Global Warming News

[EddieWalker]

Since you mentioned NASA, I took a look at what they have to say.

NASA - Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?

Again, there are two things in play here. Nature doing what it always does, and phoney science that cherry pics parts of an event, then blames it on Global Warming. I can't think of anything more rediculous then how Global Warming causes the planet to be hot, AND it causes it to be cold. If it rains, it's because of Global Warming, and if it doesn't rain it's because of Global Warming. If an ice masses decrease it's because of Global Warming, and when they increase, it's because of Global warming. One bad huricane that really wasn't all that powerful was blamed on Global Warming, and then we go into an extremly quiet period of hurricanes. That's because of Global Warming too.

Which is it? If we are to believe all these things are because of Global Warming, what part of it are we trying to stop? The more you look into it, the harder it gets to take it seriously.

Do you remember those NASA pictures of the antarctic ice breaking off? Do you remember all the press that got? We're doomed, the ice is breaking off because the planet is so hot and now the shipping lanes are in danger. Of course, when it came out that the reason the ice broke off is because there is so much more ice in antarctica, that it forced that ice off as excess, the whole thing disapeared from the news.

Believe what you like, but ask questions and doubt your sources. The hoax is for real, and the science doesn't exist to prove or disprove anything.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

If I remember correctly, I read years, and years ago. That there were shipping lanes open near the antartic in the either late 1700's, or 1800's. It was a boom for commerce at that time, due to it being easier to take things by boat through where ice used to be, and shipping lanes were more open, and less trecherous.

Thank gawd sea ice in on the rise. I was getting worried about the polar bears, and looseing sleep over them. Struggling to find a piece of ice to call home. There were 5,000 in the late 60's, and now there are 25,000. How do I know. NASA counted them......

 

[dave1949]

I explain melting ice caps, the same way that an ice cube melts on the side walk. It's above 32 degrees F. Why? Because the sun is heating the planet.

Another way that ice is removed is by winds, consisting of low humity air. A slower process, but none the less an effective methods of ice erosion.

God doesn't turn the wind off at night either, he has a big funding budget, bigger than the climate change hoaxters.

Now would you explain to me Gator, whay are some ice sheets thickening up, while others break off and fall into the ocean. Known as calfing.

Claiming that humans alone are causing either global warming, or global cooling is absurd. We all know for sure the only people who can cause climate change are the Genuine American Indians. I have seen it on TV. They do a little number called "The Rain Dance", powerful medicine. The Indians do the dancing, the clouds do the raining.

The thing I find interesting is this, you prefer to believe the sun is the cause, based upon the work of a Russian scientist and and others. Climate researchers in the US have studied the correlation between the sun's output and earth temperatures. They concluded there is a very small effect and does not account for the magnitude of the the change here.

Okay, we have two opposing scientific views. In broad terms, either they are both wrong or one is wrong and the other is right. By what criteria do you decide to favor the Russian scientist? It certainly isn't your or, anyone else's on this forum, long experience as a climate researcher that would allow you to make such a choice with any validity.

In plain words, I believe you are biased. No amount of rational presentation of facts will ever sway the opinion of a biased person. In fact, a biased person won't even acknowledge others may have valid points. Well, that makes for a fun day on the forum don't it?

Now, I know someone will tell me about the boys in the UK fibbing and that all the scientist's in the US are part of a plot to get rich and so forth. I don't buy it. You want to disparage the work of climate scientists around the world due to emails in the UK? If you think about it, that isn't likely and it certainly isn't the way you would hope others to treat you in similar circumstances. In fact, if they did so, you would be outraged.

Clearly for some people in this discussion, the most important outcome is that Al Gore is wrong. Your like or dislike of Al Gore won't change the earth's temperature by one bit, nor, as you assume he is just getting rich, will the amount of money in Al's bank account change the temperature. Please, get off the Al Gore routine, it's boring.

It would be nice if Eddie could acknowledge that windpower has a real, working place in the energy arena, I gave a good reference to check out. Nothing hypothetical about it. You can see 'em and touch 'em. But, if he wishes to believe that windpower is only just another taxpayer robbing scam that doesn't work, it's a free country. Those turbines will be producing megawatts of power whether Eddie believes in them or not. It does work, its working around the globe. Even in China they are implementing wind power as fast as possible. There are several core reasons it is an attractive energy resource.

Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.

