Jump to content

ryskey

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ryskey

  1. Buzbee saying all the Trumpy robotexts and robocalls were not from his campaign. I got 4, and they motivated me to go vote against Buzbee. Was neutral before.

    Maybe it was Turner’s campaign? Aligning yourself to Trump in a very blue county is incredibly stupid.

  2. 1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

    why he keeps on trying to minimize the vocal minority. i think that's a strong tell that he knows the team hates him.

    It's also an indication that he still does not tolerate dissent or other views.  When he first started talking about alignment, I don't think I was alone when I thought he meant players and other coaches buying into the same vision and core values.  What he actually meant was he needed a bunch of sycophants to reinforce his worldview that he's always the smartest person in the room. 

    It's narcissism, ego, whatever, but think we can all agree that in his own head, Tom's internal narrative is "I'm smarter than anyone else, so if I thought if it, then it has to be correct.  And anyone who thinks differently is therefore stupid and inferior."  Really dangerous cycle and it appears in the corporate world all the time.  Those organizations nearly always fall apart, and/or never make any money.

    Tom can go one of two ways: Continue the status quo, and leave in disgrace.  Or learn some humility and have a chance to leave Texas a winner.  

  3. 10 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

    Also, and I'm just speaking practically, not CR, the government really only has a say over federal lands.  A Warren/Sanders administration can make it harder to Frack on federal lands by throwing more regulatory burdens at producers, but an out right ban would probably require an act of Congress, and I don't see that if the current Senate rules structure remains in place.

    Now, several blue states have out right banned fracking, but that's a state by state issue.  As far as Texas, the feds have minimal to no impact given the paucity of federal land.  Liz Warren can tweet whatever she wants, but that's not how the Presidency works.  She can issue an executive order, but that doesn't mean it has any practical effect, and if it does, it will likely be tied up in court for years to come.  

    giphy.gif

     

    Offshore drilling is a separate issue, where the executive has more leeway, but regardless, we elect a President, not a King/Queen.  The Trump Administration has been trying to enact "Drill Baby, Drill" for 3 years and......hasn't done all that much in the aggregate.  Shit moves slowly here.

    To complement what Beeper said, there's a prevalent sentiment among the E&P finance community that a Warren presidency would better for the E&Ps that don't have federal leases.  

  4. With so much history and precedent, it's hard to understand how and why politicians keep making the same mistakes.  Most of the Chilean population has memories of life under Pinochet, and those who don't have parents who carry scars.

    Piñera is acting completely tone-deaf to his own country's history and culture.  That's inexcusable.  

    South American Executive Logic:

    1. Should I do this thing?

    2. Depends, has it been done before?

    3. Yes?  Ok, how did it end?  

    4. Voted out of office / sanctions / civil unrest / coup / arrested on human rights violations

    5. Ok let's do it.

     

    • Like 1
  5. I think you missed the point and veered off in a weird, melodramatic rant against a strawman.  

    Evo Morales needs to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the current situation, which is terrible and could have been avoided.  That's all that's being argued.  Morales could have prevented this.

    Follow the will of the people as they voted in the 2016 referendum.  Pick the successor.  But most importantly, ensure the health of the MAS's platform and exit gracefully, leaving a lasting legacy and strong foundation for a young democracy. This last 3 years was a crossroads, much like Zimbabwe and South Africa in the mid 90's and Venezuela in the late 90's: begin the cycle of democratic backsliding and consolidation of power and take the path of Venezuela or Zimbabwe.  Or comply with the wishes of your people, and the Constitution you helped create, and Morales could take his place next to Nelson Mandela.  His pattern of behavior suggests he wanted Mugabe's or Chavez's path instead.

    No one is calling Morales a dictator.  But this is how dictatorships start.  His own base started to erode because a lot of them have seen this episode before and they don't like how it ends.  

