carlfense Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 BRB is right - our infrastructure needs a major overhaul. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are antiquated, and a reinvestment into our public infrastructure is long overdue. I'd cautiously support something like that. Agreed. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 knapp, yes. but i was thinking more similarly to the new deal's public works administration and works progress administration. something more broad than just highways (but highways should not be excluded) where the focus is reviving the economy through pubic works projects. as a sidenote, i have enjoyed many a public swimming pool that was built because of the works progress administration. i love those structures and their art deco sensibilities. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why have a government entity instead of doing more projects with private companies? i am certainly not opposed to that. but i just think there needs to be more public works projects, however they may be effectuated. but the purpose would be creating good jobs and fixing the infrastructure. i would be opposed to a bidding process that would undercut wages or creates bonuses for the company rather than the employees. i would not want it to function as essentially a corporate handout and a few low wage jobs. Infrastructure projects all across the country happen every year. The system works. There are strict requirements in the contracts that workers need to be paid certain wages...etc. I'm fine with tweaking them if they need tweaked. I am all for bringing most military personnel home from over seas and closing most of the over 700 military installations we have outside our borders. Take that money and pay for infrastructure and put the remaining military personnel on the Mexican border protecting us from the impending civil war that is bound to happen south of the border. Agreed - too much military infrastructure overseas helping their local economy. Need that spending here. If anything, besides roads and bridges (which helps certain industries/businesses), the govt could use the money to incubate new businesses/industries (technology, energy, etc) that can spur more real jobs that last. Think of the benefits of Kennedy's dash to the moon. While it cost a lot to get a man on the moon - the industries and technologies it created spured so much more in our economy and had far greater impact after the last foot print was made on the moon. Create intensives to bring jobs back home- to repopulate the blighted areas of Detroit for example wt new manufacturing jobs. All it takes is visionary leadership and the will to stay with it as American's did in the 1960s even after JFK's death. Who is the visionary to get this done. Unfortunately, I don't see much in DC at this time from either party. Whether you agreed or not with FDR or JFK - they were both visionaries who set into motion movements that spurred job creation. Ike was the same way wt his vision of the interstate system. Sometimes all private industry needs to develop the next big thing is a push, or an incentive by govt - true govt/private partnership shouldn't favor an elite few (donors for example) but should be broad enough to spill over and benefit many businesses within the target industry. Let's look at one industry: Energy. I think we should move ahead wt new technologies and the gov't partnership should expand beyond the donor class which made the news. But I think the gov't shouldn't be fighting 'big oil' at the same time. We will need old energy for many years to come. However, since we can drill safely on public lands like we are doing on private lands in N D., just think of the benefits to our economy that the downward pressure on oil prices would bring if we opened up more land for drilling. Besides being a huge job creator and also creating more revenue for govt, energy independence can free us from having to be the world's police power overseas - justification for closing those bases in the Mid East. More gov't revenue would address our debt crisis as well. Again freeing more resources for job creation, social action, etc Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 BRB is right - our infrastructure needs a major overhaul. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are antiquated, and a reinvestment into our public infrastructure is long overdue. I'd cautiously support something like that. Agreed. Carl - nice new avatar Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 However, since we can drill safely on public lands like we are doing on private lands in N D. . . . How do you define safely? . . . just think of the benefits to our economy that the downward pressure on oil prices would bring if we opened up more land for drilling. Domestic oil production doesn't have a huge effect on oil prices. I'm not really sure why we should hurry to exploit our own reserves. That oil will be a heck of a lot more valuable in the future. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Carl - nice new avatar Thanks. I believe knapp made them. Link to comment