The point I am making, maybe in a harsh way, we can all be wrong on many issues. None of us drew ice core samples, we didn't slice up coral, we didn't interpret satelite data, we didn't study rock strata, or dig in peat bogs. We did nothing. We wouldn't know how to do those things. Yet, we are all experts on other people's work. That's pretty sad.

Maybe stubborn, blind adherence to biased positions is why other people don't join in. I know it doesn't make for a very good discussion.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

In plain words, I believe you are biased. No amount of rational presentation of facts will ever sway the opinion of a biased person. In fact, a biased person won't even acknowledge others may have valid points. Well, that makes for a fun day on the forum don't it?

Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.

When I was a Union Steward, I learned a little trick that worked very well for me. When the other sides starts name calling and making accusations, you learn two things. They are out of ideas, and they are exposing what they think about themselves.

Sorry to see it come to this.

Eddie

 

[dave1949]

I can't think of anything more rediculous then how Global Warming causes the planet to be hot, AND it causes it to be cold. If it rains, it's because of Global Warming, and if it doesn't rain it's because of Global Warming. If an ice masses decrease it's because of Global Warming, and when they increase, it's because of Global warming. One bad huricane that really wasn't all that powerful was blamed on Global Warming, and then we go into an extremly quiet period of hurricanes. That's because of Global Warming too.

Which is it? If we are to believe all these things are because of Global Warming, what part of it are we trying to stop? The more you look into it, the harder it gets to take it seriously.
Eddie

It's all the above, and it's what climate researchers have been trying to tell us for a long time now. It is climate change and the underlying cause is climate warming. Stop or slow the warming and the change will also stop or slow down. You are attempting to apply simple logic to a complex problem. I don't say that in a mean way, it's human nature to do so. In fact, the early articles predicted people would do just what you are doing. We are not well equipped to think on a global scale or in multiple generation time frames. In the same way we really don't have a good concept of large values, like billion or trillion.

From the beginning of the warnings climate researchers made, they said warming will cause more extremes in the weather. More rain some places, drier in others, cold and hot extremes.

For example, they predicted New England will be cooler and wetter than past averages. The Southwest will become hotter and drier. They said it will take decades for these effects to accumulate.

It remains to be seen how accurate their predictions will be. Most of us won't be around long enough to know.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

When I was a Union Steward, I learned a little trick that worked very well for me. When the other sides starts name calling and making accusations, you learn two things. They are out of ideas, and they are exposing what they think about themselves.

Sorry to see it come to this.

Eddie

It reminds me of the windmill controversy. Build them now just in case they "might" be able to help recude energy consumption. So far, the technology doesn't exist to justify windmills and just to have them, we're paying more in taxes. The only people benifitting from windmills are those selling them, those installing them and those receiving rents for the windmills being there. The energy they generat is minimal and sporadic, so you are still required to keep a power plant running in addition to having the windmills. It's a very big example of why government should not be involved with this. When windmill technology gets to the point that it's viable, then they will be used because their is a financial advantage to do so. Since taxpayers are subsidizing this technology that cannot support itself, there is no insentive to make windmills better.

Those are your words. I am not name calling. I think you may not realize the extent to which wind power is developing around the world. Calling it a fib is to make a point, there is a lot we as individuals don't know. I certainly don't think I know everything. I'm sorry if you took any other way. And yes, I do believe some of what you say
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

The following was found by spending a few minutes on google.

Oil company profits (Oil Watchdog)
profits 2000 to 2007 in billions of dollars
Exxon 17 to 45
Shell 12 to 30
Chevron 11 to 18
BP 14 to 17
Philips 3 to 12

Many examples of record profits if you care to look.

Subsidies to big oil(Cleantech Group | Accelerating the next wave of innovation)
(this is a portion of it)

"Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)
While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry. Even yours (I'll bet you work in cleantech/greentech!)

For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants. Solar wouldn't be what it's become without significant German, Californian, U.S. federal and other incentives. Ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. enjoy large subsidies (details, if interested, here), but let's resist getting into the rat-hole of agricultural industry subsidies."

Many other sources but seems to range between 20 and 40 billion per year.


Countries with significant percent renewable

Google search provides lots of information- Spain and Germany are both approaching 25% - Germany has an interesting incentive for small scale solar voltaics.

My feelings - Big Business is made up of little guys but in the corporate world the individual liability is gone. Big Business through its lobbying is what corrupts government.

