Ok, here's the deal on Detroit...

WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
Edited Date/Time 1/24/2012 9:29pm
So the big 3 need a bailout and nobody likes that idea very much - but we can't just let them go out of business, lose 3 million jobs, and have creditors all over America go down with them. So here's what you do:

(1) You put a comprehensive energy independence plan together, targeting a 25% reduction in oil consumption over the next 5 years. You create an account to fund things like public transporation systems, enhanced broadband access for satellite offices, research into plug in hybrids and natural gas powered cars, and retooling for production of those cars;
(2) You fund the account with a gasoline tax that slides up or down on a quarterly basis, based on achievement of national oil consumption goals. No income tax is used for these projects, and a web site is developed so Americans can see, in real time, how we're doing as far as achieving our objectives. The better we do, the lower the tax goes. If we start using way too much oil, the tax increases.
(3) The gas tax account funds such things as Big 3's bailout; large scale public transportation systems; loans for satellite offices and broadband expansion; tax incentives for purchase of high-mileage vehicles including motorcycles and conversion of existing vehicles to natural gas; loans for new nuclear, solar and wind power projects that will free up natural gas for use as a vehicle fuel; and loans for large-scale development of CNG refuelling stations.

In 5 years, we achieve our goals, the gasoline tax goes to zero and we become the most independent economy in the world.
|
11/13/2008 12:17pm
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF....

Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see.
11/13/2008 12:24pm
Wait a minute, is this another one of those posts you type up, secretly hoping someone will turn it into one of those dumb ass chain emails.

The snopes.com will be forced to research it, and they'll trace it back to you...and then you can tell them you thought of it all on your own...thus resulting in fame fortune, and if your lucky a meeting with Obama, who will invite you to the white house for a special banquet-in your honor-and let you kiss his hands while he pats you on the head.

Is that where you're going with this?
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 12:26pm
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF...
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF....

Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see.
With the exception of plug-in hybrids, there's not one thing in that list that is new technology. It's all building on existing technology. OCS drilling is fine - go forth and be productive. But if America reduces oil consumption by 25%, OCS development may not even be profitable. You're one of those guys who thinks somebody just goes out and drills a hole in the ground and that's that - no consideration of pipelines, infrastructure, location of exploration, substructures, depth of water, porostiy, permeability, pore pressure, or anything else. Compared to development of OCS, building a nuclear power plant is childs' play because it's all a known quantity. There's no speculation involved. Who's the koolaid drinker?
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 12:28pm
Wait a minute, is this another one of those posts you type up, secretly hoping someone will turn it into one of those dumb ass chain...
Wait a minute, is this another one of those posts you type up, secretly hoping someone will turn it into one of those dumb ass chain emails.

The snopes.com will be forced to research it, and they'll trace it back to you...and then you can tell them you thought of it all on your own...thus resulting in fame fortune, and if your lucky a meeting with Obama, who will invite you to the white house for a special banquet-in your honor-and let you kiss his hands while he pats you on the head.

Is that where you're going with this?
WTF are you talking about? I've been posting stuff like this for two years, only without the tie-in to Detriot, which is why I put it in there with all the talk of a big 3 bailout. There's nothing in there that's even hard to grasp - it's all common sense stuff, at least to those of us who have common sense.

The Shop

11/13/2008 12:30pm
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF...
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF....

Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see.
WhKnuckle wrote:
With the exception of plug-in hybrids, there's not one thing in that list that is new technology. It's all building on existing technology. OCS drilling is...
With the exception of plug-in hybrids, there's not one thing in that list that is new technology. It's all building on existing technology. OCS drilling is fine - go forth and be productive. But if America reduces oil consumption by 25%, OCS development may not even be profitable. You're one of those guys who thinks somebody just goes out and drills a hole in the ground and that's that - no consideration of pipelines, infrastructure, location of exploration, substructures, depth of water, porostiy, permeability, pore pressure, or anything else. Compared to development of OCS, building a nuclear power plant is childs' play because it's all a known quantity. There's no speculation involved. Who's the koolaid drinker?
You type like drilling on the OCS is new technology or something we've never been able to successfuly do in the past.

WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 12:35pm
By the way, as a country we're spending about $400 billion per year on imported oil from non-North America sources. If you were a businessman looking at our country, you'd call that "O/M Expense" because it's expense money that has no identifiable payback. It's just a pure expense of running America. And any businessman worth his salt would tell you that spending even $400 billion - as staggering as that is - as a one-time cost is better than spending $400 billion per year forever (not counting the military costs of trying to keep those portions of the world stable enough to keep supplying oil). It's a pure business concept - quit spending hundreds of billions of dollars in recurring expense that buys America nothing by investing one time. And in the bargain, create an economy that isn't affected by wild fluctuations in oil prices like we've had this year, and like the spikes that have at least partially caused a world recession.
Racer92
Posts
17966
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
11/13/2008 12:35pm Edited Date/Time 4/16/2016 9:12pm
"Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see."

Sam has been posting all manner of plans to change energy consumption and supply for years now. He's a thinker and a do'er. I may not agree with his choice of politician sometimes, but he's no dummy and puts a lot of thought and knowledge into what he says.


Nothing wrong with brain storming and being creative with ideas.


WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 12:40pm
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF...
So don't think we can't get oil from the OCS any quicker than 10 years...but you think we can do all that shit in 5? WTF....

Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see.
WhKnuckle wrote:
With the exception of plug-in hybrids, there's not one thing in that list that is new technology. It's all building on existing technology. OCS drilling is...
With the exception of plug-in hybrids, there's not one thing in that list that is new technology. It's all building on existing technology. OCS drilling is fine - go forth and be productive. But if America reduces oil consumption by 25%, OCS development may not even be profitable. You're one of those guys who thinks somebody just goes out and drills a hole in the ground and that's that - no consideration of pipelines, infrastructure, location of exploration, substructures, depth of water, porostiy, permeability, pore pressure, or anything else. Compared to development of OCS, building a nuclear power plant is childs' play because it's all a known quantity. There's no speculation involved. Who's the koolaid drinker?
You type like drilling on the OCS is new technology or something we've never been able to successfuly do in the past.

Oil exploration is different from almost any other endeavor. You never really know what you're going to get until you get it, and you figure it out as you go. You can't simultaneously drill the wells and build the infrastructure because you don't know what the wells will do production-wise and you don't know what the infrastructure has to be sized to handle. You don't know how much oil, how much gas, how much pressure, how much water, how much H2S, how depth, how much lateral - for a guy who likes probem solving, it's a fascinating business, but it's more variable than anything I've ever seen. As complicated as a nuclear power plant is, it's all known stuff. It's very little guesswork. Oil exploration is ALL guesswork until you have a well and you test it - and even then, you don't know if it's going to produce for a month of for a decade.
kcadrenalin
Posts
1427
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Turney, MO US
11/13/2008 12:40pm
Racer92 wrote:
"Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see." Sam has been posting all manner of plans to change energy consumption and supply for years now. He's a...
"Drunk on the kool-aide still, I see."

Sam has been posting all manner of plans to change energy consumption and supply for years now. He's a thinker and a do'er. I may not agree with his choice of politician sometimes, but he's no dummy and puts a lot of thought and knowledge into what he says.


Nothing wrong with brain storming and being creative with ideas.


X2
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/13/2008 12:42pm
yamahaforlife is just a sore loser.
Castor Oil
Posts
490
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Schenectady, NY US
11/13/2008 1:00pm
Gas tax? WHat if you ride a bike and use gas to whack weeds?

I use gas to wash my hands. Why should the auto OEMS, get money from that? Fuck them.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/13/2008 1:02pm
I think you drink gas too
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/13/2008 1:05pm
Guess you've never been able to make a woman come.
No surprise really
Racer92
Posts
17966
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
11/13/2008 1:07pm
Honestly, with the gazillion dollars that Bushco has spent on infrastructure and whatever else on Iraq, by comparison I dont mind the Fed helping out Americans and American companys. Im certainly not for corporate welfare and think they need to sink or swim in the sea of capitalism. But hell we've been pissing of unfathomable dollars on those people that hate our guts and do not want us even there.

There simply has to be some (paraphrasing Gore) iron clad rules/stipulations to get the help.
mx714
Posts
20
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Canal Fulton, OH US
11/13/2008 1:07pm
So will our electrical grids be able to handle all of these plug in hybrids that everyone will be driving?
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 1:18pm
mx714 wrote:
So will our electrical grids be able to handle all of these plug in hybrids that everyone will be driving?
Actually, that's the coolest part of plug in hybrids. Right now, power demand on our power grid is very low at night, but it's expensive and hard on equipment to shut power plants down, so the tendency is to let them run at Lower Operating Limit, and in those situations they're very inefficient. We'd actually be MORE efficient if we had more demand on the grid from midnight until about 5 AM or so. So plug in your car, go to sleep and let a timer start charging it at midnight or something like that.
rocrac
Posts
2454
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
11/13/2008 1:57pm
Certainly sounds better than any proposals floating around PA Ave. But of course knuckle doens't have any special interest groups whispering in his ear.
BMSOB
Posts
1191
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
PN
11/13/2008 2:42pm Edited Date/Time 4/16/2016 9:12pm
I don't think we should bail out the big 3 automakers. If anything we should do it along the lines of the Chrysler bail out of years past where they have to pay the government back for a loan. Granted allowing 3 million people to lose their jobs is not a good solution either but we either give them a loan, as above, or let them file for Chapter 11.


