Posts by Nancy Hall4

Thanks so much, Daniel Ward87 🙂, feel free to lock this thread whenever you're ready.

Hey there!

Since this is my very first time jumping into a thread on this subforum, I wanted to kick things off with a little suggestion:

Over in the Politics section, there’s already an active discussion going on under the topic Should we be building more coal-fired power plants? which was started quite a while ago.

I was wondering if one of the moderators might be willing to add a quick poll to that existing thread, maybe something along the lines of:

Are you in favor of constructing coal power plants?

- Yes
- No
- Not sure
- Doesn't matter to me

Thanks so much!

Linda Hughes88 said:Look, I’m just sticking to the topic at hand here. You’re the one going off on tangents... In that first post, you brought up stuff that just doesn't make any sense if you use common sense, and that's all I was calling out.

Another thing—since you wanted to bring it up—is how much oil actually matters. Sure, it’s huge, but that doesn't really change the conversation we're having because, let's be real, anyone can just go out and buy it on the open market. If you've got the cash, you get the oil. It's that simple.

When Stiglitz talks about the actual cost of the war, he's factoring in everything from insurance to healthcare and all that extra stuff too.

That’s fair enough.

On a second note, since we're already touching on it, let's talk about how vital oil really is. It's undeniably crucial, but honestly, that doesn't change much regarding our current topic because oil is just as easy to pick up on the open market. If you have the cash, you get the oil. It's as simple as that.

But I think you're mistaken there, and don't you see why? You won't always be able to just walk in and grab it. Even right now, OPEC members are pumping at their absolute maximum capacity. They don't have any wiggle room left to ramp up production, nor can they afford to scale it back. They've lost that leverage. That's one thing. But even more importantly, oil is a strategic resource, which means it's always going to be at the mercy of political maneuvering and military decisions. Just look at history: Japan couldn't secure its oil needs before WWII, or consider the massive fallout from the 1973 oil crisis. (And I won't even get started on Germany from 1941-1945, South Africa during apartheid, or the situation in Mexico back in the 90s). Now, Iraq holds the third-largest oil reserves in the world, sitting right behind Saudi Arabia and Iran—though depending on who you ask, they might be second or fourth, since it all depends on how much of those reserves are actually profitable to extract. Sure, Canada has larger reserves than Iraq, but they're tied up in shale, which is much more expensive to pull out. If Saddam Hussein's regime had stayed in power in Iraq and decided to cut off American Oil to the USA while only selling to, say, China or India, wouldn't that have caused absolute chaos? There is no way America would ever allow that to happen. Whoever holds the keys to those reserves holds the leash on both their own economic growth and that of their competitors, both now and far into the future. That is the heart of the matter. Though, if you want my personal take, I still think Americans are probably the least of the evils among all these folks trying to play world ruler.

When Stiglitz writes about the costs of war, he includes things like insurance and healthcare expenses and so on.

I know. He factors in the indirect costs, but he ignores the indirect benefits. He tends to wander a bit wide with his scope, too. (And by the way, don't go thinking he's doing that just for his own sake!)

You're getting sidetracked here.

As you wish. I suppose the big picture isn't really what we're focusing on here, is it?

You're making two pretty massive mistakes here. First off, you’re focusing way too much on such narrow objectives; you aren't looking past those hypothetical 45 billion for 2006.
Controlling oil essentially means controlling the entire global economy. It’s easily the most vital strategic resource we have today, just as it was before World War II and will continue to be well into our future. Every major economy on the planet runs on oil—almost everything that drives, flies, or sails depends on it. And let's not forget that oil isn't just about fuel; it’s the backbone of plastics, synthetic fertilizers, and countless other industries. Naturally, the scarcer it gets, the more sky-high the prices climb.

Your second error lies in how you're calculating the cost of the war in Iraq. You're citing 2 trillion dollars, yet the US military budget for 2006 sits at around 419 billion dollars. I won't even get started on what else that budget covers besides the conflict in Iraq. Truth be told, the Iraq war is definitely being funded through channels outside the standard military budget, but that 2 trillion figure? It seems totally out of touch. It feels like Stiglitz is speculating heavily there, only seeing one side of the coin.

Then there's a third mistake, though it's much smaller: you're guessing at extraction rates. Those numbers could easily swing higher or lower than what you've suggested. We don't have clear data on offshore platform extraction or onshore production, and you haven't even mentioned gas.

In short, Joe Biden, my friend, while your specific math for oil in 2006 might hold up, focusing solely on these tactical goals—especially just this one single goal—is probably the biggest blunder you could make.

Linda Hughes88 said:Wait, I'm the one trolling???? You've got it all wrong! I was calculating for 2006, when the average price of oil was actually right around $60. That definitely doesn't apply to the whole four-year stretch.
So, quit acting like you know everything!

Here he goes again. So you calculated based on just one single year, claiming a loss of roughly 45 billion—which is more or less accurate if we assume two million barrels, though I have my doubts about that number too—and then you jumped into an argument with boldgardener93, who claimed a staggering 300 billion over a four-year span. It’s not like oil production only happened in 2006, nor is it going to suddenly stop tomorrow, right? You're comparing apples to oranges and just muddying the waters here.
If you actually have the full figures, why not just lay them out? Not even for my sake, but for the sake of clarity.

Linda Hughes88 said:you're acting like you've got all the facts when you're just basing everything on oil being sixty bucks a barrel for the next four years...

But look, we aren't even debating what the actual price was back then—neither you nor I are making claims about historical reality here. We just simplified the math using hypothetical numbers based entirely on your own logic:

Linda Hughes88 said:you're acting like you've got all the facts when you're just basing everything on oil being sixty bucks a barrel for the next four years...

If you're just trying to be difficult, please stop grasping at straws to save face. Instead of muddying the waters and trying to act brilliant with unverifiable figures, why not just admit when the math doesn't track? Honestly, I couldn't care less.

Honestly, I don't have enough on hand to really dive deep into this one. I mean, I haven't even got a clue how much longer they actually intend to stay stationed there. And then you have to consider all those ripple effects, right? Like, how much is high oil pricing actually squeezing China and India, and is it starting to put a real dent in their economic growth? Or how much does a conflict like this pump up the military-industrial complex, or how much do shifting oil prices mess with the profitability of alternative energy sources and new tech? There are just so many layers to peel back here.

Honestly, your math just isn't adding up here.
Take your own example, for instance—say we look at an extraction rate of, I don't know, 2 million barrels a day over a period of 4 years, priced at $60 per barrel. Now, I think we've all already agreed that these are just arbitrary numbers we're tossing around since we don't have the actual data, but fine, let's work with what we've got.

4 years x 365 days = 1,460 days
1,460 x 2,000,000 barrels = 2,920,000,000
2,920,000,000 x $60 = $175,200,000,000.
That brings us to $175 billion.

But there’s a second thing you need to consider, which is that this isn't actually profit; it’s simply the total value of the crude oil itself.

It’s not that Indians are lazy; it’s just incredibly hot there! Not everyone gets to spend their day chilling in air-conditioned offices, you know? Even here in the States, we don't exactly push ourselves to the limit during those brutal summer months.
I honestly can't believe this is even a topic of discussion.