Energy Discussion

[Spekkio]

How soon before the music stops re: $40T debt? Genuine question. I will retire soon. Is UK style austerity in our immediate future?

The reality is this (with rounded numbers):

-$1T on interest that isn't negotiable
-$1.2 T on military
-$3T on healthcare (medicare + ACA)
-$1.5T on SS
-$800 billion on literally everything else

$2T deficit

If you go back to pre Bush tax rates you raise $0.5-1T (maybe... we're still not out of the 2008 recession and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back).

You can't balance the budget without repealing Obamacare subsidies to employers. It's literally not possible.

So the answer to your question is whenever we pass sweeping healthcare reform. You have to view GOP fiscal policy over the last 15 years as purposefully forcing that decision.

 

[Griz882]

How soon before the music stops re: $40T debt? Genuine question. I will retire soon. Is UK style austerity in our immediate future?

Probably not that bad, but some belt tightening is on the way. Beyond the possibility that you might not get the usual annual increase (like Trump announced recently for ‘27) for a few years, your retirement is likely secure.

 

[Spekkio]

Back to energy...

Venezuela apparently isn't liking the deal they made with el diablo.

The Economist

Financial Times

Al Jazeera

 

[Flash]

Throughout history, nations have maneuvered to have access to natural resources and strategic location - oil above all - I don’t see this as any different. (For example, Winston Churchill led the UK to buy a controlling stake in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company- aka, BP, in 1914) In the case of Venezuela, you need a guarantee of security and funding to make the long term investment. As in the title of Daniel Yergin’s Pullitzer Prize winning book, for a century oil is “The Prize”

You really don't see this as any different, and you had to go back to Imperial Britain at the height of its power to get a parallel to what we're doing now? I am going to assume that you are being blatantly and willfully ignorant of the myriad problems, from legal/constitutional and moral to financial and practical, that this venture will have.

This is another example of the rank hypocrisy that some folks associated with previously and supposedly sacrosanct philosophies have been shown to be nothing more than craven opportunists when given the chance at power, prestige and money. Evangelicals coming to mind first, now joined by 'capitalists' who support policies like this.

There has certainly been an increase of executive powers (championed by both parties) as well as ideological sorting between right and left which has led our Presidential system acting more like a Parliamentary system.

I'm sure that the Supreme Court will once again find its spine when someone less ideologically aligned with the majority regains the White House.

 

[Spekkio]

Flash, no one in any government position of importance outside the US thinks we're doing anything differently than we have been doing since 1947 across multiple administrations. There's not a single decade in the 81 years since Japan surrendered where the US hasn't used military force and violence to meddle in someone else's affairs for its own economic benefit.

We just have a President that is more blunt and boisterous about it rather than proselytizing about democracy, liberal values, and rules-based order. Those talking points just make us look like hypocrites to skeptics and critics. Values-based foreign policy is on life support, if not dead, because to everyone who isn't the UK it just means subjugating yourself to the will of the US.

You have to go back to the early 20th century to find a notable example from another country because that was the last time we weren't the premier global power. But Russia wants the Caucusus and China wants Taiwan, which is as much an economic goal as a political one.

Or we can just look at Gaza. Yeah, there's a religious component there, but the Palestinians would really like it if Bibi couldn't pull an Immortal Joe and turn off water and electricity whenever he felt like it.

 

[number9]

We just have a President that is more blunt and boisterous about it rather than proselytizing about democracy, liberal values, and rules-based order. Those talking points just make us look like hypocrites to skeptics and critics.

You mean the values that we've been promulgating for the last 80 or so years?

 

[Spekkio]

You mean the values that we've been promulgating for the last 80 or so years?

I mean the values we say we're promoting, but is a political rallying cry to make us the "good guys" for ulterior motives.

Aside from the fact that N. Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Somolia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and a slew of South American countries are not the democratic paradises we promised to make them while we mostly ignore dozens of failed states in Africa.

