Just for fun, I read the crawl this time.
I wonder if the juxtaposition of text with the interview is ever planned or if its mostly just random news bites...



(...)PHARMACIST WHO SHOT A WOULD-BE ROBBER ON MAY 19... 57-YR-OLD JEROME ERSLAND SHOT 16-YR-OLD ANTWUN PARKER ONCE IN THE HEAD INSIDE HIS STORE, THEN CHASED A SECOND ROBBER OUT THE DOOR... PROSECUTORS SAY ERSLAND WAS NO LONGER DEFENDING HIMSELF WHEN HE RETURNED AND SHOT PARKER FIVE MORE TIMES AFTER HE WAS ALREADY UNCONSCIOUS

NEBRASKA LAWMAKERS APPROVE BILL CHANGING STATE'S METHOD OF EXECUTION FROM ELECTROCUTION TO LETHAL INJECTION... NE HAS BEEN WITHOUT A MEANS OF EXECUTION SINCE FEB 2008 WHEN THE STATE SUPREMEME COURT RULED THAT THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AMOUNTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... NE WAS THE ONLY STATE WITH ELECTROCUTION AS ITS SOLE MEANS OF EXECUTION

THREE SONS OF AN AL QUAEDA-LINKED CLERIC JAILED IN LONDON FOR RUNNING A CAR THEFT RING... THE MEN, ALL IN THEIR 20S, WERE SENTENCED ALONG WITH FOUR OTHERS TO PRISON TERMS RANGING FROM 2-4 YEARS. THE SCHEME INVOLVED STEALING LUXURY CARS FROM LONG-STAY PARKING LOTS, THOUGH THE MEN DENY FINANCING TERRORISM THROUGH THE SALES OF THE VEHICLES... THE MEN'S FATHER, 50-YR-OLD CLERIC ABU HAMZA, IS IN JAIL IN LONDON AND FACES EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. FOR ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO SET UP A TERROR TRAINING CAMP IN O

EXPLOSION IN A SHIITE MOSQUE KILLS 15, INJURES 50 IN SE IRAN NEAR THE PAKISTANI BORDER... IRAN'S SISTAN-BALUCHISTAN PROVINCE IS PLAGUED BY LAWLESSNESS AND IS A KEY ENTRY POINT FOR DRUGS... A SUNNI TERROR ORG CALLED JUNDALLAH IS ACTIVE IN THE PROVINCE, KILLING 11 SOLDIERS IN 2007 IN THE CITY WHERE TODAY'S BOMBING OCCURRED

AMERICAN JOURNALIST ROXANA SABERI, WHO SPENT FOUR MONTHS IN AN IRANIAN PRISON ON ESPIONAGE CHARGES, SAYS SHE INITIALLY CONFESSED TO BEING A SPY AFTER COMING UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE... SABERI: "MY CONFESSION WAS FALSE AND I THOUGHT I TO (...)

(...)TO KEEP PRODUCTION QUOTAS AT PRESENT LEVELS, SAYING WORLDWIDE OIL INVENTORIES AT THE END OF LAST MONTH WERE AT 20-YR-HIGH... PRODUCTION CUTS COULD HAVE BACKFIRED ON OPEC BY BOOSTING PRICES AND MAKING IR MORE DIFFICULT FOR COUNTRIES TO PAY FRO CRUDE... PRICE OF A BARREL OF CRUDE IS CURRENTLY OVER $60, UP FROM APPROX #30 FOUR MONTHS AGO, BUT STILL FAR FROM 2008 HIGH OF $147

WHAT'S IN A NAME?... WINNING TICKET IN WED NIGHT'S $232 MIL POWERBALL JACKPOT WAS SOLD IN WINNER, SD... IT'S THE NINETH-LARGEST POWERBALL JACKPOT AND THE BIGGEST EVEN IN THE STATE. WINNER IS LOCATED IN SOUTH-CENTRAL SD AND HAS A POPULATION OF ABOUT 2,800