Junior Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 However, since we can drill safely on public lands like we are doing on private lands in N D., just think of the benefits to our economy that the downward pressure on oil prices would bring if we opened up more land for drilling. Yea, maybe we can burn off more natural gas. We'll never need that again. http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 However, since we can drill safely on public lands like we are doing on private lands in N D. . . . How do you define safely? . . . just think of the benefits to our economy that the downward pressure on oil prices would bring if we opened up more land for drilling. Domestic oil production doesn't have a huge effect on oil prices. I'm not really sure why we should hurry to exploit our own reserves. That oil will be a heck of a lot more valuable in the future. Yes, it isn't a one to one ratio by any means. Domestic oil goes into the full world barrel but even wt the increase in production here, it should place downward pressure on the price of oil. It does create taxable income for the govt and it helps to offset our trade balance deficit - all positive Your second point is well taken - kind of nice having the ACE in the back pocket. However, it still takes years to get the ace out of the pocket. Regarding safely: Nothing is really 100% safe and environmentally friendly in this industry. But it has improved greatly from decades ago due to modern drilling technology and laws/regulations that guide industry on what is environmentally acceptable for drilling, transportation, and restoration. Of course accidents will happen - thus the debate on oil transportation via trains vs pipelines. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 However, since we can drill safely on public lands like we are doing on private lands in N D., just think of the benefits to our economy that the downward pressure on oil prices would bring if we opened up more land for drilling. Yea, maybe we can burn off more natural gas. We'll never need that again. http://www.npr.org/b...rth-dakota-dark JR, are you sure that isn't a cattle lot up there in ND!! Those cow's let out a lot of methane - perhaps a methane gas fire. To your point, I've always wondered why (I'm not a Petro Eng) we cannot capture that natural gas that is being burned off and liquify and store it. Must be cost/reward economics. Link to comment
deedsker Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Energy independence by drilling is the worst way to go about it. Depressed prices are great, but they won't be sustained and we will push a problem off for only another 50 years. Wind, solar, nuclear, and thermal energy need to be pushed and pushed hard. Yeah, I have seen the efficiencies in these technologies, but the provide a way to drop the need for oil in the first place. Heck, Nebraska has the second or third best potential for wind energy production in the US and we are in about the 20's for actual production. Put the money up front and help the nation as a whole. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Regarding safely: Nothing is really 100% safe and environmentally friendly in this industry. But it has improved greatly from decades ago due to modern drilling technology and laws/regulations that guide industry on what is environmentally acceptable for drilling, transportation, and restoration. Of course accidents will happen - thus the debate on oil transportation via trains vs pipelines. I can think of a reasonably safe place for that oil. Link to comment
Junior Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 JR, are you sure that isn't a cattle lot up there in ND!! Those cow's let out a lot of methane - perhaps a methane gas fire. To your point, I've always wondered why (I'm not a Petro Eng) we cannot capture that natural gas that is being burned off and liquify and store it. Must be cost/reward economics. Yep, it is. The companies don't think it is worth the money/effort to capture. My point being, why would we want to drill more now when we don't really need it, and keep burning off that natural gas wastefully... when maybe in 10 years the economics of capturing the gas has changed and we could get more efficient use of our dwindling fossil fuels. Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Sounds like the vast majority of reporting on this has been terribly misguided. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 JR, are you sure that isn't a cattle lot up there in ND!! Those cow's let out a lot of methane - perhaps a methane gas fire. To your point, I've always wondered why (I'm not a Petro Eng) we cannot capture that natural gas that is being burned off and liquify and store it. Must be cost/reward economics. Yep, it is. The companies don't think it is worth the money/effort to capture. My point being, why would we want to drill more now when we don't really need it, and keep burning off that natural gas wastefully... when maybe in 10 years the economics of capturing the gas has changed and we could get more efficient use of our dwindling fossil fuels. good point Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Regarding safely: Nothing is really 100% safe and environmentally friendly in this industry. But it has improved greatly from decades ago due to modern drilling technology and laws/regulations that guide industry on what is environmentally acceptable for drilling, transportation, and restoration. Of course accidents will happen - thus the debate on oil transportation via trains vs pipelines. I can think of a reasonably safe place for that oil. OK, I'll take your bait --- tell us - Link to comment
Recommended Posts