GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

7 hours ago, Polyphia said:

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFITS--I AM REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT BUYBACKS WERE ILLEGAL UNTIL 1982. PLEASE TELL ME YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

The point was that Biden & Co. are criticizing the oil industry for making profits....like it is criminal to make profits in America.

The usual dead head liberal mush.

What part of that do you not get?

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

The global warming has forgot to take in Texas again, in fact this is another cold weather record in the American south.

https://www.kxan.com/weather/forecast/todays-forecast/

"Preliminary data from the National Weather Service shows that this has been Austin’s worst ice storm since 2007.

While the Feb. 2021 winter storm brought more snow than this storm has, this system brought central Texas crippling amounts of ice, bringing down trees and power lines across the area.

Camp Mabry has tallied 0.64″ of ice accumulation thus far — adding hundreds of pounds to weighed-down trees and power lines. As of Wednesday evening, there are more than 210,000 electric customers in Central Texas without power as temperatures hover near freezing."

Edited February 2, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

37 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The point was that Biden & Co. are criticizing the oil industry for making profits....like it is criminal to make profits in America.

The usual dead head liberal mush.

What part of that do you not get?

You don't seem to get that I was only commenting on that one part of your post about criminality of buybacks. I can't believe you still can't understand that.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, Polyphia said:

You don't seem to get that I was only commenting on that one part of your post about criminality of buybacks. I can't believe you still can't understand that.

You don't seem to get that this was about Biden & Co. declaring war on oil profits, as if that were a crime.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

These new offshore wind turbines are truly gargantuan, each blade is 115m (377ft) long!

Siemens Gamesa Upgrades Flagship Offshore Wind Turbine, Gets Preferred Supplier Status for 3.6 GW Norfolk Projects

The newly introduced, enhanced SG 14‑236 DD offshore wind turbine, has a 236-metre diameter rotor, a 43,500 m2 swept area, and a capacity of up to 15 MW. The SG 14-236 DD prototype is scheduled to be installed in 2022 and the model will be commercially available in 2024.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/11/08/siemens-gamesa-upgrades-flagship-offshore-wind-turbine-gets-preferred-supplier-status-for-3-6-gw-norfolk-projects/

[notsonice + 1,063]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

These new offshore wind turbines are truly gargantuan, each blade is 115m (377ft) long!

Siemens Gamesa Upgrades Flagship Offshore Wind Turbine, Gets Preferred Supplier Status for 3.6 GW Norfolk Projects

The newly introduced, enhanced SG 14‑236 DD offshore wind turbine, has a 236-metre diameter rotor, a 43,500 m2 swept area, and a capacity of up to 15 MW. The SG 14-236 DD prototype is scheduled to be installed in 2022 and the model will be commercially available in 2024.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/11/08/siemens-gamesa-upgrades-flagship-offshore-wind-turbine-gets-preferred-supplier-status-for-3-6-gw-norfolk-projects/

Impressive on what the UK is doing in offshore wind......in the next 2 years the UK will have surplus electricity during the nights to power hydrogen electrolysis...ammonia production...green fertilizer. I can see that green Ammonium Nitrate production in the UK for export  will be a big business in the late 20's. Powered by wind.........

 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/mississippi/op-ed-sunshine-might-be-free-but-solar-power-is-not-cheap/article_2cb8ad90-a1a6-11ed-b33c-fbe41c3c78c5.html

This is a great article that lays out all the factors that need to be considered when figuring out the true cost of solar farms. True cost makes solar an expensive option except for off grid installations. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, Polyphia said:

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFITS--I AM REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT BUYBACKS WERE ILLEGAL UNTIL 1982. PLEASE TELL ME YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

We can read, just fine, but apparently you can't... or you can but cowardly changed the subject.  

And why should they NOT buy back shares?  Why should everyone else be able to buy the company out from under them in bad times when they have to sell stock to get loans, but never be able to buy back shares in good times in preparation for the bad times? 

Or you think banks, giant equity, mutual funds should own the world... they are so "ethical"...   What are you board member of blackrock or vanguard?

[Polyphia + 67]

41 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

We can read, just fine, but apparently you can't... or you can but cowardly changed the subject.  

And why should they NOT buy back shares?  Why should everyone else be able to buy the company out from under them in bad times when they have to sell stock to get loans, but never be able to buy back shares in good times in preparation for the bad times? 

Or you think banks, giant equity, mutual funds should own the world... they are so "ethical"...   What are you board member of blackrock or vanguard?