A TAX ON EVERYTHING?... THE PROSPECT OF A VALUE ADDED TAX (V.A.T) COULD BE GAINING TRACTION AS THE GOVT LOOKS FOR WAYS TO PAY FOR THE STIMULUS, BAILOUTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE REFORM... THE V.A.T AMOUNTS TO A NATL SALES TAX, AN IDEA THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTED BY SOME CONSERVATIVES, BUT ONLY AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... HOWEVER A SR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TOLD THE WASH POST IT'S "UNLIKELY" THE V.A.T. WOULD BE USED AS A NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE

Your video, EV-1 : Who Killed The Electric Car ? OPEC ? US Govt ?, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I give the guy a nod for what he managed to do but let's face it, he only managed to improve as much as he did because the truck was a disaster when he started. My car is already well-maintained and, at 47mpg, I'm not about to double anything.

>> ^Trancecoach:
meanwhile, the whole ordeal cost him 50X more than it would have if he drove a car and not some jacked up shrine to OPEC.


It's a 5th generation Toyota Tacoma. The V6 is rated for 20mpg. Don't be ridiculous.

I don't have a link, but I can give you an excerpt from David Strahan's book "The Last Oil Shock":

"In 1985 Kuwait's proved reserves - the most stringent definition - leapt by almost half, from 64 gigabarrels (billion barrels) to 90Gb, and in 1988 they rose again to 92Gb. That same year Abu Dhabi's proved reserves almost tripled to 92Gb, matching Kuwait exactly, and then Iran raised the bidding by one, increasing its proved reserves from 49 to 93Gb, while Iraq more than doubled, from 47Gb to a nice round 100, and Venezuela also jumped by over 100 per cent from 25 to 56Gb. Finally in 1990 Saudi Arabia raised its proved reserves by a whopping 88Gb, from 170 to 258Gb.

So in the space of five years OPEC reserves had risen by 305 billion barrels, despite the fact that no significant discoveries had been made. Most independent observers find this utterly incredible, not only because of the sheer enormity of the revisions, but also because of other suspicious coincidences.

It was Dr Colin Campbell, the grad old man of peak oil, who first spotted them. He noticed that in 1984, just before the game of leapfrog started, Kuwait's declared reserves were 64Gb, and by that year it had produced 21,5Gb, meaning that the total discovered was 85,5Gb. The following year Kuwait increased its 'reserves' to 90Gb, and the closeness of the two figures led Campbell to suspect that Kuwait had simply started declaring the total oil it had ever discovered - including all the oil it had already produced - rather than its remaining reserves.

What was even more suspicious to Campbell was the fact that Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Iran all declared nearly identical reserves, which he interprets purely as the result of quote competition. 'It is absolutely inconceivable that three separate countries should have exactly the same number!' [...] More suspicious yet, many of the new reserve figures subsequently remained unchanged for many years, despite the fact that OPEC countries were producing billions of barrels every year."

I think Richard Pike was mainly trying to explain the difference between a known quantity and probablility. I am not sure which you are talking about.

When you say OPEC have doubled their reserves on paper in the past to raise output, could you explain what figure? When? Got a link?

Interesting article, but if anything, the oil companies are exaggerating the size of their "proved" reserves. There are many reasons why Richard Pike is wrong.

If you take into account that many OPEC countries have doubled their reserves (on paper) over night in the past to be able to raise output you will end up with a figure that is way lower than any oil company will ever agree on. And why would they? Nobody wants to be the first to admit that reserves are lower than the general public is made to believe. Because the first oil company to do that will see their stocks plummet.

>> ^bcglorf:

First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

I'm with you there.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.

And this is where you lost me. I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served. First of all, the annexing you speak of was in 1990, and H.W. Bush answered that one. Dubya's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with genocide or chemical weapons or annexing nations; it had everything to do with American hegemony and protecting the dollar when Saddam decided to switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro. Any other reason given for the invasion and occupation was bullshit propaganda.