    • Like 4
  6. 6 hours ago, Fozzz said:

    I don't think Evo did anything wrong by running for a fourth term given that it was legal for him to do so.  It sounds like you should write an angry letter to their judiciary.

    The majority of Bolivians think Evo did something wrong by running for a 4th term.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/22/bolivia-evo-morales-president-national-referendum-fourth-term

    And Bolivians wrote lots of angry letters.

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  7. Coup aside, there was a pattern of behavior from Morales that should have given even the most sympathetic American leftist some concern.  If the goal is legitimate, popularly-elected governments in Latin America with a focus on lifting people out of poverty by keeping wealth in the country,  Morales should be recognized by his previous accomplishments but was trending in a way that represented an existential threat.  Those two opinions can co-exist together peacefully.  Use a bit of common sense and this should bother you:

    1.  This would have been Morales' 4th term.  This was an advanced step in the "president for life" playbook.

    2.  His 3rd term was in direct violation of the Constitution that Morales helped create.  The reasoning then was that the first term didn't count, because it began before the modern constitution was adopted.  There was still popular support for him, so ok.  But that is an extremely self-serving interpretation.  World says "you get a hall pass here."  If the standard for succession is George Washington, Morales gets a D+.  Is he their FDR?  On the economy, sure.  Is the bloodiest war in human history currently being waged?  No.

    3.  In 2016, there was a referendum to grant Morales a 4th term.  It failed.  Popular support gone.  Bolivians rejected the idea of Presidente por Vida.  The arguments pro Evo right now (simply MadLibs of the same phrases used to support Arbenz, the FMLN, Allende, et al in the 20th century) are not very credible with the outcome of this referendum.  This situation is vastly different, and comparing them to this Bolivia situation dishonors the reality of those injustices.

    4.  Morales appealed to the Supreme Court, full of Evo appointees and sycophants, to abolish the term limits.  Massive conflict of interests there, and not much in the way of checks and balances.  As expected, they complied, justifying the decision with a flimsy and very ironic human rights argument.  Alarm bells went off.  The popular will of the people had been ignored. The world started watching.  Everything that has happened thereafter can be labeled as illegitimate.  

    5.  The OAS has an imperfect past, but it is the only official audit we have.  Instead of attacking the source, which of these descriptions in the election are inaccurate?  Let's start there.

    - Morales needed at least a 10% margin or greater than 50% of the total to avoid a runoff. 

    - Election officials, also largely directly or indirectly pro-Morales, stopped releasing results when Morales had less than a 10% lead and less than 50% of the total.  A united opposition in a later runoff election likely would have resulted in a narrow victory for Mesa, the opposition candidate. Final numbers were not released until days later.  Morales declared victory with the "final numbers" which showed a margin greater than 10% and total barely over 50%, which had never been seen before.   Protests ensued.  At a bare minimum, this pattern of events looks pretty bad, even if the final numbers are legitimate.  Why did election officials stop releasing results?  The optics are terrible.  

     

    With all that said, the politicians in the US and other OECD countries need to STFU about this.  Stop opining, stop expressing support, just shut up.  Doing so undermines the opposition.  Too much baggage here, and too much bad history in Latin America.  This has all the ingredients for an organic, grassroots evolution of Bolivia's modern Democracy.  Growing pains.  Morales can be recognized for his accomplishments.  He could have honored the referendum, given his full support to a hand-picked successor who would continue the agenda of the MAS and his own presidency, and cemented his legacy as the father of modern Bolivia with a peaceful transition of power.  And we would not be here right now.  There were cracks showing in Morales' base, enough to put his popular mandate at risk.  People who did not want President for Life, and a Venezuela/Zimbabwe starter kit.  But he started viewing himself as God-emperor (new 26 story presidential palace in the continent's poorest country?), and that got in the way.  Democracy has a way of weeding that out, and it was happening organically.  Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

    • Like 9
  8. 6 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

     


    This would be amazing.