Another one who just doesn't get it. I didn't change the subject. Go back and read Ecocharger's initial post; in one part of it, he questioned if buybacks were criminal, and I was merely commenting on the fact that they were (illegal) before 1982. That is all I stated in my original post. I didn't comment on profits, or what I think about banks, or mutual funds, or whether Tom Brady is actually going to stay retired, And I wasn't trying to change the subject--it was part of the subject. You and Ecocharger (weirdly) inferred those things (except the part about Brady). So, it is you, not I, who needs to learn how to read. Generating inferences, and then knowing when you have generated them incorrectly, is an important part of reading comprehension and discourse in general. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

9 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Another one who just doesn't get it. I didn't change the subject. Go back and read Ecocharger's initial post; in one part of it, he questioned if buybacks were criminal, and I was merely commenting on the fact that they were (illegal) before 1982. That is all I stated in my original post. I didn't comment on profits, or what I think about banks, or mutual funds, or whether Tom Brady is actually going to stay retired, And I wasn't trying to change the subject--it was part of the subject. You and Ecocharger (weirdly) inferred those things (except the part about Brady). So, it is you, not I, who needs to learn how to read. Generating inferences, and then knowing when you have generated them incorrectly, is an important part of reading comprehension and discourse in general. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Uh, no you chose to change the topic and only address at best a portion where you bitched about stock buyback.  Stop the lies.  Scroll up and read your own lies.  Enjoy. 

Stock buy backs are good.  It stops so called "investors" like Blackrock from dumping another board member on you who has more votes.  True, this is not all that viable in giant OLD corporations who do NOT own any of their own stock worth mentioning due to said idiotic old rule, but this is CRITICAL in all emerging corporations like Illumina for instance who have to sell of a LARGE portion of their stock to get loans/seed money for manufacturing etc.  They need to be able to buyback the stock to keep scum so called "investors" like Blackrock off their board or at minimum with less sway. 

Now stock buy backs on the GIANT OLD corporations... Yes, I would have to agree, buying back shares does nothing but boost the stock price giving GIANT bonus's to the CEO/board members while doing near nothing for the company.  But honestly, this is easily capped by a slight change in the law forcing ALL corporations CEO/Board member pay to be NO higher than 10X-->50x that of the average worker in the company.  If said CEO's want higher pay, they can take the company private and throw away the protection of being a corporation.  Pick: Private, high pay, high risk, or public, medium high pay low risk.  One or the other. 

Companies being owned by Vanguard is not good.  Damned mba's running tech platforms instead of engineers is the real reason upper management pay has exploded.  Short term gain with zero vision for progress.  << Cough Boeing >>

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Uh, no you chose to change the topic and only address at best a portion where you bitched about stock buyback.  Stop the lies.  Scroll up and read your own lies.  Enjoy. 

Stock buy backs are good.  It stops so called "investors" like Blackrock from dumping another board member on you who has more votes.  True, this is not all that viable in giant OLD corporations who do NOT own any of their own stock worth mentioning due to said idiotic old rule, but this is CRITICAL in all emerging corporations like Illumina for instance who have to sell of a LARGE portion of their stock to get loans/seed money for manufacturing etc.  They need to be able to buyback the stock to keep scum so called "investors" like Blackrock off their board or at minimum with less sway. 

Now stock buy backs on the GIANT OLD corporations... Yes, I would have to agree, buying back shares does nothing but boost the stock price giving GIANT bonus's to the CEO/board members while doing near nothing for the company.  But honestly, this is easily capped by a slight change in the law forcing ALL corporations CEO/Board member pay to be NO higher than 10X-->50x that of the average worker in the company.  If said CEO's want higher pay, they can take the company private and throw away the protection of being a corporation.  Pick: Private, high pay, high risk, or public, medium high pay low risk.  One or the other. 

Companies being owned by Vanguard is not good.  Damned mba's running tech platforms instead of engineers is the real reason upper management pay has exploded.  Short term gain with zero vision for progress.  << Cough Boeing >>

OK, so there are rules about what I can comment on from someone else's post? I didn't change the topic--I commented on, as you noted, "a portion of it." And the fact that you continued with a multi-paragraph discussion about buybacks is your tacit approval that it is a legitimate topic. So, you are still wrong.

As I am sure you are aware, there are many who believe buybacks are problematic for a variety of reasons.

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy

[notsonice + 1,063]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:13 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Not even close, coal is up in demand tonnage and oil is now daily 103mmb, not going down. Natural gas is where it should be in price range. So what is renewables replacing? 

and yet the prices go down down down......

 

$2.39 NAT gas is in the price range of market oversupply

Enjoy Renewables they are replacing nat gas and coal fired power generation.