Chapter 11 is meant for this very thing. It allows you to get out from under your debts, it hurts the shareholders, (but the stock is already worthless) & allows you to resturcture so you can regain profitability. Many large companies have survived Chapter 11 & come out stronger for it.


The problems that have led them to this situation, employee benefits, onerous labor contracts etc, have existed for 10 years or more. They have not addressed them in all this time knowing that this was coming. Should we reward them for their inaction or spur them into doing something?


Yes, it will mean some very painful decisions will have to be made & many auto workers will be hurt but we can not continue to proceed putting off till tomorrow what should have been done yesterday IMO.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 2:53pm
I'm not sure that Chapter 11 will work - because when you go Chapter 11, you have to arrange interim financing, and you have to find a way to return to solvency in a relatively short time period - two years at the most - given a retirement of existing debt. The long term issues are pension and health care for retired workers, and there's no real way to get around those problems. And with credit being so tight, I'm not sure they can secure traditional interim financing - if they try to go Chapter 11, there's a high risk they might not be able to pull it off. They could literally just go away, taking 3 million jobs and all their suppliers with them.

One other way is for the government to finance a reorganization into one company. That's anathema for those companies - I'm sure Ford people can't imagine being in the same building with GM people - but it would certainly refocus them and reduce operating costs. And it'll put a hell of a lot of people on the street - with 3 companies, you have 3 accounting groups, 3 IT groups, 3 engineering groups, and with one company you have only one and you wind up losing about half of those people. That would be painful, but less painful than just closing the doors and going home.
BMSOB
Posts
1191
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
PN
11/13/2008 3:05pm Edited Date/Time 4/16/2016 9:12pm
Sorry knuck, I just don't agree with giving them the money for corporate incompetence. Make them a loan then, but don't reward stupidity. The Japanese have been building smaller, more efficient cars for decades & selling the shit out of them too. They have also been investing in technology for hybrids like the Prius & the Insight for 10 years or more. Where was Detroit in all this? Building SUVs. Time for a very painful wake up call.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/13/2008 3:15pm
BMSOB wrote:
Sorry knuck, I just don't agree with giving them the money for corporate incompetence. Make them a loan then, but don't reward stupidity. The Japanese have...
Sorry knuck, I just don't agree with giving them the money for corporate incompetence. Make them a loan then, but don't reward stupidity. The Japanese have been building smaller, more efficient cars for decades & selling the shit out of them too. They have also been investing in technology for hybrids like the Prius & the Insight for 10 years or more. Where was Detroit in all this? Building SUVs. Time for a very painful wake up call.
There's a lot of truth in that, and I honestly don't think ANY bailout should be anything other than a loan - basically, if GM goes Chapter 11, they arrange interim financing and wind up negotiating a writeoff of some of their debt (which the creditors have to eat). If the government gets involved, they should essentially do a larger interim financing loan in the hope that all the creditors won't wind up getting the short end of the stick and there won't be as much risk that GM tries to go Chapter 11 and can't make it work, then just shuts down. But a loan is a loan, and the government has to be paid back or else they get equity. Two other good things about a government deal is there won't be the buzzard flock of lawyers and consultants descending on GM, absorbing a tremendous amount of money and making it harder to do whatever they need to do; also, the government can make very strong suggestions about where they go from here. Continuing to focus on trucks and SUVs isn't the future. They need to build the best, most fuel efficient cars in the world and if they're not going to do that, then just close the doors and go home.

BMSOB
Posts
1191
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
PN
11/13/2008 3:30pm Edited Date/Time 11/13/2008 3:31pm
They can make Chapter 11 work if they want to but it will require some painful decisions. If it's too big to fail they can surely find a way, but they won't as long as the government "daddy" is there to hold their hand.

Post a reply to: Ok, here's the deal on Detroit...

The Latest