    In all likelihood, we won’t kick much. They’re so bad that Campbell has started going for it on 4th outside the 15. If it’s too close to punt and longer than a PAT, we won’t bother

     

    Looks like ISU has lost 4 games by a combined 11 points.  Seems like something a good kicker would help.  

  9. Long thread summarizing Trump’s remarks this morning to the International Association of Police Chiefs. This took place in Chicago. All of it is nuts.



    A Police Chief named Cell. Like a librarian named Bookman.
  10. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    We can’t save the human race from our own environmental negligence and destruction because it would completely fuck up the economy!  

    Vote Quimby 

    Warren's solution would increase CO2 emissions immediately.  Coal would fill the gap.  Either that or widespread blackouts.

    These are the types of rigid, dogmatic ideas that make a 2nd term for Trump a real possibility.  

    • Like 1
  11. 25 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

    She said she would institute a freeze on development offshore and on federal lands and would ban fracking, nationwide, on Day 1. 

    That would be a massive blow to O&G, which is the point. It's essentially the most a President could possibly do to cripple the industry. 

    Call me no better than a Republican or whatever you want, but I have trouble seeing myself really rooting for the person that wants to pro-actively end my career.

    It would also result in $100/bbl oil, $7/mmbtu natural gas, which will crater the economy.  It would also increase our use of coal, thereby increasing CO2 emissions.  Just a truly awful, counterproductive position to take, especially one that will ensure Texas stays out of play for the foreseeable future.  It was likely, at the very least, that the Rs would need to spend resources in TX to make sure it stays red in 2020.  If Warren is nominated, that no longer happens.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  12. No, I'm on the make renewable energy inherently profitable without bankrupting society bandwagon.  You asked for a tax, and I came up with one that causes the least damage.  What's your solution?

    As opposed to an earmarked, industry-specific subsidy, a carbon tax is a bit more agnostic on where you get your energy.  It will also make solar, wind, and nuclear power more expensive for a while.

    • Like 1
  13. 5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

    not that it matters.  and, of course, the biggest subsidy has been baked in from the get-go, so you're factually wrong as well.

    Yes, internalizing the externalized full-cycle costs.  That's a worthy goal.  How do you do that in a way that won't lead to catastrophic economic collapse?

    Possible solution: Announce a revenue-neutral carbon tax that will escalate incrementally over the next 30 years.  Revenue raised reduces everyone's income taxes.  That sends a long-term price signal to the world, re-directing investment, punishes inefficiency, and sets a course that is thermodynamically best for our species, which is therefore the most beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint.   

    • Like 1
  14. 4 minutes ago, ryskey said:

    An outright ban on hydrocarbons, or massive, abrupt, tax-funded subsidies on an imperfect, un-scale-able, immature renewable energy sector (ast it stands right now) is a strategy that will lead to an outcome just as bad as runaway climate change.  

    Quoting myself to clarify.  As it stands right now, there is no solution or viable path forward in which renewable energy + nuclear can supply 100% of the world's energy needs within the next couple decades without causing catastrophic economic damage.  Obviously, renewables are mature enough to continue growing market share right now, and that's a good thing.  

  15. 1 minute ago, elfenix said:

    the status quo is where it is because we've spent a century of picking winners and losers through taxes and subsidies.  now that we need to use those tools to pick a different set of winners and losers before we're all made into losers, we should instead abandon them?  what sense does that make?

    I think you have causality reversed.  Those taxes and subsidies followed what was inherently profitable, because those who made the rules were already rich.  Investment will follow where the returns are.  That's an organic, secular tailwind for exponential growth.  Once mature, the taxes and subsidies will follow.

    Perpetually subsidizing an unprofitable venture is how a society becomes poor.  An outright ban on hydrocarbons, or massive, abrupt, tax-funded subsidies on an imperfect, un-scale-able, immature renewable energy sector (ast it stands right now) is a strategy that will lead to an outcome just as bad as runaway climate change.  