Part of why it seems like such a jarring shift (beyond the delivery of rhetoric) is that members of the Reagan administration were running GOP White Houses until 2009. Reagan is practically the father of neo-conservativism whereas Trump is more closely aligned to Nixon's philosophy.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Wow. And I thought I was cynical…

@Spekkio , you might rationalize a lot of cruelty and hatred with that mindset, but it doesn’t make this administration’s actions any less objectively damaging to the country.

 

[number9]

I mean the values we say we're promoting, but is a political rallying cry to make us the "good guys" for ulterior motives.

Aside from the fact that N. Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Somolia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and a slew of South American countries are not the democratic paradises we promised to make them while we mostly ignore dozens of failed states in Africa.

Turning our back on those values now makes us look more hypocritical - not less.

 

[Spekkio]

Turning our back on those values now makes us look more hypocritical - not less.

At some point you have to realize that the Reagan administrations' neoconservativism that dominated GOP foreign policy for 3 decades + Obama's administration doesn't work.

So you're left with how much you want to invest into international institutions or act unilaterally. Biden leaned heavily into international institutions, and it created a lot of tension with China that the Trump administration has since diffused.

Wow. And I thought I was cynical…

@Spekkio , you might rationalize a lot of cruelty and hatred with that mindset, but it doesn’t make this administration’s actions any less objectively damaging to the country.

I don't really view it as cynical. Everyone, US included, is going to act in their best interest to accrue resources. GWOT was almost purely ideologically motivated, but the enemy was a non-state organization.

My point is that there are many nations that hear "American imperialism" whenever a President starts talking about spreading Democracy or building coalitions. It sounds good to us because we're American, but if you're not part of a handful of European countries + Japan, then that world order of democracy is holding you down. Furthermore, the list of victories under "spreading democracy" is pretty short ... Iraq kinda-sorta and that's it.

I think what will be very interesting is whether the next administration continues Trump's trend of making bilateral agreements or goes back to supporting international institutions. The latter creates a lot of tension with non-western countries who want to be at a minimum equals with the US on the global stage.

 

[123412131]

I wonder if we'll see more interest in refining rather than drilling here in the US now that they've supposedly got 55% stake in an entity that controls 1/5th of the Venezuelan reserves. It will be interesting to see what that deal looks like, especially if all the oil we acquire from this is truly for "at-cost" military and defense usage. I know a lot of O&G industry folk are hesitant on any involvement with Venezuela, so I wonder what the government kicks their way and if it's enough to ease their concerns or make it economically worth their while.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I wonder if we'll see more interest in refining rather than drilling here in the US now that they've supposedly got 55% stake in an entity that controls 1/5th of the Venezuelan reserves. It will be interesting to see what that deal looks like, especially if all the oil we acquire from this is truly for "at-cost" military and defense usage. I know a lot of O&G industry folk are hesitant on any involvement with Venezuela, so I wonder what the government kicks their way and if it's enough to ease their concerns or make it economically worth their while.

Most of the refining in the US is geared towards Venezuela type crude (heavy and sour) while oil from homegrown shale is light and sweet - so to optimize refinery efficiency which is why you see the US import and export vast amounts of crude simultaneously - although the first new US refinery since the 1970’s is currently being built and it will handle shale.

You are correct, Venezuelan crude will require massive infrastructure investment, but these oil fields in our own Western Hemisphere will guarantee oil resources to the US for a lifetime. As I mentioned above, the US considered invading Saudi during the oil shock of the 1970’s, Japan went to war for oil, Britain shifted its empire to guarantee oil. Not cruelty or hatred, just national self interest.

Interesting times in energy production now. Russian oil and gas production is being destroyed by Ukraine with a substantial portion never to return, Middle Eastern crude and particularly LNG are now subject to interdiction/ destruction from hostile powers. The US sits in a prime position in regards to both production and transport.

Hormuz disruption cuts Qatar LNG exports by 96%

Qatar’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports have plunged by 96% following the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, sharply reducing one of the world’s most important sources of natural gas supplies.

www.azernews.az