[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
Brad Haslett
flybrad at gmail.com
Wed Jul 5 22:15:52 EDT 2006
Bill,
Scroll down in the article I linked to and you'll find this statement.
"In 2003, the vast majority (about 90%) of oil exported from the Persian
Gulf transited by tanker through the Strait of
Hormuz<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/choke.html#HORMUZ>, located
between Oman and Iran. The Strait consists of 2-mile wide channels
for inbound and outbound tanker traffic, as well as a 2-mile wide buffer
zone. Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz account for *roughly two-fifths
* of all world traded oil, and closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require
use of longer alternate routes (if available) at increased transportation
costs."
China is a net importer of oil and the fastest growing user. India is a
growing user as well. US consumption is not slowing.
Minor swings in production make for exponential swings in price. We went
through this during two earlier oil OPEC created oil shortages and survived
but with major effects on our economy. This one would be different.
Canadian tar sands have tremendous potential but we disagree about price. I
think about $100 a barrel is closer to breakeven but at a tremendous
environmental cost. As long as the Canadians can sell the idea to their own
countrymen, it may be our salvation. But, even if it is, it will take some
time to ramp up to replace the Persian Gulf production. We can convert coal
into transportation fuel as will but face major environmental opposition in
doing so. $100 a barrel oil may be good for us in the long run but we'll
need time to adjust without major market dislocations.
We are starting to see the effects of the increases in energy prices across
nearly every economic sector. Go to Home Depot and price anything,
particularly something big and heavy, and compare the price to a year ago.
Transportation costs drive-up the price of nearly all goods and services.
I wish I shared your optimism about there being a 100 year supply. We'll
come up with a solution eventually, but there is going to be serious
disruptions and pain in the meantime.
Now if you'll forgive me, I have some other homework to do. This week I'm
teaching two very talented pilots who have spent way too much time in the
books. They like to ask a lot of "nuts and bolts" questions that I've
either long since forgotten or never bothered to learn in the first place.
Brad
PS - Dave, the answer to your question is in your last link and also above.
On 7/5/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> What are you doing, here?
>
> You were not talking about reserves, you were talking about shipments of
> oil through a waterway.
>
> We may not know how much is shipped by any one country, but we do know
> how much is received and used by others.
>
> Together the United States and USSR produce more oil than all of the
> Gulf States combined. None of the US and Russian oil goes through the
> Straits of Hormuz. Canada has the second largest known reserve of oil
> after Saudi Arabia, and they are just starting to ramp up. None of that
> oil will go through the Straits of Hormuz, and those reserves will be
> sufficient for US needs for roughly 100 years.
>
> Oil is also produced in Mexico, China, Norway, Venezuela, Nigeria, UK,
> -- none of it goes through the Straits of Hormuz.
>
> Let me say this again, I am not saying the Straits of Hormuz are not
> important. I am saying only that more than 50% of the world's oil does
> not go through it, and these anonymous "you will find numbers quoted"
> people must be very bad with numbers. I can't find anyone saying these
> things except you.
>
> At $75 a barrel it more than pays to develop the Canadian Tar
> Sands--that's the real problem for the Arabs, and they know it. They
> have been trying to hold down the price of oil to keep competitors out
> of the business, and they have failed. The Middle East and the Straits
> of Hormuz will become less and less important. There is Tar Sand all
> over the world.
>
> Utopian vision? What's that about? We're just talking grade school
> math, and high school geopolitics, and all I'm asking is that people do
> a little homework before turning in their papers.
>
> Bill Effros
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > The first thing everyone who studies the oil business learns is that
> > no one
> > knows how big any one companies or any one country's oil reserves
> > are. The
> > American oil companies have an edge at estimating reserves because of
> > technology, and, they are held to higher reporting standards. The
> > Saudi's
> > have raised their estimated reserves several times in the last decade
> > without a corresponding rate of new discovery. No one can be certain
> how
> > much oil is even shipped from the Persian Gulf. There is no
> > requirement to
> > report and OPEC is known for lying to their member partners to cheat
> > their
> > own quota system. This may be hard to believe but true, there are a
> > couple
> > of companies that sell data to oil traders on their estimates of
> > shipments
> > from the Persian Gulf. Their method is to spot tankers leaving the
> docks
> > and estimate the load based on the length and water draw of the boat.
> > That
> > is best data available. It is that crude, pun intended.
