Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
What a ****ing chump.
You're doing business with China, if you were concerned about them stealing your IP, then don't do business with China, what's that, people wouldn't buy your stupid **** if they had to pay a fair price for it?
I'm also sick and tired of non-American capitalists saying America sucks. If Elon and O'Leary don't like it go back to South Africa or Canada. Oh wait you wouldn't be rich if you did that? **** off you patsies.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2024/10/21/archaic-federal-law-keeps-alaskans-from-using-abundant-natural-gas-reserves/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=autoshare&utm_term=post
Alaska is an energy behemoth with massive reserves of oil, natural gas, and petroleum. It also, oddly, faces a looming natural gas shortage—not good for a state where half of electricity production depends on the stuff. The problem is that most natural gas deposits are far from population centers and pipelines to transport the gas don't yet exist and may never be built. So, to get gas to Alaskans, you need to transport it by ship. But federal law requires that only U.S.-flagged liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers be used, and there aren't any.
…
"LNG carriers have not been built in the United States since before 1980, and no LNG carriers are currently registered under the U.S. flag," the U.S. Government Accountability Office found in 2015. And while there's lots of demand for more LNG carriers for the export market, not just for Alaska, "U.S. carriers would cost about two to three times as much as similar carriers built in Korean shipyards and would be more expensive to operate."
U.S. Customs and Border Protection did make an exception to let foreign LNG carriers transport U.S. natural gas to Puerto Rico earlier this year, but only because the gas was first piped to Mexico before being loaded onto ships. Isolated Alaska doesn't have that option.
The feds are diligent about prosecuting Jones Act violations, too. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice imposed a $10 million penalty on an energy exploration and production company for transporting a drill rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska's Cook Inlet in a foreign-flagged vessel. That company's intention was to bring more natural gas to market in Alaska.
Given the law's strict terms and the government's enthusiastic enforcement, "it will be perfectly legal for ships from other countries to pick up liquid natural gas from the new production facility in northern Alaska—as long as they don't stop at any other American ports to unload," Reason's Eric Boehm noted in 2020.
When Boehm wrote, the century-old protectionist law contributed to high prices for Alaskans. Now it may actually precipitate a crisis by making it effectively illegal for energy companies to ship abundant natural gas from one part of the state to eager customers in another.
—————
Alaska is an energy behemoth with massive reserves of oil, natural gas, and petroleum. It also, oddly, faces a looming natural gas shortage—not good for a state where half of electricity production depends on the stuff. The problem is that most natural gas deposits are far from population centers and pipelines to transport the gas don't yet exist and may never be built. So, to get gas to Alaskans, you need to transport it by ship. But federal law requires that only U.S.-flagged liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers be used, and there aren't any.
…
"LNG carriers have not been built in the United States since before 1980, and no LNG carriers are currently registered under the U.S. flag," the U.S. Government Accountability Office found in 2015. And while there's lots of demand for more LNG carriers for the export market, not just for Alaska, "U.S. carriers would cost about two to three times as much as similar carriers built in Korean shipyards and would be more expensive to operate."
U.S. Customs and Border Protection did make an exception to let foreign LNG carriers transport U.S. natural gas to Puerto Rico earlier this year, but only because the gas was first piped to Mexico before being loaded onto ships. Isolated Alaska doesn't have that option.
The feds are diligent about prosecuting Jones Act violations, too. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice imposed a $10 million penalty on an energy exploration and production company for transporting a drill rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska's Cook Inlet in a foreign-flagged vessel. That company's intention was to bring more natural gas to market in Alaska.
Given the law's strict terms and the government's enthusiastic enforcement, "it will be perfectly legal for ships from other countries to pick up liquid natural gas from the new production facility in northern Alaska—as long as they don't stop at any other American ports to unload," Reason's Eric Boehm noted in 2020.
When Boehm wrote, the century-old protectionist law contributed to high prices for Alaskans. Now it may actually precipitate a crisis by making it effectively illegal for energy companies to ship abundant natural gas from one part of the state to eager customers in another.
