NBVegita Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Does the profit margin take into account the amount of money given to "executives" in bonusses? very good question.
GameTime Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Does the profit margin take into account the amount of money given to "executives" in bonusses? very good question. http://www.br!@#$%^&*checktv.com/page/344.html Read and learn my friends.
Aileron Posted June 19, 2008 Report Posted June 19, 2008 Confess, that sucks, but overall energy is a supply-demand thing. If the supply is down, the greedy stingy sons of !@#$%^&*es have less power to screw people. Your problem is that for too long hippy environmentalists opposed any and all power generation until demand is barely below supply, allowing maximum 'screwing' capability to the suppliers. Leave it to a Baptist to take eight minutes before he can say 'IMF and the World Bank'. I mean, I believe him, but he needs to get to the point faster.
Dav Posted June 20, 2008 Report Posted June 20, 2008 the greedy sons of !@#$%^&*es probably get more screwing power is demand goes up. That can basically set the price by restricting their supply how they see fit. If demand is low then their restrictions will cause price rises and screw people over, but they have a small window to inflate the price as they will damage their business by restricting supply too much. When demand is high a small restriction on production goes much further as each barrel has more companies wanting to buy it, in such a market the restriction will force more people to try to buy each barrel causing a higher price to secure it.This also has something to do with why strikes on the fuel supply chain are so effective. Supply is restricted, people panic buy and the price sores until normal supply is resumed. If there was plenty of fuel at the filling stations that lasted ages these strikes would be ineffective. now for the green side. In oil dependant scenarios the second argument can apply, demand is going up and as oil is the only energy source price goes up. If green alternatives are available then oil can only rise to a point where it becomes the more expensive option. This will also apply to the price setting as setting too high will make everyone go for the alternatives.
Aileron Posted June 20, 2008 Report Posted June 20, 2008 whoops...I put 'up' instead of 'down' there.
Dav Posted June 20, 2008 Report Posted June 20, 2008 lol,now it makes sense after the edit I wouldnt blame the hippies on this one though, if anything they have the "We told you so" poistion now. Problem in the UK at least is this. Hippies are anti nuclear and pro renewable. Luckily they lost the nuclear argument. The gap that is left they want to fill with renewables, which in theory is pertty perfect. Base power from a reliable source and a top up from something cheap and clean. Only problem is when you try and build a wind farm local residants sign a per!@#$%^&*ion and get it stopped so a nice oil powerd station gets reopend or extended life instead. Solar arrays are useless here try and build a dam and people claim it will destroy the countryside, even if the evedance scientifically says otherwise. tidal power is not yet ready. many more examples, cant think ofthem all though
Aileron Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 The fundamental problem is that they view the universe as cyclic rather than entropic. There is no such thing as renewable energy.
Dav Posted June 21, 2008 Report Posted June 21, 2008 well if you want to be technical about weather the term is correct no its not really renewable, just exploitation of a natural resource which is effectively unlimited with few if any harmful by-products. I guess the problem with hippies in all this is their ideas are in the right place, but they are unrealistic about what is feasible. The pressure they mount adds to the cost of fuel with duty and other charges to promote a lower carbon way of life but the alternatives are just not available yet to allow people to make the switch to the green tech that will allow the abandonment of oil.
FMBI Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) I'd disagree, Dav. There are a lot of reASSS out there (Sea Shepherd, anyone?), but a lot of ecological ideas that are extremely logical and self consistent have been dismissed as "insane" or "the radical left's plans to subvert our children" (I'm not kidding here), while the only ones which get serious scrutiny are generally the ones that are inconsistent or ridiculously difficult to implement. If you actually read through some of the proposals, most of them are well thought out and would have tangible benefits. The most famous of these would be "saving the X endangered animal X" for tourism boosting, but there are also a lot more of them. Things like restricting rain forest destruction but giving government aid to farmers to help them get by on the land they have, etc. And @ Aileron - Entropy is a very misleading principle. Besides, anyone who actually wants to acknowledge its domination should be embracing "renewable energy" and focusing on a clean-industry / localized production renaissance, and trying to stretch out our resources as long as possible. Either that or playing God and terraforming planets before abandoning our descendants there. Of course, we can't do that, because we decided to double the Pentagon's budget, instead of increasing NASA's budget twenty-fold. Edited June 24, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion
PaRa$iTe Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 Renewable energy.. basically, using the energy that is produced regardless of mankind (as opposed to for example fossil fuels, which contain the energy).
Recommended Posts