First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East? We chose the Middle East, and it's because we're afraid OPEC will switch to the petroeuro and destroy the dollar. And we cover this in the guise of stopping terrorists. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still missing, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. PROPAGANDA takes the place of information, yet again.

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?

I only believe humans have a single right. One. Here it is:

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom
of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the
others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life
is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life
means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—
which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a
rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the
enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.)"
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

In other words, your only right as a human being is the freedom to think and act, free of coercion--physical or otherwise.

Now, let me answer each of your points by asserting this right, and only this right:

1. Would you say you have a right to not starve to death on the street according to the whims of a few local employers?
NO! Life is a self generating action, you do not have the right to survive, you only have the right to pursue the means to survive. How can you have the right to not starve to death without infringing on someone elses rights? Who will the food be taken from? When you ensure that one man is kept alive, you ensure that another is his slave.

2. Would you say you have a right to know what is in food that you buy?
NO! It is your choice to purchase an item or not, and part of this choice is a rational assessment on the quality of the goods and trustworthiness of the seller. However, fraud is a violation of this basic right--in that it involves an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury. This is the role of the legal system: to settle contractual disputes.

3. Would you say you have a right to know how much electricity will be used by an appliance that you buy?
NO! Same thing, it is your choice to purchase the appliance or not. If however, the power rating stated is different than the power rating in actuality--again you have legal recourse to be compensated for fraud. There is nothing about selling an item which requires the seller to give full disclosure.

4. Would you say you have a right to be told the truth about the efficacy and side effects of any medication that you buy?
YES-If the product does not perform as claimed, then yes, this is a case of fraud.
NO! If you do not receive full disclosure, but the seller makes no false claims.

5. Would you say that when you are trying to buy an essential product, which is not a very new invention, you have the right to choose between two or more competitors instead of paying an extortionary price to a monopoly? (And certain utility markets tend towards monopolies without any regulation, such as water, telephone, and electricity)
NO! How can you remove a monopoly, other than action in the free market, without resorting to physical force, and thus the infringement of the business owners rights?

6. Would you say you have the right to pay a competitive market price for any good, which is not inflated by conspiracy of the suppliers of that good (OPEC, for example)
NO! Again...these are all the same principle. The market price is set by supply and demand. period. How can you fix prices without infringing on the rights of the business owner? You realize that supply and demand are the exact same thing--only seen from two sides of the transaction? How can you force a "competitive" price for the buyer, without forcing an "uncompetitive" price on the seller?

7. Would you say certain proactive regulations are necessary to prevent the creation of monopolies, such as prohibition
NO! For the last time, the only moral action is boycott in the free market. Any regulation will infringe on the rights of the business owner.

It doesn't matter if you think you are doing "good for the people" or "whats best for everyone", all you are really doing is acting as a dictator by using physical violence (jail) to enforce your polices. However "benevolently" you think you are acting--in everyone one of the above cases someones rights would be violated. Thus, whatever arguments you can make for such a policy, you cannot make a moral one.

Nice video. I agree with most of it.

I'd like to remind you that plenty of immigrants starved to death in the United States around 1900 without any "socialist policy destroying the economy". With the exception of railroad land grants, the USA was nearly laissez-faire until 1906. Monopolies thrived anyway.

If you want a recent example of price-fixing by suppliers whose initiation did not require government help (but ending it did require government help), look up the SDRAM collusion scandal of the early 2000s.

OPEC's openly stated goal is to control oil prices by collusive production-limiting, so it's ridiculous to call that a "tinfoil hat" allegation. They succeed because demand for oil is not very elastic and their competitors cannot easily increase production. Also, irrespective of OPEC, the price of oil will continue to rise as the limited worldwide reserves are consumed and demand continues to rise. OPEC and the United States are playing it well by conserving their reserves. The price of oil, relative to gold, will probably double by 2020.

And I do support nuclear power. Don't be so insolent as to presume that any left-leaning person you meet online supports every plank of the Green Party Platform.

