Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I would invest in Halliburton myself.

Come on. You really can’t blame BushCo for taking care of their Core Constituents. Its only natural that their Campaign Contributors would grow in this environment.

Aldous

talk is cheap. Invest in Haliburton or stop talking about it.

AP

By the way, thanks for the BP link. I am looking into solar power for a house that is a little ways off the grid.

Great news on the Home Depot deal, AP. Thanks. Perhaps now we may be able to afford solar in 2 or 3 years, provided the Bush Admin. does not do away with the requirements for Electric Retailers to buy back unused solar produced electricity from homeowners.

What are your bets on that?

In every human tragedy there is money to be made?

Do you want to re word that so you DON’T sound like a vulture? You must’ve not meant that right?

If you reword to say that you can always make money on change. Change can be painful. A transition from a oil based economy to something else will be painful to some people and create opporunities for others. That is just life. We have to try to be smart. Intelligence is the only long run solution that can work.

Well said, Jack.

You can sugar coat it all you want, but I meant what I said. I leave it to you to decide the morality of taking personal responsibility for securing my future at the expense of the environment, increased nuclear waste, war and terrorism.

A quick apology: I was told that the company my buddy invested in was InVision, not Dynavision, “so get the story straight asshole.” InVision was recently acquired by GE and he made a bundle.

David, I’m riding the wave of “hygridding” to financial success. If BushCo repeals regulations forcing the power companies to buy back electricity, I’m screwed.

So nobody wants to share stock picks that rely on the administration implementing its unpopular agenda? No private savings account companies? No companies that would benefit by spewing more mercury or carbon dioxide? No good defense stocks or missile companies?

AP,

“So nobody wants to share stock picks that rely on the administration implementing its unpopular agenda? No private savings account companies? No companies that would benefit by spewing more mercury or carbon dioxide? No good defense stocks or missile companies?”

Now really, it’s a little late for that AP. Perhaps, if private accounts for SS do go through, a good investment would be whatever company gets to handle the hundreds of billions of dollars that will bring, but other than that there are few political related investements you can make. Right now, I would suggest real estate operations or medical-[insert word here] industries for your stock investments.

Good luck ;)

People who chase hot stock tips usually end up with holes in their shoes.

Besides, no matter what happens, we will be spewing less mercury. CO2 rises with economic growth (although carbon intensity has been dropping) so I suppose we can expect more of that.

C’mon now, you guys need to think outside the box. With the success of armed Predator drones taking out individual terrorists, robotic warriors are going to take off.

Who’s making robotic patrol gunboats to protect ships from a repeat of the USS Cole attack?

If we take on Iran, we’ll need more precision guided bombs, who makes those?

As we continue to increase our reliance on oil in places where they hate America, which companies will be ramping up to provide mercenaries armed security? Where will they be getting their small arms and helicopter gunships for patrols?

If Bush’s judicial nominees go through, which companies will make home abortion kits or pills that are only available in Canada and Mexico?

Who stands to gain as America’s influence in Asia is allowed to wane? Who wins in a trade war over Chinese textiles? Where will the money be made as Australia further integrates with Asia and moves away from the US?

Bush is actually subsidizing AIDS medicine in Africa. Who’s the winner on that? Will China defy US sanctions and pump investment money and troops into Sudan to stabilize the oil-rich country? Which companies are poised to do business in the stable Chinese-protectorate of Sudan?

As US military bases are closed around the world, how will US forces be deployed? Will we build more military transport? Where will the troops be stationed? Who has the logistics contracts?

As the Republican plan of starving state Medicaid programs takes effect, how will the healthcare industry respond? Will they modernize their administration systems to cut costs? Which companies provide the equipment? Will they outsource all their medical record keeping? To whom? And where?

Who else has some ideas? When the Republicans kill Social Security, you’ll need ‘em.

Jack, I have a few thousand bucks my wife lets me use to chase high-risk opportunities. I’ve done pretty well over the last several years betting on worst-case assumptions about the Bush administration.

CO2 rises with economic growth (although carbon intensity has been dropping) so I suppose we can expect more of that.

Hmm… Global warming. That makes air-conditioning a good industry to look into. And power, you need a lot of power to run ‘em.

More frequent and powerful storms are also a result. Who makes money from cleaning up after hurricanes? Construction companies?

What will people whose coastal property was just inundated need to buy? Who’s going to take care of all the Micronesians and Seychellians when their islands sink? Is there money to be made there? Will they hire Dutch companies to reclaim land?

What other money-making opportunities does global warming bring?

I am not smart enough to translate short-term trends into actual profits, so I respect your ability.

The problem with global warming is that we don’t know the ramifications. The storm prediction is extrapolation. Last year was a bad year for hurricanes. The several years before that were unusually calm.