Loren

 

[SpringHollow]

Sorry, I could not read all of this and stopped after 6 pages. I love these conspiracy stories about scientists. I am a scientist by training and work with scientists. Any good scientist will tell you that they do not know everything - it would not be research if they did. They are passionate about what they do which is working in the interface betwen the known and the unknown. They are not a huge conspiracy out to deceive the public.

Scientists are people and so there are some bad ones as well as good ones. And then there are the special interest groups that corrupt science in so many ways - from publishing their own fake journals with economic papers written by "Doctors" (who happen to be dentists) and then spread these truths to the media all the way to governments who censor scientific reports because it does not fit their political outlook.

The earth is complicated and a global system (there's a shock). There will always be evidence supporting something in one area and contradicting it in another area).

Whether global warming (or climate change which is the better term since the best science i have seen has said we will see more extreme swings in weather and a shifting of where it will be warm and cold) exists or not is not really important in determining what we do. Lowering our dependence upon limited resources and foreign sources of energy is a good thing. Recycling, energy efficiency, etc are what we should be doing regardless of the climate. And it re-energizes (pun intended) our economy. So who cares why.

Ken

 

[Ken45101]

Look into the eyes of a five year old a say there is no such thing as Global Warming, the earth will be here as is for your children and grand children.

I'm sure the earth will still be here, but I'm afraid that our politicians are on a path to destroy our economy and society. Yes, I look at our younger generation and feel sorry for the economic disaster they will inherit. But I feel confident that the earth will be pretty much the same, it's just humanity that will suffer.

Sure, the climate is going to change. We know that the Sahara Desert was once green and lush. Mankind didn't change that. Maybe the arctic ice cap will shrink and Greenland will again become (literally) green, as it was 500 years ago, while at the same time the antarctic ice cap gets thicker.

As I said before, one of the prime reasons that I do not buy into this scam is that the proposed "solutions" are more about destroying the established economies and nothing to do with changing the net global environment. Put the caps on the U.S. and ship all the industry to China and India where they do not have our EPA to clean things up. Tell me, which is better for the environment, a coal fired U.S. power plant, or a coal fired power plant in China, with no EPA controls (China is adding a new coal plant EVERY DAY!) If the global proposals were honest and meant to improve the environment, China, India, etc. would also have to meet the same goals. They don't. It's a totally dishonest plan.

Ken

 

[Ken45101]

Oil companies have received and are receiving billions of dollars of tax payer money. They are making record profits.

Sorry, but this is totally wrong! The oil companies are paying many times MORE IN TAXES THAN THEY MAKE IN PROFITS. The U.S. government gets more money per barrel of oil (and does nothing for it) vs. the oil companies which are actually doing the extremely expensive work to find and produce oil.

Who better deserves "profits" from the gallon of gas you buy, the companies that spend billions of dollars to find and produce the gasoline, or the government that does nothing to find and produce the gasoline you want? The government takes more "profit" out of each gallon of gas than Exxon gets.

If Exxon makes $30 billion in profit, they also pay $160 billion IN TAXES. Don't give me this bs that they are receiving billions of dollars in tax payer money. That's totally false. Totally.....

Modern deep sea rigs cost A HALF MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY to drill for oil. They might come up dry and produce zero profit. But the government makes money even off of those failed projects.

Yes, Exxon (et al) do produce billions of dollars in profit, but when one considers the cost to make that profit, the companies are not all that profitable. Oil companies are in the middle of the pack of U.S. industries as to profitability. Many other businesses (such as banking, finance) are more profitable.

Ken

 

[Ken45101]

Eddie,

I just wanted to thank you for the well written, sensible responses you have posted.

Ken

 

[Stimw]

I will sum up this whole debate with a link to Blind men and the Elephant- The Blind Men and the Elephant

 

[Bird]

When I was a Union Steward, I learned a little trick that worked very well for me. When the other sides starts name calling and making accusations, you learn two things. They are out of ideas, and they are exposing what they think about themselves.

Sorry to see it come to this.

Eddie

Yep, you hit the nail on the head that time, Eddie.

 

[20 20]

Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib.
Dave.

I'd have to agree NY city sure loves our windmills in upstate. We have added the mills but most of the power goes down state.

 

[20 20]

When I was a Union Steward, I learned a little trick that worked very well for me. When the other sides starts name calling and making accusations, you learn two things. They are out of ideas, and they are exposing what they think about themselves.

