutting, and you counter-rebutting and so on. Might as well stop....but don't view it as me conceeding your arguement, since I'm not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Or, you know, reduce spending so the govt. doesn't have to borrow or raise taxes...

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Tonight's episode of the CBS Evening News had a story about Brazil's ethanol program.

I don't have the bandwidth to doublecheck if that URL works; if it doesn't, go to CBS and search for "ethanol".

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I *think* This is the link you're looking for....

Might be a cookie issue, but it seems to work for me.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Suicide Junkie: "Imagine how much lower taxes could be, if you didn't have to pay interest on your debt! Better yet, calculate it."

Once again: I don't like deficit spending. I'm just pointing out that deficits in and of themselves do not mean an economy is "in the crapper", especially when the economic data are screaming otherwise.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Renegade 13: "Might as well stop....but don't view it as me conceeding your arguement, since I'm not"

Actually Renegade did concede, partially, when he wrote

"Here I agree with you. I was mistaken in my original post that the American economy was circling the drain, at least in certain aspects."

We actually agree on other points, too, e.g. deficit spending is bad, Canada has a strong economy, and Canada and the US are far better off as partners than antagonists. He seems a bit overly optimistic about the effects of a hypothetical US-Canada trade war, but I certainly can't fault his patriotism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I don't know why people don't understand the US's spending policy. the US government buys something, looks at it, then buys two more at twice the cost.

But Deficet (spelling?) spending can be good if done wisely. FDR did it to reboot the economy and get people back to work. The US had to do it during the revolution in order to pay for the war.

The way it's used now is reckless. Let's curb the problem with a $100,000+ pay cut for elected officials in the federal government!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I didn't mean that...
It just seems to me that if you're running consistent defecits, your *country* is going downhill.
At some point, you're not gonna be able to pay your dues, and then the fecal matter hits the fan.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I vote that we rebel and establish an entitlement state where upon I can sit on my *** all day long and never have to worry about a good GD thing ever again!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

All we need is to form an SE4 commune.
We could buy some abandoned building to live in, do the paperwork to become a tax-exempt branch of the Church of Aaron, and share the rent of a T1 line to the PBW server.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

From..where, exactly? If you nuked everything except SS, Medicare, and defense, and interest payments we'd STILL be in a deficit..

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

You guys need to learn the golden rule. Nothing means nothing were all going to die. So if you can't effect change, learn to live with what is what and f*** the rest. It don't mean jack for were all going to be long dead and forgotten by the time that it matters. And by then, no one will care. So nuff said, move on.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Partial. Compared to the economies of many countries, the US is doing great. However, in my opinion, in comparison to Canada's it's not as good, and it's on a downward spiral. That spiral might be slow, but a spiral it is.

That's a bit of a fatalistic attitude. There's always something the public masses can do, if united, demanding change. No gov't can resist the demands of their united people.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Public masses are considered MOBBS and therefore your right to gather and conduct free speech activities is null and void as Posse Comitatus (sp) is suspended and the armed rebellion is put down with excessive and brutal forces.

If the citizans of that government have been duley disarmed, then the above passage holds even more weight.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Well, part of the reason that Clinton managed to get surpluses by the end of his time in office was by realizing that the US wasn't in an arms race with the USSR any longer. Then Bush got in office, and brought with him a bunch of advisers from the Reagan and Bush Sr. era, who are still of the mindset that the US needs a large standing army (while slashing taxes to boot, 'Reaganomics'). Only problem is, there isn't a national enemy to justify it. The closest thing we got is "terrorism", and that's not something you fight by throwing more bodies at it, it's fought via infiltration.

You might say that countries like China could become an enemy, but I don't think so. Both the US and China have too much to gain by staying on each others' good sides, and the Communism boogeyman is no longer effective as a justification for the 35-and-under age group (people who grew up watching USSR fall).

Let the tax cuts expire, freeze military spending at the current amount (sans Afghanistan/Iraq spending) for a decade or so before allowing it to grow with inflation again, and there will be a federal budget surplus again. After that, you only need 536 miracles to get that surplus to pay off the debt to a more reasonable level (say, $1 trillion instead of the over $8 trillion it's at now). Because every time you get a politician to pass up the opportunity for budgeting something to make themselves look good, it's a miracle, and it would take convincing 435 Reps, 100 Sens, and 1 Prez to make that happen.

Anyway... ethanol. Not only would it be cool to have cars that use it, but if you drink it in little tiny cups, the world gets all wobbly!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Does the US really need to spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined? (47%)

Raise taxes a little, and stop dropping so many of those expensive bombs on other countries.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

How about this, raise taxes fairly, make the GD rich pay their fair share for a change, cut the pork barrelling and special interest money luandering, cut the salaries of the US Government including those over paid and mostly bloated senators and representatives. Sell the Military hardware and mothball the all of those expensive air craft carriers. Hell we only need one or two of them any ways. Shut down the Marine Corp, National Gaurd, and the Air Force and sell off all of their crap to other countries and use the money to establish my entitlement state!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

This thread was more interesting when it was about ethanol. Oh well.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

...and Canadians... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I think the topic of ethanol was about ran dry. But your right, it was more interesting than it is now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Problem is, ethanol has already been thrashed to death. Neat idea, might work on a small scale to reduce overseas oil exports, not feasible as a large-scale oil replacement. Bring on hydrogen! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Just a bit of info on the salaries of top elected/appointed officials of the US government:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
President $400,000
Vice President $208,100
Senator $162,100
Representative $162,100
Majority and Minority Leaders $180,100
Speaker of the House $208,100
Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court $208,100
Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court $199,200
</pre><hr />

While the salaries are higher than an average citizen's annual salary, you should also consider that it usually takes much more money than that to get elected in the first place. And also consider that the salaries are a pitiance compared to salaries of executives at most corporations. Makes you wonder why some people would even want to be in office, and definitely reminds me of something from THHGTTG: "To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Thanks Will. I had no idea that they were getting paid so little. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Man what I could do with a yearly salary of just $60,000.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I think I have a new ambition in life...become the leader of a country. Look how much money they make! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Not to mention the fact that it'd be an intereting job. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Will Said:

"While the salaries are higher than an average citizen's annual salary, you should also consider that it usually takes much more money than that to get elected in the first place."

