Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-31-2012, 02:53 PM   #131 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 593
Thanks: 106
Thanked 114 Times in 72 Posts
I don't see why it has to matter if oil is finite or man is having an impact on the global climate, in order to choose to streamline our behavior.

Don't believe in peak oil? Fine, but urban air quality is still impacted by the fuels we choose to burn.

Don't believe in global warming? Fine, but using less fuel is still cheaper.

Even if you're an oil sheik who profits from high oil prices and you just don't give a hoot about air quality, a more aeroefficient car will still be quieter and offer better road manners and performance at speed.

No matter what your belief happens to be on any controversial subject, it is very literally evil, foolish, and embarrassing to oppose positive change.

__________________
Work From Home mod has saved more fuel than everything else put together.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to shovel For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (09-01-2012), IamIan (08-31-2012), jamesqf (09-02-2012)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-31-2012, 08:46 PM   #132 (permalink)
sid
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 202

grayranger - '10 Ford Ranger XL 2 door supercab
90 day: 30.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 27
Thanked 48 Times in 28 Posts
It's like this cartoon I saw about a year ago where this one indignant guy says to another:

"What if this global warming thing is all a big hoax and we end up creating a better world for nothing?"
__________________
2010 Ford Ranger, extra cab, 2.3 liter
http://www.stonemarmot.com

Band's latest song/music video "I Sing Along"
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sid For This Useful Post:
ChazInMT (08-31-2012), IamIan (08-31-2012), shovel (09-01-2012)
Old 08-31-2012, 09:31 PM   #133 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
I did.
Perhaps you should have read it closer.

From your own Article:
Quote:
When foreigners buy products made in China, they pay in foreign currency – usually the U.S. dollar
This line from your own article directly disagrees with your own claim you have been trying to defend. If the Article is correct , it directly disagrees with you.

Yes people buying large amounts of things in China with US Dollars

If your claim is correct, they couldn't possibly do this. They would have to buy those things in China with Chinese currency.

Your own article goes on to say:

Quote:
Whereas banks in many countries can decide what to do with the dollars to achieve the highest return, Chinese banks cannot and must send the dollars to the People’s Bank of China (PBoC - China’s version of the Federal Reserve) to be “sterilized” for yuan.
This part of your own article has two important parts.
#1> It points out this mandatory exchange is not the case in "many countries". Who can instead decide what to use that US Currency for.

#2> The value of the US currency is exchanged for a equal (-fees) value of Yuan. This leaves that value still in the hands of that person. The value is just in a different form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
My reason for posting the cited article is that I feel it backs up my position, the paragraph "What does China do with all of its foreign exchange reserves?"
As they say.
See what you want to see.
You seem to have read right past the line in your own article that directly disagrees with you. In order to , later find a piece of the article , you feel can be interpreted in a way , to back up your claim. A Claim that the article itself directly disagrees with.

Even that part you point to , doesn't turn the tide back around. Further in your own article:

Quote:
What would happen if China switched from dollar assets to other assets?
That asset that is currently largely held in US Dollars does not have to stay in US dollars. The value of that asset can be converted to other forms of currency , or even other non-currency items. Again if they exchanged. They keep the value (-fees) but that value is in a new form.

Part of the current value of the US Dollar is because of value like these Chinese assets invested in that US Dollar. The Chinese Asset value can be exchanged. It does not require them to buy stuff in the US with those US Dollars. The value of the Chinese asset can be removed from its backing of the global amount of printed US Dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
So as has been my main 2 points all along, US dollars eventually come back,
I know you think this.
You've repeated this incorrect claim several times now.
I've tried to point out the error of this several times.
On ( what seems like the remote chance that ) , that the A student is still in there somewhere.
I'll give it one more try.

Your own article directly disagrees with you.

Go read what a trade deficit is.

This neutral circle you keep claiming about the US dollars that go out , come back. That claim requires a neutral Trade balance. The short term and long term value of all Imports would have to = all Exports.

That neutral condition that is required for your claim. Does not exist.

Thought Example of concept ( If it helps ):
If in 1 year there is a $5 Million US Dollar Trade Deficit. That is $5 Million US Dollars of value that went out but did not come back ( as you claim it does ) over the course of that year. If the next year there is a $10 Million US Dollar Trade Deficit. That value adds to the previous value that did not come back. Both are in direct violation of your it comes back position. Repeat for the history of the US Trade Deficit. Adjust for inflation if you like.

Feel free to do the math for yourself. It is not the neutral balance where all the output = the Input , as you keep incorrectly claiming. There is more - than +. It is not =.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
Again I say at the end of the day, it is a natural occurence that the "Transfer of Wealth" is going to occur.
That I will agree with.

I would actually go further and say that it is it's own rather in depth discussion with pros and cons on both sides of weather or not it would ultimately be a good idea. Even if we choose to actively take steps to slow / retard / or prevent this transfer of wealth.

But that doesn't debate about it being 'natural' or the pros and cons about it , does not change that it is happening and it does exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
What is your hang up on that?
I've repeated this more than once.


I do not have a hang up on that.
I do not resent them.
I am not upset or against them having stuff.
Your continued incorrect claims about my opinions. Especially after I have corrected you on that.

It is just baffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
This energy was vital to fuel our growth. It is only fair to me that others in the world who helped us to attain this get their fair amount.
I agree the energy was vital to the growth.
I agree fair trade for that resource is expected , and fair.
Neither of those is what I disagreed with you about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
BTW try to use the "," key more, the "..." is good in small dose's for effect, but is wearisome in the long run when used 53 times in a post.
I'll take your advice into consideration.
The "...." is a bit of a writing habit I picked up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2012, 08:25 PM   #134 (permalink)
Aero Deshi
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065

MagMetalCivic - '04 Honda Civic Sedan EX
Last 3: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 430
Thanked 668 Times in 357 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
You've repeated this incorrect claim several times now.

Your own article directly disagrees with you.
According to you.

Let's just agree here to let this drop. However you learned this aspect of economics is how you see it I suppose.

Since neither of us, or both of us, being wrong on this subject is likely to disturb the orbital momentum of the Earth and send everything hurtling headlong into the Sun, I'd say this declaration of impasse will be healthier for us both.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ChazInMT For This Useful Post:
larrybuck (09-03-2012)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com