> >
> > You will find numbers quoted in industry publications of anywhere from
> > a low
> > or 20% to 60% of the world's supply that pass through the Straight of
> > Hormuz. Estimates of the remaining Gulf countries reserves as a
> > percentage
> > of the total vary as well, but few estimate it to be less than 50%. The
> > standard is around 60% to 70%. This much is known, 80% to 90% pas
> > through
> > the Straight of Hormuz because that is the shortest shipping route.
> > If you
> > take the low estimate of reserves 60% and multiply it by the low
> > estimate of
> > ship routes 80% you get 48%.
> > Lets be optismistic and use the DOE 2004 numbers. Take 27% of the
> > world's
> > supply and multiply it by the low ship route number and you get 22%.
> > That
> > is well below most estimates. However, let's work with that number.
> >
> > The oil market spikes on a shortfall of as little as 1 or 2
> percent. One
> > strategically sunk tanker in the Straight could shut off shipping for
> > months. It won't matter whether the loss was as little as 5%, the oil
> > markets would go soaring.
> >
> > This is not lost on the Iranians who have an axe to grind. They have
> > already said they think oil is too cheap. They have already threatned
> to
> > cut of the Straight. They want a nuclear reactor but are awash in oil.
> > Did I
> > mention that their leaders are crazy?
> > We can disagree on what all this means to geopolitics. Fine.
> >
> > I'm not going to argue the current economic situation with you. It's
> > beneath my dignity and education. Believe what you want Bill. I hope
> > for
> > my kids sake, and yours, that your utopian version of the world is
> > right and
> > I'm wrong.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/5/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> >> Brad,
> >>
> >> You repeatedly cite sources you apparently don't read.
> >>
> >> You said
> >>
> >> "The choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait. Half
> of
> >> the worlds oil supply must pass this point..."
> >>
> >> The source you cite says, in the summary at the top "/In 2003, the
> >> Persian Gulf countries (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi
> >> Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) produced about 27% of the world's
> >> oil" /I'm sure if either one of us reads on, we will discover that not
> >> 100% of the Persian gulf oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz.
> >>
> >> I trust I don't have to help you too much with the math, but if they
> >> only produce 27% of the world's oil, it is not possible for them to
> ship
> >> 50% of the world's oil through the straits even if they don't put
> >> anything through pipelines or use any oil domestically.
> >>
> >> That does not mean that I think the Straits of Hormuz are not
> important.
> >>
> >> It does mean that if we continue to make decisions based on this kind
> of
> >> sloppy work we should not be surprised to see the rest of the world eat
> >> our lunch.
> >>
> >> Bill Effros
> >>
> >> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >> > Bill,
> >> >
> >> > I do have time to fact check what I write. Here's your sign!
> >> >
> >> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
> >> >
> >> > I'm leaving for work but will happily provide you with all the
> >> > evidence you want to support what I write when I return. While your
> >> > down there with your head in the sand, look around for some reality
> >> > pills and perhaps some tranqilizers before YOU hit the send button.
> >> >
> >> > Brad
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 7/5/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> >> >> Brad,
> >> >>
> >> >> Will you PLEASE stop making stuff up!
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't have time to fact-check everything you write, and you
> >> obviously
> >> >> have more free time than almost any other working person, so I'm
> >> asking
> >> >> as nicely as possible for you to fact-check your own stuff before
> >> >> hitting the "Send" button.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe, just maybe, cutting taxes for the rich at the same time you
> >> are
> >> >> conducting a war using "Emergency" off-budget appropriations has
> >> >> SOMETHING to do with inflation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Half the world's oil supply does not go through the Straits of
> >> Hormuz.
> >> >>
> >> >> Try to think about it a little more before attempting to scare the
> > world
> >> >> into agreeing with positions based on emotions and fudged facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you,
> >> >>
> >> >> Your Friend,
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill Effros
> >> >>
> >> >> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >> >> > Wally,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually "they" have threatened to shut off oil production several
> >> >> > times. The most recent example was Iran a few weeks ago. You are
> >> >> > correct, they need the oil money as much as we need the oil, but
> >> that
> >> >> > is rational thinking. Iran, for example, is not led by rational
> >> >> > thinking men. Depending on what economist you want to listen
> >> to, we
> >> >> > can withstand an average energy price increase of around 10% per
> >> year
> >> >> > before it starts to disrupt markets. We are on the edge of an
> >> >> > inflationary period as we speak, largely due to the run-up in
> >> energy
> >> >> > prices, and also to some extent the result of a growing economy.