Sorry to see it come to this.

Eddie

That goes both ways, sometimes the stewarts won't listen, and the only way to get their attention is to throw a wrench????

I don't believe any one has resorted to name calling. I believe they are trying to make a point. I have to agree windmills are not a conspiracy and they do work. I have a good friend in Texas that works on the mills he believes in them whole heartedly, he's out towards Elpaso. The mills I've checked out in my area are fine pieces of machinery. Maybe you've seen some that are worthless{??} does that make them all worthless?

 

[kenstrac]

The following was found by spending a few minutes on google.

Oil company profits (Oil Watchdog)
profits 2000 to 2007 in billions of dollars
Exxon 17 to 45
Shell 12 to 30
Chevron 11 to 18
BP 14 to 17
Philips 3 to 12

Many examples of record profits if you care to look.

Subsidies to big oil(Cleantech Group | Accelerating the next wave of innovation)
(this is a portion of it)

"Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)
While it's easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry "probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country", according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury's former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry. Even yours (I'll bet you work in cleantech/greentech!)

For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants. Solar wouldn't be what it's become without significant German, Californian, U.S. federal and other incentives. Ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. enjoy large subsidies (details, if interested, here), but let's resist getting into the rat-hole of agricultural industry subsidies."

Many other sources but seems to range between 20 and 40 billion per year.


Countries with significant percent renewable

Google search provides lots of information- Spain and Germany are both approaching 25% - Germany has an interesting incentive for small scale solar voltaics.

My feelings - Big Business is made up of little guys but in the corporate world the individual liability is gone. Big Business through its lobbying is what corrupts government.

Loren

OH the EVIL oil co.
Price of oil per barrel(42 gal per barrel) $82.75=$1.97 Gal but wait we don't get 42 gals of gas out of 42 gal of crude but we will let that slide for now price of gas at pump right now is $2.69 thats a $.72 difference keep that in mind.
The birth of a gallon of gas.
Exploration cost whether the is oil or not.
construction cost,taxes and fees and profit and taxes on profits and labor.
Transportation cost, cost of ship ,labor fuel for ship oh again taxes and fee's and another EVIL insurance.
Refinery ,cost to buy land ,construct,labor maint and utilities and again taxes on land,wages utilities permits and fees local,state and feds don't forget Insurance

Transportation again,truck,driver, taxes on labor ,truck ,permits fee's and tolls almost forgot Insurance
Gas station land, building,labor, utilities Taxes on property, labor permit and fee's taxes on profit and the insurance again hold on we are almost there.
Tax at pump, fed. $.184 for gas Diesel is $.244 state tax in NH $.196 for a total of$.381 now take the original $.72-.38=$.34 Now how can we do all of the above for 34cents a gallon?
Because the oil co is making very little on each gallon they make it on quantity!
Who makes the most on this, your wonderful federal, state and local government!
Most of the people who point fingers at the EVIL OIL co take there 30mpg Subaru and drive 200 mi round trip with a bike on the roof loosing .5 mpg for the drag of the bike and the rack put on there little black spandex suits and rid the bike for 20 mi.Then they stop and get a 16 oz bottle of water for $1.25 (the bottle is made with some of that barrel) Lets see 16 0z @ $1.25 x4=$5Gal. lets see what this comes out to.
200 mi @30mi to the gal.=6.66 gal.
6.66gal of gas @ $2.69=$17.93.
lets say the Subaru could run on bottled water 6.66 gal @ $5.00 gal=$33.33.
Now I think it cost a lot less to produce water than gas I might be wrong would one of you spandex people enlighten me here. Smilies

 

[Loren49]

My post was to support my claim of record profits by oil companies. I'm not concerned with price of bottled water as I don't buy any - it has nothing to do with excess profit after receiving large amounts of tax payers money. All of the honest costs of production along with salaries and bonuses (excess in my opinion at times) are business expenses which are subtracted from gross income to determine profit.

My question : "Who stands to gain most by maintaining the status quo in regards to the use of fossil fuels?" as they say - follow the money

I have tried to make a few points that can can be defended with facts. (I did use my opinion when I classified a few things as excessive) Also I don't wear spandex - I do ride bike - and my car gets 38 mile per gallon - also I have lived off the power grid for 26 years and use solar and wind for my electricity.