  16. Every other discussion in this country is so polarized, so climate and energy might as well be too.

    This is especially frustrating because it's one that should be led by experts, who are in turn informed by science and economics.  Instead, we have know-nothing morons on both extremes dictating how this very complicated, technical, nuanced topic is consumed by the public, which is 99% laymen.  How many people do you know who are actually qualified to have a strong opinion here?  I guess we can say that about any topic, but this might be the only one that concerns our viability as a species.

    On one side, we have drooling troglodytes opposed to any kind of change from the status quo, regardless of merit.

    On the other, we have people inventing fairy tales, then believing in them, followed by calling anyone who doesn't believe 100% in their imagined fantasy world a pox upon humanity.

    The people who make up those poles consist of what, maybe 10% of the population?  I think even most laymen, if presented with a choice, would like a thoughtful course of action that won't either:

    1. Cause runaway climate change, leading to a huge reduction in the human population.

    2. Wreck the world economy, cause mass starvation, and lead to a huge reduction in the human population.

    Our risk tolerance for either of those is 0.  1% is too high. 

    There's too much money in politics, and we'll never fix that.  So using financial interests to re-define the battle lines (or make them disappear) is the only way to find a reasonable course of action.  The majors - Total, Shell, BP, and now even Exxon are going this direction, but without a lot of conviction or urgency.  Over the long run, they have more influence than some bombastic politician.  What can accelerate that evolution is to make green energy as or more profitable than hydrocarbons.  Not through taxes, subsidies, or picking winners and losers through legislation, but through innovation and technology.  Wind and solar are good at making a lot of energy, but not necessarily when we need it.  Whoever invents cheap, scale-able energy storage will be a trillionaire, but only those with country-sized balance sheets will be able to scale it and deploy it.  

    I'm in oil and gas because the world needs oil and gas.  We will need it for decades to come.  But if we are still doing things this way in 50 years, then we will have failed miserably somewhere.  This is a century-long transition that needs profitable allocation of resources to be successful.  Incubation, public/private partnerships, but most importantly, profitability.  It's the only language humans collectively speak.

    • Like 6
  17. 3 hours ago, Parliament said:

    .
    3fc6c35fa2ab666dee9995e3d2098c2d.jpg

    Topographic maps are pretty useful.  Pretty useful when assessing sea level rise risk.  The Obamas' house looks like it's around 35' above sea level.  Much higher than most of New York City.

    • Like 3
  18. Judging by the number of people dumping stocks and tranforming 401Ks into defensive portfolios, if this is the start of a recession, it will be one in which a lot of people (including a lot who are not very financially savvy) picked the top.  How many times has that happened?  I suppose this could be the first.

    I'm leaning towards "the great high-beta, narrow band trading range."  It's arguable that we've already been in it for 18 months.  S&P characterized by huge moves daily and weekly moves but stays between 2,500 and 3,000 for a few more years.  Algos driving volatility but no secular, long-term movement.

    • Like 2
  19. 1 hour ago, Hawndoh said:

    Because the USA is really freaking huge and our cities are far apart. 

    France is the size of Texas and they have 40 million more people than Texas. 

    Relatively short distances and much higher density means trains work well. 

     

    The Texas Triangle has higher population density than France.  

    • Like 1
  20. WLL is trading at an implied 13% free cash flow yield and THEY'RE A GROWTH COMPANY.

    Just one example of dozens.  E&P stocks are cheap, if you're in the game, buy now.  Balance sheets generally are solid.  Cash will speak for itself.

  21. Quote

    I think it would be helpful overall if whoever was going to be involved subjected their ventures to international oversight to ensure transparency.

    Do you know a really good, standardized, time-tested way to do that?  List on the New York Stock Exchange.  Equinor's model is 2/3 owned by the people of Norway.  The other 1/3 is the public float.  PetroBras is similar.

×
×
  • Create New...