Coal consumption in the US? off over 50 percent in just 10 years...boy it must suck for those hoping for increase in demand for coal.....those betting on US coal.........like the dodo bird

[notsonice + 1,063]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:20 PM, Ecocharger said:

Demand for oil and coal and natural gas keeps going up and up.

and the price for oil  ...coal and nat gas keeps going down down down same as demand

$80 brent    $74 WTI

only thing holding WTI above $70 is Sleepy Joes promises to buy crude at $72

without him price of crude today Brent under $70 WTI under $65

Looks like your only friend in oil today is Biden........Enjoy the thought

Now Nat gas $2.35 low this morning.........boy what a bear market...now tell me how it works in your world...demand goes up and price goes down...I bet you are a Trump U grad.....worthless degree for braindead suckers

 

Nat gas is heading for under $2 by May 1............

 

and lets finish with coal...Spot Peaked at over $400 a ton in 2022 and today $137...heading for under $100 later this year

 

...boy your up up up demand is just a fantasy

Reality

Renewables are creaming the market....Enjoy the transition and the unemployment line....

well at least Sleepy Joe tossed you a favor with his $72 buy oil

HA HA HA

[notsonice + 1,063]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:20 PM, Ecocharger said:

Demand for oil and coal and natural gas keeps going up and up.

and the prices keep going down down down..................same as demand.

 

deal with reality

Brent Crude $80............

Nat Gas hit $2.35 this morning......

Coal on the international and US domestic market off over 40 percent in less than a month

[notsonice + 1,063]

 

The unemployment rate in the United States is at 3.4%--the lowest rate since 1969...wow attaboy Sleepy Joe and Price of energy is crashing at the same time.....$2.50 gas coming to a station near you soon

 

Enjoy the read

Oil Prices Crash After Perky Jobs Data

By Julianne Geiger - Feb 03, 2023, 12:19 PM CST

Crude oil prices fell on Friday afternoon following reports of strong U.S. jobs data, with WTI crashing by more than 2.5% to $73.88

The U.S. January jobs report indicates that the jobs market is stronger than expected, with employers adding 517,000 in January. This compares to economists that had expected employers had added 185,000 jobs in January.

The unemployment rate in the United States is at 3.4%--the lowest rate since 1969, despite the round of tech layoffs.

 

The Fed’s aggressive interest rate hikes are not slowing hiring as some would have expected, with fears lingering that this could still lead to a recession. Still, wage growth seemed to slow.

With the ever-looming recession still looming, traders were slow to respond to Friday’s job data. WTI rose $0.55 per barrel to $76.43 (+0.72%) following the report, while Brent rose $0.46 to $82.63 (+0.56%). But prices quickly took a turn for the worse, with WTI falling $2 per barrel by 1:13 pm ET to $73.88 (-2.64%) per barrel. Brent had fallen by nearly the same amount to $80.21 (-2.39%) per barrel.

Both the WTI and Brent benchmarks are set for a sharp weekly decline.

Both benchmarks have slumped about $7 per barrel so far this week, despite signs that China’s crude oil demand could be recovering and the EU’s ban on Russian crude oil product imports, which goes into effect this Sunday.

Oil prices had already fallen earlier in the week as the United States Energy Information Administration data showed major builds in crude oil and crude products inventories, OPEC stuck to its guns and decided there wouldn’t be any changes to its output strategies at this time, and the Federal Reserve raised its target interest rate—and promised to continue those increases.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

20 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Another one who just doesn't get it. I didn't change the subject. Go back and read Ecocharger's initial post; in one part of it, he questioned if buybacks were criminal, and I was merely commenting on the fact that they were (illegal) before 1982. That is all I stated in my original post. I didn't comment on profits, or what I think about banks, or mutual funds, or whether Tom Brady is actually going to stay retired, And I wasn't trying to change the subject--it was part of the subject. You and Ecocharger (weirdly) inferred those things (except the part about Brady). So, it is you, not I, who needs to learn how to read. Generating inferences, and then knowing when you have generated them incorrectly, is an important part of reading comprehension and discourse in general. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

No, the focus was on normal profits being ILLEGAL...what part of that do you not get?

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

8 hours ago, Polyphia said:

OK, so there are rules about what I can comment on from someone else's post? I didn't change the topic--I commented on, as you noted, "a portion of it." And the fact that you continued with a multi-paragraph discussion about buybacks is your tacit approval that it is a legitimate topic. So, you are still wrong.

As I am sure you are aware, there are many who believe buybacks are problematic for a variety of reasons.

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy

Just deal in a straightforward way and stop trying to avoid the tough questions. 

You are trying to turn the clock back to the early 1980s...we have moved on from there.

A distraction we do not need. Biden & Co. are not advocating banning buybacks.

The discussion is about windfall profits taxes directed at ONE single industry for reasons of climate junk science.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

39 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the focus was on normal profits being ILLEGAL...what part of that do you not get?

Nope, you are still wrong. You asked whether buybacks were illegal, and I commented that they were up until 1982.

[Polyphia + 67]

39 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Just deal in a straightforward way and stop trying to avoid the tough questions. 

You are trying to turn the clock back to the early 1980s...we have moved on from there.