If we look back over climate history, we don’t find a consistent pattern. Historians and scientists have identified several warm and cold periods in our relatively recent history. A thousand years ago (at least in Europe) it was warmer than it is today. The weather during the medieval warm period (in the 10-12th Centuries) was calm. After that it was colder. The weather during the “little ice age” that followed was very turbulent. Cooling climate contributed to the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. Climate warming brought prosperity to the Roman Empire in the first century. You just can’t tell.

The added permutation is the increase of CO2 in the air, which may raise nighttime temperatures relatively more than daytime temperatures and will probably help plants grow. Maybe we should invest in southern pines.

I think a good investment is nuclear energy. It is the only clean (in the CO2 sense) energy source we have in sufficient quantity. The problem is the political risk. The best plans can be derailed by hostile special interest groups. Most of the firms involved in the industry will lose money. You can bet on the wrong firm in the right industry and still lose.

storm prediction is extrapolation. Last year was a bad year for hurricanes.

And they’re extrapolating another bad year this year.

As for cooler and warmer periods, did they have a negative impact on humans, Jack? Perhaps causing mass migrations, famine, and war? Are you saying that since we’ve been there and done that, we don’t need to worry about going through it again - even if there’s a chance we can stop it?

Maybe we should invest in southern pines.

Heh. There will be more frost-free days, too. How about investing in oranges in Pennsylvania? :)

See, now you’re getting into the spirit. Let’s be really positive about President Bush’s climate policy. What other opportunities can we make from catastrophic climate change? How about real-estate in northern Canada?

AP

I don’t think we can stop it with today’s technology and politics (and I am not talking about Bush)

In the short term, only higher prices can impact the situation. That is happening, although I don’t think it is a policy.

In the medium term, we have to build more nuclear plants (or some at least). No other source can meet our needs in the medium term without much more CO2 and pollution (since CO2 is strictly speaking not pollution).

In the long term, we can work on renewable. I looked at the BP page re solar. It is very attractive to me, but I can’t afford the $70,000 investment. As the prices come down and/or such things are integrated into building, we can begin to use these sorts of energy. You know, however, that buildings tend to turn over slowly. Even if all new construction included solar, it would take a generation for it to have real impact.

The biggest threat is not the U.S.; it is China and India. Economic growth currently creates more CO2. There is no way around that with today’s technologies. Stopping growth is not a tradeoff anyone is willing to make (or any politician can make). The only hope in the long term is technology.

Re previous climate changes, this is kind of a intellectual hobby of mine. I grew up in an area of Wisconsin where the evidence of glaciers was particularly prominent, so I was into climate change before it became fashionable. My point is that most people (and I am not talking about you, since I know you better) don’t really understand that the world climate has changed radically, rapidly and frequently over the last 10,000 years. There really is no stabile climate.

That does not mean that I advocate artificially changing the climate and doing nothing to counter human induced global warming. But it does mean that there is no zero option. We can’t go back to a stabile climate, because we have never actually experienced one.

The history of the world is played out before a backdrop of climate change, local and global. There is reason to be concerned, but no cause for outrage. And all of us who consume energy contribute to the extent we consume energy. There is no them out there.

I don?t think we can stop it with today?s technology and politics

I think we can. Where does that leave us? :)

The biggest threat is not the U.S.; it is China and India.

No. The biggest emerging threat is China and India. The US is still the biggest emmitter of greenhouse gasses.

And even as the Kyoto protocol was put into effect, work had already begun on getting China and India involved. Right now, most of China’s power comes from coal. Even oil would be a short-term improvement on that. Natural gas would be even better. And government incentives for alternative energy and hybrid cars are doable in China, as they are here. There’s work to be done in Asia, and Bush is not a part of shaping it.

As for the US itself, much more can be - and must be - done,

“This is not pie in the sky,” says Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, as tough-minded a security hawk as can be found in Washington. “The technology is all there. But you need tax incentives to encourage the automobile companies to produce the hybrid cars and federal support to bring the alternative fuels to the pump. You need a major national campaign to accomplish this, but it may not be as hard as people think. For example, I’m told that since most people drive only 20 miles a day, you can get as much as 500 m.p.g. with a simple modification that would allow hybrid cars to plug into the electric grid at night. I’m told the electric industry is so excited about this that they might be willing to pay people $1,000 to buy hybrid plug-in cars.”

But since that’s not going to happen with Republicans running the country, I’m investing in oil companies to supplement the Social Security that Bush is trying to dismantle.

There is reason to be concerned, but no cause for outrage.

Who said anything about outrage? In fact, my problem with Bush’s energy plan is more strategic than environmental anyway. To be so heavily dependent on a resource that we do not produce in abundence here is a military and economic danger to this country - and I know you realize it’s the underlying reason we’re bogged down in the Middle East. When the world gets beyond oil, the Arabs can go back to herding goats.