A large conglomerate can drive all its competition in a particular niche out of business by selling at a slight loss. Or the conglomerate offer to buy the competitors first, and then run the holdouts out of business. Then they can raise prices to whatever they want and make a profit more than enough to compensate for the earlier loss. Some new capitalist will presume that he can sell the product cheaper, so he will waste the overhead cost of market entry before getting run out of business by the larger company selling at a loss again. Then the larger company goes back to selling at very high prices without any competitors. In any market with high entry overhead costs and impracticality of long-term temporal arbitrage, a monopoly can thrive without government help.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith


Industries such as tap water, sewers, and electical grids are natural monopolies. There is not one place in the world where you have a choice of which tap water grid to connect to, or which sewer network to connect to, or which power grid to connect to.

>> ^jwray:
I agree with you completely on this. However you've failed to consider the full range of interventions that may be necessary to protect individual rights.
1. Would you say you have a right to not starve to death on the street according to the whims of a few local employers?


I don't understand what you're implying here. Is this person capable of working, why wouldn't someone hire him unless some socialist policy destroyed the economy? Remember when the Federal Reserve sat on the inflow of gold in the thirties and caused a hyperdeflationary depression where money stopped getting loaned out, therefore people couldn't get paid and businesses which relied on the inflated credit of the 20s all went belly up? You wouldn't, would you, because you're just a sheep with no actual understanding of the driving forces of poverty. Do you realize that charity was at it's highest when there was no income tax and gold backed money? See, there's nothing wrong with helping someone voluntarily. There is something wrong with you believing that I or anyone else is OBLIGATED to give up their wealth to this person just because he is starving. And why would anyone work if we're all entitled to each other's production? You must also believe that he is morally within his rights to steal from the grocery store if he's "helpless" like you say. It's the same thing when you legislate redistribution of wealth schemes. You need to get off your Marxist boat already.

2. Would you say you have a right to know what is in food that you buy? 3. Would you say you have a right to know how much electricity will be used by an appliance that you buy?


In most cases, if the consumer demands it, the consumer gets it. Because how do companies make money? By reaching out to demand in the market. But I don't really have a problem with information gathering, even though it could easily be done by independent consumer groups.


5. Would you say that when you are trying to buy an essential product, which is not a very new invention, you have the right to choose between two or more competitors instead of paying an extortionary price to a monopoly?

Monopolies are not self-sustaining unless the enablements exist within government for companies to collude with and benefit from government specific powers. Remember, the government is the largest and most powerful monopoly of all. They can do things a private company can only DREAM of doing: force payment (tax), create new money (inflate), and ban competing products.

6. Would you say you have the right to pay a competitive market price for any good, which is not inflated by conspiracy of the suppliers of that good (OPEC, for example)

You are getting a competitive price, tinfoil man. The dollar is being crushed by socialist policies and foreign currencies are gaining relative to it by definition. That increases their buying power in this international bidding contest for a finite resource. So sorry it's become unpleasant for you, but maybe you also shouldn't have supported blocking domestic drilling and nuclear power for thirty years. Kinda hard to reduce prices when you intentionally decrease supply and competition. You want the energy, you just refuse to allow anyone to make it in your backyard. So suffer the consequences and ride your bike and stop whining like an entitlement freak. There are people in Africa who would kill to drive around in a car all day.

Would you say certain proactive regulations are necessary to prevent the creation of monopolies, such as prohibition against exclusive supply contracts, where for example a computer vendor who wants to sell Microsoft Windows computers won't have to sign a contract with Microsoft promising to never sell any Linux computers.

Exclusive contracts are made all the time. Bidding contests are real competition. McDonald's contracted with Heinz for ketchup and mustard supplies. The Olympics only accepts Visa credit cards. If an OEM contracts with someone exclusively, they have to gauge if that payout is going to be worth the loss to competitor's offering the supposedly superior product which will inevitably be used by other OEMs. It's not like Microsoft can put poop in a box and stay a monopoly, they STILL have to deliver or it opens a window for competition.