Personally, I'm somewhat suspicious of someone willing to spend millions for a job that pays a couple hundred thousand...I mean, if they aren't in it for the pay, you have to wonder just what exactly, they are getting out of it. Bush's 'inner circle' could work for free and donate all their pay to chairity, and still not have to worry about money..

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

How much money? hah. The local college football coach makes $100,000 more than the President- before bonuses, which can add up to $400,000 on their own!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Still, even a 'mere' $400,000 per year is a hell of a lot more than most people rake in. If a college football coach makes $500,000 plus bonuses, perhaps the college should take a long look at reducing the pay of the coach and maybe using the money they save to make college more affordable for the students who are there to learn not play football...

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Perhaps a mandatory assasination at the end of the political term?

Wasn't that the idea of some episode of sliders or something?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Except for US universities, football is actually PROFITABLE. Often, football and basketball are the only college sports where the program does not operate at a loss. The extra money those two bring in go straight to paying for all the other athletics at the school, and the coaches get paid a lot simply because if the teams win a lot, the school makes more money! If a coach were to suddenly get $40,000 instead of $400,000, an offer from another school to come win and make money for them would look really good if they offered the $400,000 that used to be the salary. So they get paid a lot to make sure they don't leave. So, to summarize, lots of money for coach leads to keeping a good coach leads to winning more leads to more ticket sales, broadcast contracts, sponsorships, etc. leads to the school being able to afford both the coach and the costs of all the other athletics. And the schools want athletics because students will be a lot less likely to apply if there aren't any *even if they never intend to play*. Fewer students leads to fewer tuition dollars leads to higher tuition for the students that do come or cuts in more areas, both of which lead to fewer students... repeat.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. You have to produce it, either by cracking water or other slightly more complicated methods. Either way you need power to do it, which leads right around to the same problem..

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Rest assured there are a lot of people, most of whom who are far more intelligent than any of us, working on the problem of alternative fuel sources. I will put my faith in their hands, as they stand the best chance at cracking this problem.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

In other words, don't worry what this crushing debt will do to your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Just enjoy the faked affluence now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

This is true, but it's true for any sort of liquid fuel. Even the energy in oil came from the sun originally through the plants and the animals that ate the plants.

We aren't talking about creating energy here, just converting it from one form to another. Nuclear, solar, wind, and all the others are possible solutions for our electric needs long term when the supply of oil is gone, but unless we can come up with a practical means to store the electricity and recharge that storage quickly electricity will have limited uses as a vehicle fuel.

All forms of conversion have losses. The question is coming up with the most efficent means of conversion possible.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I guess I’ll play the smart ***.

What about when you fuse hydrogen into helium? That gives you energy. And fuel is just stored energy, so wouldn’t hydrogen be fuel? I guess deuterium would be high test and cost more too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

No, they will pass it on to the next generation just like we are doing now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif At least they will have ethonal powered cars though.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

What would happen to a planet who's atmosphere is hydrogen/whatever, and you tried to land a rocket on it? would it not ignite the atmosphere?

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Only if there was an oxidizing agent also present to fuel the combustion. Ignition requires fuel source (in this case the hydrogen), heat (rocket exhaust) and oxygen.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Ah why don't we just jump straight from fossil fuels to fusion! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Deuterium-Tritium fusion should produce a lot of energy. Just never mind the really bad induced radioactivity of the fusion plant materials from the high neutron flux!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

True, but the same can be said of all energy sources. They all came straight from solar energy at one point or another. Well, you also have some energy produced by the decay of radioactive materials within Earth's crust plus a little bit of tidal heating, but those are minor considerations. What we really need is more efficient ways of gathering and harnessing all the massive amounts of solar energy that just goes flying by. Would large solar collectors in orbit work? Make them a few thousand kilometers wide and you'd capture a hell of a lot of energy. I'm sure the logisitics of getting something that large up there and maintaining it would be horrendous, and it might be hard to get the power down to Earth in a usable form, but imagine the sheer power!

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

That’s why we plan to put them all in Canada http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

Well...we certainly have enough un-used land. Then the question becomes...would you be able to afford it when we sell it back to you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

From what I know the best we got right now is a magnetic tokamak that uses way more energy to contain the reaction then what the steam turbines get out of the thermal energy produced.

Fission on the other hand is productive but puts out a lot of radioactive waste.

Wait, I take that back. The sun is a productive fusion reaction with are solar collectors, windmills and plants.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

I'm suprised no one has brought up Helium 3 fuel.

"Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source" He3 link

The only draw backs: Its rare on earth and there is no working reactor.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

We can't even do regular fusion yet and Helium 3 is harder, so its out of the woods for now.

Re: OT of an OT: Ethanol
 

from what I have read the Helium 3 is in theroy easier to fuse and with a lot less radioactive waste.