> >> The
> >> >> > choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait. Half
> of
> >> >> > the worlds oil supply must pass this point and any disruption,
> even
> >> >> > for a few days, would send prices skyrocketing. Who benefits from
> >> >> > high oil prices? The same folks who have the oil. All of the
> >> US Big
> >> >> > Oil companies account for about 15% of total production. We
> >> have the
> >> >> > strategic reserve, but that will be held off the market to fuel
> the
> >> >> > military response. Try not to think about it too much. It get's
> >> very
> >> >> > scary.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Brad
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 7/5/06, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Philip,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who has threatened to shut off oil production? They can't shut us
> > off
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> oil, they need to sell oil to make money. Let's face it the
> >> price of
> >> >> >> oil has
> >> >> >> jumped and we are not in dire straits.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wally
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
> >> >> >> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >> >To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >> >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
> >> >> >> >Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 01:54:01 -0400
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Bill,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Your George Soros, Nancy Pelosi Talking Points are showing
> >> >> >> again. Nazi
> >> >> >> >Germany: I could go on for hours. Suffice it to say, it was a
> >> >> >> house of
> >> >> >> >cards. They never had the resources, the oil, the population,
> >> the
> >> >> >> >production capacity. . . not to mention the political and
> >> military
> >> >> >> >mis-steps. If the western response had been more firm and sure
> > (ala
> >> >> >> >Churchill) Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not all resources are oil. Choke ours off and see what
> >> >> >> happens. Choke
> >> >> >> >off the liberal's beloved EU and see what happens. We use
> >> oil. We
> >> >> >> need
> >> >> >> >oil
> >> >> >> >and we have to keep the commerce in that region open, or
> >> should we
> >> >> >> let the
> >> >> >> >despots close down the mid-east oil traffic?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We launched a few cruise missiles alright. Too little, too
> >> >> >> late under
> >> >> >> >Saint Clinton. Let's see what the "religion of peace" had
> >> brought
> >> >> >> us. The
> >> >> >> >first Twin Tower bombing. The attack on our embassy in
> > Africa. The
> >> >> >> Khobar
> >> >> >> >Towers bombing. And the Cole which was under Clinton's Watch
> >> >> (October
> >> >> >> >2000). Not to mention Somalia which Bin Laden said was what
> >> >> >> convinced him
> >> >> >> >we would not respond to an attack on us since after Clinton
> > expanded
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >mission, he cut and ran after the attack on our Rangers (after
> >> Les
> >> >> >> Aspin
> >> >> >> >refused the commanders on the ground armored vehicles).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I suppose you will tell me that we don't need oil as part
> of
> >> >> our
> >> >> >> >national security plan? What has Rome to do with it? How many
> > 747s
> >> >> >> did
> >> >> >> >Rome have? Cars? Trucks? Trains? Etc. I guess we'll defend
> >> our
> >> >> >> country
> >> >> >> >with bronze swords and wood shields? What does Rome command
> >> to-day
> >> >> >> >(besides
> >> >> >> >Catholics)?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > When we are culturally sensative against an enemy that is
> >> >> neither
> >> >> >> >culturally sensative nor morally sensitive and it causes our
> >> >> >> soldiers to
> >> >> >> >die
> >> >> >> >when they otherwise wouldn't, I don't make the distinction.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think perhaps it's time for you to stop shovelling it out.
> >> >> And I
> >> >> >> >haven't once gotten a "free pass" for old time or any other
> sake.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Philip
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >> >> >> >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of Bill
> >> Effros
> >> >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:27 AM
> >> >> >> >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >> >> >> >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Philip,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >So nice to have your political claptrap back on the list.
> >> It's so
> >> >> >> >scattershot, it's hard to know where to start. You like to
> >> string
> >> >> >> >together a bunch of non sequiteurs which you seem to believe
> will
> >> >> bring
> >> >> >> >any reader to your point of view. For me, it's just "If you
> >> can't
> >> >> >> >convince them with logic, baffle them with bullshit."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Where to start? Where to start? History doesn't prove that
> might
> >> >> makes
> >> >> >> >right. Nazi Germany?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We didn't fly airplanes into Arab buildings, we flew cruise
> > missiles
> >> >> >> >into Arab buildings.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Yes, we do blow ourselves up around women and children, only we
> >> >> call it
> >> >> >> >"collateral damage".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"We need one to have the other?" What does that mean? Ancient
> > Rome
> >> >> >> >didn't have oil -- still doesn't have it, today -- but they sure
> > had
> >> >> >> >National Security.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Culturally sensitive" has a different meaning from "morally
> >> >> >> sensitive".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What baffles our friends and delights our enemies are people who
> >> >> can't
> >> >> >> >see the difference.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Knowing when to act...When Clinton attacked Bin Laden,
> >> Republicans
> >> >> >> >started the "Wag the Dog" mantra. Who were you quoting then?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What was Bush's response to the Cole attack?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >And just exactly when did Bin Laden say what he based his
> >> >> decision to
> >> >> >> >attack us on?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You've gotten a free pass on a few go-rounds of this stuff for
> >> old
> >> >> >> >times' sake, but the days of shooting from the hip are over.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Bill Effros
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >3drecon wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Wally,
> >> >> >> > > I don't separate Oil (i.e. resources) from National
> >> >> >> Security. We
> >> >> >> >need
> >> >> >> > > one to have the other; otherwise, we are at the mercy of
> >> >> anyone else
> >> >> >> >with
> >> >> >> > > resources. We did not fly into Arab buildings. They flew
> >> into
> >> >> >> ours.