Clearly, you are locked in to the corporate blame game that marxists play to gain power. The only thing you need to worry about is removing the collusive enablements that allow private companies to gain unfair advantages over their competition through bribery: subsidies, special tax breaks, inflation, and banned choice under the pretense of protecting you.

jwray... i am with you .. i also think that there are many things that "the market" cannot solve, especially education.

Education is a service like any other, in which case the optimal result will be from consumers spending their own money, not politicians dishing it out to government teachers. This is a terribly uninvolved system where the parents just expect the best and do no research, it's all "provided" for you. Education has become daycare. We used to be first in the world before the Department of Education was created. Now we're not, though. Any department has to be fed with money that otherwise would have gone to the people themselves. The funny thing is that even if you support some kind of socialized education, libertarians have proposed a voucher system where the money is going to parents to make choices instead of to the providers directly. The latter strategy is what we currently do and it's the equivalent of giving food stamps to the grocery stores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU&feature=related

a government is absolutely necessary in a modern society--however, it has but a single rational function: to project individual rights. By extension this implies a national defense, police force, and legal system.


I agree with you completely on this. However you've failed to consider the full range of interventions that may be necessary to protect individual rights.
1. Would you say you have a right to not starve to death on the street according to the whims of a few local employers?
2. Would you say you have a right to know what is in food that you buy?
3. Would you say you have a right to know how much electricity will be used by an appliance that you buy?
4. Would you say you have a right to be told the truth about the efficacy and side effects of any medication that you buy?
5. Would you say that when you are trying to buy an essential product, which is not a very new invention, you have the right to choose between two or more competitors instead of paying an extortionary price to a monopoly? (And certain utility markets tend towards monopolies without any regulation, such as water, telephone, and electricity)
6. Would you say you have the right to pay a competitive market price for any good, which is not inflated by conspiracy of the suppliers of that good (OPEC, for example)
7. Would you say certain proactive regulations are necessary to prevent the creation of monopolies, such as prohibition against exclusive supply contracts, where for example a computer vendor who wants to sell Microsoft Windows computers won't have to sign a contract with Microsoft promising to never sell any Linux computers.

How are you going to enforce all of those rights without some department of ___ regulatory agencies?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'car, battery, opec, documentary, things you should know, EV 1' to 'car, battery, opec, documentary, things you should know, EV 1, 2006' - edited by schmawy

Sad thing is, this isn't news. OPEC already said there's no shortage.

Bzzzt, Brazil is free from OPEC due to heavy use of ethanol, and while they did need to increase oil production too, that wasn't the biggest factor.

Brazil has 2/3 the population of the U.S., but produces less than 1/4 the oil we do, and they're independent.

My guess is in addition to ethanol, they also do more conservation than we do. Wouldn't be hard, we hardly do any of that, even with $4/gal gas.

*lies

>> ^reason:
If it was really about oil then why aren't we taking the oil? If we are going to have a war for oil then let's go after Canada and Mexico. We import 33% of our foreign oil from these 2 countries. I you add in Venezuela, Columbia and Ecuador the total goes to 49%. That's right here in the western hemisphere. Think it through people and put down the kool-aid. If you use your brain you'll find you don't need your tin foil hat anymore.


The oil reserves in Canada and the South American states COMBINED is a fraction of the reserves present in the Iraq.

It's not only about Oil but about strategic influence in a important region. Having a lock on Iraq oil would allow for large bargaining power with Saudi Arabia and larger influence over the OPEC states.

The plan was for everything to go smoothly, the Iraqi government collapsing and subsequent no bid oil contracts being handed out. That didn't work out. The US government has been pushing for the Iraqi government to pass the Oil law. That has happened. Real Mission Accomplished.

You know why Germany invaded Russia? For the Oil fields in the Southern Caucus region. It's very easy to see how Warhawks could have argued for strategic domination in a key energy abundant area for future possible conflicts against an emerging China and reawakening Russia.