A distraction we do not need. Biden & Co. are not advocating banning buybacks.

The discussion is about windfall profits taxes directed at ONE single industry for reasons of climate junk science.

I was merely relaying a fact from the early 1980s, and if you would just admit that you were wrong, we could move forward. I never said Biden and Co. were advocating banning buybacks--didn't even imply it. Congratulations on your discussion "about windfall profits taxes directed at ONE single industry for reasons of climate junk science"; I hope it brings you peace.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

6 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Nope, you are still wrong. You asked whether buybacks were illegal, and I commented that they were up until 1982.

And they were not illegal before 1934...  Nor were they illegal anywhere else in the world.... Corporations using shares have been around for hundreds of years in their current form.  Guess what, USA is not 50% of the worlds GDP anymore(post WWII) where kids working on an assembly line can make higher wages than nearly every other nation on earth's average wage and anyone working "real" work is literally richer than everyone else in the world.  That world was a blip in time. Suggest you travel a little bit and see the REAL world lives instead of your delusions.

Way to move the goalposts down thread yet again.  No, he did not ask if buybacks were illegal.  Accountability is kryptonite eh.  😝

If you wish to blame something about disparity, blame lack of tariffs and ability to make indefinite trusts or layered trusts of trusts which should also be illegal.  Trusts should be able to exist for ~50 years or so and then every penny left in said trust after said period of time should be turned over to the government if you asked me. 

[specinho + 439]

On 2/2/2023 at 11:01 AM, Polyphia said:

You don't seem to get that I was only commenting on that one part of your post about criminality of buybacks. I can't believe you still can't understand that.

<1982....illegal..................................................>1982.....legal................................?

[Polyphia + 67]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And they were not illegal before 1934...  Nor were they illegal anywhere else in the world.... Corporations using shares have been around for hundreds of years in their current form.  Guess what, USA is not 50% of the worlds GDP anymore(post WWII) where kids working on an assembly line can make higher wages than nearly every other nation on earth's average wage and anyone working "real" work is literally richer than everyone else in the world.  That world was a blip in time. Suggest you travel a little bit and see the REAL world lives instead of your delusions.

Way to move the goalposts down thread yet again.  No, he did not ask if buybacks were illegal.  Accountability is kryptonite eh.  😝

If you wish to blame something about disparity, blame lack of tariffs and ability to make indefinite trusts or layered trusts of trusts which should also be illegal.  Trusts should be able to exist for ~50 years or so and then every penny left in said trust after said period of time should be turned over to the government if you asked me. 

You are still wrong. I commented on a small bit of Ecocharger's post (which you noted). You and Ecocharger (and now specinho) are continuing to give this thread a life. I think you enjoy it because you can get up on your soapbox about buybacks (again). It seems that Ecocharger just likes the trolling factor. Every time each of you responds to this thread, I get a good chuckle. Admit you were wrong and move on.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

18 hours ago, Polyphia said:

I was merely relaying a fact from the early 1980s, and if you would just admit that you were wrong, we could move forward. I never said Biden and Co. were advocating banning buybacks--didn't even imply it. Congratulations on your discussion "about windfall profits taxes directed at ONE single industry for reasons of climate junk science"; I hope it brings you peace.

The 1980s is not part of the discussion, you were trying to change the subject, a typical liberal tactic.

Buybacks are not illegal, get with it. Biden & Co. are not bringing back the old laws, they are concentrating on a windfall tax following in the footsteps of Europe.

Again, you have nothing to say, so just shut up until you can think of something relevant.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,063]

Financial Times

 

BP cuts long-term forecast for oil and gas demand

 

Tom Wilson

 JANUARY 29 2023

Group’s latest annual outlook says energy security concerns will spur more investment in renewables

https://www.ft.com/content/857dfefa-98c6-4ed5-a0ad-5a7bb6669411

BP cuts long-term forecast for oil and gas demand Group’s latest annual outlook says energy security concerns will spur more investment in renewables ...........................

 

enjoy the read

Edited February 4, 2023 by notsonice

[Polyphia + 67]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The 1980s is not part of the discussion, you were trying to change the subject, a typical liberal tactic.

Buybacks are not illegal, get with it. Biden & Co. are not bringing back the old laws, they are concentrating on a windfall tax following in the footsteps of Europe.

Again, you have nothing to say, so just shut up until you can think of something relevant.

Still wrong--I was just replying to a portion of your original post. I know they are legal, and I never wrote anything about Biden & Co. or the windfall tax.

And out comes my 6 year-old nephew again--telling me to shut up is unbecoming and immature. If you used your problem-solving skills, you could have ended this already. Post that you were wrong, or.....just stop posting about this thread--either way, it will be over. Why don't you respond to notsonice's recent posts? They are much more interesting than the content in this thread.