> >> >> >> >We
> >> >> >> > > didn't invade Kuwait, Iraq did. We don't blow ourselves up
> >> >> >> around women
> >> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> > > children. As a matter of fact, we willingly hamstring
> >> >> ourselves and
> >> >> >> >cost
> >> >> >> > > our young men and women their lives as a result to be
> > "culturally
> >> >> >> > > sensitive". This baffles our friends there and delights our
> >> >> >> enemies.
> >> >> >> >To
> >> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> > > certain extent, might makes right, as you put it. History
> > proves
> >> >> >> that.
> >> >> >> > > Knowing when to act and how is the trick. I agree with the
> >> >> >> strategy,
> >> >> >> >though
> >> >> >> > > I may differ with the specific targets at the time. We spent
> > too
> >> >> >> many
> >> >> >> >years
> >> >> >> > > apologising and letting the radicals have their way. Bin
> >> Laden
> >> >> >> said he
> >> >> >> > > based his decision to attack us on our response (or lack
> >> >> thereof) to
> >> >> >> > > previous attacks.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Philip
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> > > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >> >> >> > > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of TN
> > Rhodey
> >> >> >> > > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:44 AM
> >> >> >> > > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >> >> >> > > Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Philip,
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > I guess you are a proponent of the old might makes right
> >> theory?
> >> >> >> I used
> >> >> >> > > that theory on my little brother and it worked out real
> >> well. I
> >> >> >> always
> >> >> >> >got
> >> >> >> > > the big piece of cake. I am not sure if this is the best
> > strategy
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> > > diplomatic relations. Should we not shoot for a higher
> >> standard?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > You ask what better reason then oil? We should go to war when
> > our
> >> >> >> >National
> >> >> >> > > Security is threatened.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Wally
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >> From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
> >> >> >> > >> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >> > >> To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >> > >> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >> >> >> > >> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0400
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> Frone
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> I didn't say I was comfortable with the Republicans, I said
> > they
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >closer
> >> >> >> > >> to the Libertarian philosophy than any other "electable"
> >> party
> >> >> >> to-day.
> >> >> >> >I
> >> >> >> > >> assume you allude to the Patriot Act in the "incessant
> >> drive by
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private
> > acts
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > >> thoughts" as well as the moral chest pounding. I am opposed
> >> >> to the
> >> >> >> >Patriot
> >> >> >> > >> Act. I think it will be/has been abused just as the RICO
> act
> >> >> >> was and
> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> > >> abused. I don't agree with the moral grand-standing any
> more
> >> >> >> than I
> >> >> >> >agree
> >> >> >> > >> with the liberals banning "hate" speech, becoming
> > anti-religious
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > >> forcing
> >> >> >> > >> the Bill of Rights on the States, contrary to the Founders
> >> >> >> intent. I
> >> >> >> >also
> >> >> >> > >> don't see a conspiricy in "a propaganda machine leading
> >> us to
> >> >> >> >pre-emptive
> >> >> >> > >> war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies, selling
> > off
> >> >> >> our
> >> >> >> > >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits". The real
> > problem
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> >oil
> >> >> >> > >> is
> >> >> >> > >> the restriction on drilling, exploration and refineries;
> > simply,
> >> >> >> supply
> >> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> > >> demand. I don't know what you mean about the "agri/timber
> >> >> >> issues, but
> >> >> >> >if
> >> >> >> > >> that's what it takes to make our country prosperous, then
> >> that
> >> >> >> is what
> >> >> >> >we
> >> >> >> > >> should do. A poor person never gave me a job (wealthy and
> >> >> >> corporations
> >> >> >> >did
> >> >> >> > >> (and government). I will say here that I do one of the few
> >> >> >> legitimate
> >> >> >> > >> government tasks. . . defense (and as a civilian,
> >> >> >> declassification). I
> >> >> >> > >> assume by your comment about oil, you believe we "went to
> war
> >> >> >> for oil".