Loren

 

[EddieWalker]

On the subject of windmills.

Yes, they do create energy. That is not the problem that I have with them. They only create energy under ideal conditions, which is part of the problem that I have with them. When you spend hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to buy and install a windmill farm, you are not replacing a single power plant. The reason is part of the fundemental flaw with windmills and the power they create. It is impossible to store that energy. It can add to a power grid, but it cannot be relied upon to do so when that power is needed. You only get it when the wind is at ideal speeds. Since you cannont turn power plants on and off, you have to keep them running when the wind mills are generating power, or not. As a result, they don't really accomplish anything except make some people feel good.

My other issue with windmills is the expense of buying them, installing them and worst of all, maintaining them. With the cost of electricity factored in, they do not generate enough electricity to make money. They are completely and totaly dependent on government assistance to stay in operation. Everything else, from a coal fired plant to a hydro electric dam to a nuclear power plant will all generate enough electricty to pay for themselves over time. The windmill farms all lose money. The biggest challenge with just keeping them going is what it costs in maintenance. Wind is an environment that has allot of dust in it. Keeping dust out is very dificult, if not impossible. Lubricating those windmills is an ongoing job as well.

I also have friends in the windmill industry. One has been had his cranes on Mythbusters several times. He got involved with the windmill farm on the Altemont Pass in California. At one time, the biggest farm in the world. Leading edge, high tech, state of the art. It's gone bankrupt so many times that they are now just letting them fall over. Nobody has the money any more to keep them working.

The spin off of global warming is the green industry. Windmills are part of it, but so are light bulbs full of mercury, cars full of lead batteries and landfills of perfectly fine autos that are being bought by tax payer dollars to put another car on the road that gets a mile per gallon more then the one it replaced, but used up an enormous amount of resourses just to get built. Good intentions gone bad? or greed taking advantage of the gulible?

Eddie

 

[EddieWalker]

My post was to support my claim of record profits by oil companies. I'm not concerned with price of bottled water as I don't buy any - it has nothing to do with excess profit after receiving large amounts of tax payers money. All of the honest costs of production along with salaries and bonuses (excess in my opinion at times) are business expenses which are subtracted from gross income to determine profit.

My question : "Who stands to gain most by maintaining the status quo in regards to the use of fossil fuels?" as they say - follow the money

I have tried to make a few points that can can be defended with facts. (I did use my opinion when I classified a few things as excessive) Also I don't wear spandex - I do ride bike - and my car gets 38 mile per gallon - also I have lived off the power grid for 26 years and use solar and wind for my electricity.

Loren

If an oil company is making too much money in your opinion, what percentage of their income is acceptable to you?

Does this apply to just the oil companies? or should all business's be limited to that same percentage of profit?

Since the oil companies are owned by the public, and anyone can buy a share of those companies, who are the evil owners of those oil companies? Is it the job of those who run their companies to lose money? or to make a profit so that everyone who owns part of that company will also make money?

If they are to make less money, then you are implying that all of us with retirement plans, 401K's, IRA's and any number of other investments towards retirement, should make less because the companies that they are invested in are making too much profit?

What would happen if an oil company made less profit? Do you think they will continue to explore to find more sources of oil? Will they improve their refineries to keep the cost of fuel as low as possible? Will they work with governments to keep the flow of oil going? or will they just realize that there is no reason to stay in business if they can't make a proffit?

While there seems to be some people who think the oil companies are the problem, the world would be a whole lot worse if they didn't exist. The problem is the government and their mafia like control of the world energy markets. They limit the supply, tax the heck out of it and dictate how it should be refined. If you've ever been to California, you've heard about the additives that were required to the gasoline that was supposed to clean up the air. Whether it did or didn't, the price per gallon jumped to pay for that additive and what it takes to use it, and it's pretty much contaminated all the ground water, making well water undrinkable. Just one example of government gone bad with their feel good, knee jerk reaction to fix a problem that didn't exist. While cleaner air is always a good thing, this program didn't clean the air, but it did destroy the ground water.

The best thing that can happen is for the governemnt to get out of the way. Less government will solve more problems then any other solution.

Eddie

 

[Stimw]

One needs to learn the difference between Profit and Profit Margin. It puts things into prospective-
Oil Profit Margins vs. Other Industries The Everyday Economist
Why is there no outcry about the Pharmaceutical or financial industries?