BTW, I just saw in the paper today where a British company made a breakthrough on fuel-cell power,

Cambridge-based CMR Fuel Cells said it had made a breakthrough with a new design of fuel cell that is a tenth of the size of existing models and small enough to replace conventional batteries in laptop computers.

“We firmly believe CMR technology is the equivalent of the jump from transistors to integrated circuits,” said John Halfpenny, the company’s chief executive.

Iceland and Hawaii have both declared their intent to be oil-free hydrogen economies. Since Bush never did and never will subsidize this kind of technology (the British! Have they invented anything since the steam engine?), who’s gonna exploit this process on those two islands - and in Europe and China, for that matter. Sounds like another good investment that would also convert my shrinking US dollars to Euros or yuan.

AP

You have been to China. Take a deep breath and if you still can tell everyone how much they care for the environment.

You have more confidence in the government than I do. Remember Jimmy Carters synthetic fuels that we are all using today.

God bless Iceland and Hawaii. I wish them both luck. Iceland with a quarter of a million people and all that geothermal power may succeed. But not every place is built on top of volcanoes and hot springs.

Alternative energies will eventually come on line. It is getting from here to there. The U.S. economy is still the most competitive and innovative in the world. We don’t need a federal synfuels or a government to choose winners and losers.

Consider the hybrid. There is no shortage of customers in the U.S. Subsize what? Hybrid technology was the preferred alternative. If government and experts had their way, they would have gone for totally electric cars, or they would have us all using ethanol (which can cost more energy to make than it produces). Do you really think that Chinese and Euro bureaucrats are going to come up with the right solution? I will take my chances with the free market.

You may recall a couple years back how many people were terrified that the Japanese with the backing of MITI was going to take over the HDTV market and with it the world. And then somebody developed a different paradigm and we no longer hear of it.

Unlike you, I sometimes lose money on my investments. I have contributed several thousand dollars to fuel cell research in that way. Sometime ideas are good and clean and wonderful, but they just don’t really work, except maybe in Iceland.

Jack:
“My point is that most people (and I am not talking about you, since I know you better) don�t really understand that the world climate has changed radically, rapidly and frequently over the last 10,000 years. There really is no stabile climate.”
And:
“The history of the world is played out before a backdrop of climate change, local and global. There is reason to be concerned, but no cause for outrage. “

Recent NASA study on global warming.
Findings of that study in terms that almost everyone will be able to understand.
Scientists confirm Earth’s energy is out of balance.
NASA Expert Says Bush Administration Tries to Stifle Scientific Evidence on Global Warming
More about the stifling of evidence.

Adrienne, Jack knows that global warming is real. He just doesn’t think it’s a big deal, and there’s nothing we can do about it anyhow.

In a sense, he’s right about it not being a big deal. Despite disease, famine, war, and the deaths of tens of millions of people, the human race will continue to eke out a fragile existence.

As for not being able to stop it, he’s wrong there (why are Republicans always so negative and pessimistic?). It can be stopped. But it’s going to take a lot of work, and saving those tens of millions of lives is not going to be done by the market or by mere grassroots efforts.

BTW, Jack. Re the cost of solar power systems: That’s the heftiest price trag I’ve ever seen for a system. Most are betweeen 20-30k. Plus, many states offer rebates and tax incentives (not enough, but it helps). At present, the systems usually pay for themselves within 5-8 years.

AP,

I would invest in companys that build/andor sell equipment used for gas/oil exploration, pick a good one, buy it now on a down day, sell it a few weeks/months after an energy bill gets passed.

If someone with anything to invest, that also follows politics closly, would read the content of any new bill in advance and then research what parts will pass, anyone can make money in the markets.
With your political knowledge you should fit quite well within that group.

Thanks Beagle. And thanks for the tip. I got the oil company alright, but the equipment… Great idea!

AP,
My brother(who has made millions in the market) always said; “stay current on issues and trends, but avoid the obvious because it always gets over-sold, stick with the sub-groups because you can get in/out before the sucker-bets knew what happened, you may sell a goldmine before the peak,but you may also dump a turkey before the bottom falls out, and you’ll seldom lose ANY money”.

Haha! That’s smart, Beagle. It reminds me of all the outfitters who made a mint off the hard luck 49ers during the gold rush. :)

Ap,

I presented that as honest advice from a trusted sorce, even if its my brother, I’ve seen him make too much, too many times to discount his advice.

You may take it as you will, but I wasn’t trying to trip you up.

I didn’t think you were. I was sincerely expressing my admiration and appreciation for the advice.

As a Californian, one of the things we learn in school is how very few gold miners became millionaires, but many outfitters who sold them mining supplies did.

I think that’s good, time-tested advice your brother gave you. Thanks for passing it along.

AP,

My bad. after re-reading your post I can see that you were saying thanks…..sorry

No problem Beagle. Misunderstandings are easy in this format. Just glad we hashed it out. There’re too many real things to disagree over to waste our time with misunderstandings. :)