> >> >> >> >If
> >> >> >> > >> so, what better reason besides retaliation? Oil is in the
> >> >> national
> >> >> >> > >> interest. If we can secure international oil routes and
> >> >> >> supplies by
> >> >> >> >going
> >> >> >> > >> to war, so what? Liberals like to say we should go to war
> in
> >> >> >> Zambia,
> >> >> >> >or
> >> >> >> > >> Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the African continent. If not for
> >> >> precious
> >> >> >> >metals,
> >> >> >> > >> oil or resources, why? If it is not in our national
> >> >> interest, why?
> >> >> >> >What
> >> >> >> > >> the hell were we doing in Serbia? That is a European
> created
> >> >> >> problem
> >> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> > >> they should police it. We have no national interest there.
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> Philip
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> > >> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >> >> >> > >> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of
> >> >> >> > >> FCrawford0707 at aol.com
> >> >> >> > >> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
> >> >> >> > >> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >> >> >> > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in
> > reply
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> In a message dated 6/30/2006 8:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> > Time,
> >> >> >> > >> 3drecon at comcast.net writes:
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> Frankly, I see the Democrats relying on Big Government and
> >> >> >> growing it;
> >> >> >> > >> however, having said that, the Republicans, in recent years
> > have
> >> >> >> >changed
> >> >> >> > >> course to
> >> >> >> > >> appease the liberals (who will not vote for them, no matter
> >> >> >> what) and
> >> >> >> >have
> >> >> >> > >> their own brand of government growth. I am
> > a Libertarian. The
> >> >> >> > >> Republicans
> >> >> >> > >> are the only electable party that come closest to that
> >> >> >> philiosophy for
> >> >> >> > >> now,
> >> >> >> > >> so
> >> >> >> > >> I identify with them. The interesting thing is the
> Founding
> >> >> >> Fathers
> >> >> >> >would
> >> >> >> > >> have been considered liberals!
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> Philip - I am interested in your conclusion that as a
> >> >> >> Libertarian, you
> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> > >> somehow comfortable with the Republicans. I find the
> >> incessant
> >> >> >> drive
> >> >> >> >by
> >> >> >> > >> the
> >> >> >> > >> Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private
> > acts
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > >> thoughts
> >> >> >> > >> to be at odds with my own Libertarian leanings. The abuse
> of
> >> >> >> power by
> >> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> > >> present administration is frightening - a propaganda machine
> >> >> >> leading
> >> >> >> >us
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> > >> pre-emptive war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil
> >> companies,
> >> >> >> >selling
> >> >> >> > >> off
> >> >> >> > >> our
> >> >> >> > >> resources to pay the unconscionable deficits, not to mention
> > the
> >> >> >> > >> corruption
> >> >> >> > >> and incompetence. I am not a strict Libertarian, in that I
> >> >> >> feel there
> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> > >> roles best filled by government - for example, dredging and
> >> >> >> >maintaining
> >> >> >> > >> the
> >> >> >> > >> ICW.
> >> >> >> > >> There was a great idea thirty years ago that, if followed,
> >> >> would
> >> >> >> >perhaps
> >> >> >> > >> have put our society in a happier and less
> contentious frame
> >> >> >> than we
> >> >> >> >are
> >> >> >> > >> going
> >> >> >> > >> thru now - that of the negative income tax, in place of all
> > the
> >> >> >> myriad
> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> > >> government administered support programs that don't really
> >> >> >> serve the
> >> >> >> > >> constituency
> >> >> >> > >> intended, and which produce a whole lot of waste. With a
> >> >> negative
> >> >> >> >income
> >> >> >> > >> tax, the neediest are supported without the cost and
> >> waste of
> >> >> >> >bureaucratic
> >> >> >> > >> infrastructure. No one makes out better financially by not
> >> >> >> working,
> >> >> >> >so
> >> >> >> > >> the
> >> >> >> > >> "welfare syndrome" is not present.
> >> >> >> > >> Frone Crawford
> >> >> >> > >> s/v Sunday Morning
> >> >> >> > >> __________________________________________________
> >> >> >> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >> __________________________________________________
> >> >> >> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > __________________________________________________
> >> >> >> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > __________________________________________________
> >> >> >> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >__________________________________________________
> >> >> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >__________________________________________________
> >> >> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> __________________________________________________
> >> >> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > __________________________________________________
> >> >> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >
> >> >> __________________________________________________
> >> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >>
> >> > __________________________________________________
> >> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list