—————
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...ject-challenge-alaska-lng-exports-2024-10-21/
Looks like a pipeline solves the issue?
Good old American jobs to build and manage at overall cheaper long term rates than just the default consultant driven outsourcing answers.
Looks like a pipeline solves the issue?
Good old American jobs to build and manage at overall cheaper long term rates than just the default consultant driven outsourcing answers.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Do both.
The pipeline doesn’t help anyone until it’s built. And who knows when that’ll be.
This situation is patently absurd.
The pipeline doesn’t help anyone until it’s built. And who knows when that’ll be.
This situation is patently absurd.
Sure - Temporary bandaids while we move to a pipeline without foreign reliance is acceptable. As long as the movement away from foreign reliance is uninterrupted.
acesfull86
Well-known member
It’s been 44 years since a new LNG carrier was built in the US. How many years need to go by before someone says maybe this approach isn’t yielding the desired result?
The mercantilists like to accuse free marketers of being blinded by ideological purity…maybe they should buy a mirror*
*produced in the USA, naturally
The mercantilists like to accuse free marketers of being blinded by ideological purity…maybe they should buy a mirror*
*produced in the USA, naturally
The question was the use of foreign flag ships to deliver to the states correct?
WHy do we even need that if we have a pipeline? For now use someone elsese ships but its just temporary.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
https://wapo.st/4fh7BV3
Purely on pedagogical grounds I would love to see Trump's proposals re immigration, tariffs and Fed independence implemented. It would be an expensive lesson but also a hugely valuable one.
Purely on pedagogical grounds I would love to see Trump's proposals re immigration, tariffs and Fed independence implemented. It would be an expensive lesson but also a hugely valuable one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tapate50
Well-known member
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
How long was he out of office before inflation went crazy?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If Trump got all he asked for, the model said, the outcome would be pretty bad.
For everyday Americans, reality would become a nightmare: Trump’s plan would shrink the nation’s gross domestic product by $8 trillion over a second presidency, in today’s money. That is more than a quarter of the nation’s economic output in 2024. At the end of that term, prices would be about 25 percent higher. Employment would tank.
bring it on!!
For everyday Americans, reality would become a nightmare: Trump’s plan would shrink the nation’s gross domestic product by $8 trillion over a second presidency, in today’s money. That is more than a quarter of the nation’s economic output in 2024. At the end of that term, prices would be about 25 percent higher. Employment would tank.
bring it on!!
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Trump is a rainmaker. He says if you give him power he will make it rain. If and when it rains he takes credit. If it doesnt rain then its someone elses fault. Everythings all sunshine and rainbows when things are going good but what if things dont go so well in a second term. I dont think Trumps dangerous when things are going well. Its when things dont go his way that he is dangerous. So if he does get a second term I hope everything goes well. Because if it goes bad. Its going real bad. He is already of very loose morals. What happens when you add cognitive decline with that. Even if you dont think he is in cognitive decline he is almost 80. I really dont know where the line is for Republicans to say no to Trump. Fortunately many did in 2020. Some of them withstood that. Some lost their careers for it. Then we have Project 2025 which revolves around putting as many Trump loyalists in government positions as possible to ensure no one tells him no. Its all just a recipe for disaster. And I know the jokes and misdirections are coming. So preemptively **** you. I didnt say this about Trumps first term. I was strongly in the "He wont be that bad" category. I laughed my ass off when he won based on a technicality.
I really am quite baffled by the embrace of tariffs by Trump and his supporters. Protectionist economic policy like this used to be one of my primary bones to pick with others on the Left, because it’s just bad Economic policy, particularly for American consumers. I’m all for finding creative ways to shift production back to the US too, but doing so artificially through a tariff will only raise costs. My biggest fear is that the plan will be to use tariffs as replacement revenue for corporate tax cuts to promote US manufacturing, because we’ll just quickly see prices jump due to the tariffs, then companies will use those new prices to try to set a new baseline due to “rising labor costs” and make every attempt to pocket the excess profits from the reduction in taxes while automating as much as they can to limit the increase of those wages.
