Building and Construction - Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Author

Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

Enough Already

2008-03-29, 1:25 pm

Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:

"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."

With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.

http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
over the place)

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm

Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

George Conklin

2008-03-29, 1:25 pm

PeterD

2008-03-29, 5:25 pm

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already
<enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:

>
>Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Another misinformed person: it is supposed to be: "Population growth:
the endless replacement of nature with people."

George Conklin

2008-03-29, 5:25 pm

"PeterD" <peter2@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:963tu3p9dbl46bap072nfhaq56umrrfmv9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already
> <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Another misinformed person: it is supposed to be: "Population growth:
> the endless replacement of nature with people."
>

One problem here: people are very much a part of nature, and throughout the
history of our planet, life has made life possible, not the other way
around.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-29, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.
[color=darkred]
> This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,

See above.
[color=darkred]
> Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
> depopulation for a change?
>
What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

:~)

George Conklin

2008-03-29, 8:25 pm

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:Z1yHj.51099$097.21322@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews.com...
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
>
> In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.
>
>
> See above.
>
> What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

Glenn

2008-03-29, 8:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>
The population is growing. Those against towns
expanding, where do you want them to live, under a
bridge?

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-29, 8:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
> news:Z1yHj.51099$097.21322@newsfe21.lga...
>
> You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!
>
Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-29, 8:25 pm

"Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews.com...
> The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
> want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually serves
as housing (about 5-6%).

Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is. (At
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

jloomis

2008-03-29, 9:25 pm

The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.
We moved farther and farther away from the cities, built more and more
highways, built huge "box stores" all on freeway, and driving distances from
home and work. Our dependancy on single occupancy vehicles, and trips to
the store for a "carton of milk" or such......will all come to an end.
Too bad with our resources a viable source of "transportation for the many"
was not ever conceived....
I am not the "Pot calling the kettle black either" I drive a diesel pick-up
and use it for my work. When I bought the truck in 1999 diesel was about
1.65 a gallon. It is now 4.17..................Higher than gasoline.
Truckers are having to fill up with 1000.00 dollar bills!
The cost of freight, airlines, mail delivery, milk, flour, all is going up.
Just the other day the price of rice worldwide went up 30% (fuel cost rise)

There needs some serious attitude change and especially in the
Government.........
We the People need some leadership, to help right this train that fell off
the tracks.......
All of us are in this together, and the sooner we realize the problem, the
sooner we can and should come up with solutions......
Transportation, and our lifestyle are the biggest factors.......
just some thoughts.........oh well.
jloomis
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13ut94cfkogu576@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "PeterD" <peter2@hipson.net> wrote in message
> news:963tu3p9dbl46bap072nfhaq56umrrfmv9@4ax.com...
>
> One problem here: people are very much a part of nature, and throughout
> the
> history of our planet, life has made life possible, not the other way
> around.
>
>
>

Les Cargill

2008-03-29, 9:25 pm

PeterD wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already
> <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Another misinformed person: it is supposed to be: "Population growth:
> the endless replacement of nature with people."
>

Yes, because everybody knows people are completely unnatural...

--
Les Cargill

PeterBP

2008-03-29, 9:25 pm

Enough Already <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:

> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.

Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.

What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
area covered by roads.

I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
Anybody know is this is correct?

>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

As things are today, much of this polulation gorwn is latin american
immigration, much of which is illegal. I don't see how they can legaly
put in an order for real estate.

>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Thats incorrect - a good deal of economic growth has happened because of
better production methods that allows one human to do the work of many,
who do not have the same machines to perform their labor.

The industrial revolution is the prime example of this. So was/is the
computer revolution.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

PeterBP

2008-03-29, 9:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote:

> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13utm0s7re3pd0f@corp.supernews.com...
> Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

Hey, it'll mean a resurgence of the western movie genre - lots of new
locations to shoot!

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Dioclese

2008-03-30, 3:25 am

"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:841acad4-1cc5-410e-acf2-a2211089e248@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>

The standard housing development begins with raw land and plows roads
through them. Then, the housing starts are processing and building begins.
Not the other way around.

What happens afterward is widening of access roads to this aforementioned
development, adding shops and stores along the said access road along the
way. Its a support structure for the people who frequent such roads.

> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus

Common sense, its (start) simple permission of the governing locale allowing
commencing of building a home.

> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period.

Its also comparison of undefined housing starts. That is, one could be a
vast majority of modest homes with another sample of starts of more
expensive homes involved. That is, simple comparison of number of housing
starts in one year to another year is comparing apples and oranges unless we
know what the starts are starting in terms of monies.
..

Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely

See above, could be BS as well.

> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."

Uhhhh, the VAST majority of people borrow to purchase a home as that is
their only alternative. Will has nothing to do with it.

>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>

The chicken and egg thing is the basis of the economy, not just housing.
Another instance is Social Security, its very basis is a constantly
increasing population paying in vice paying out.

> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and

Don't worry, nature always rebounds. We, and our grandchildren, just won't
be around when it does...

> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>

The planet has be human over-populated for over a century now. Its just a
matter of time.

> http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

People will succumb to lack of resources and lack of usable land for their
sustenance like any other creature of nature.

--
Dave

How about a tax to support any military conflict/police action over 3 months
old?

An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 9:25 am

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 9:25 am

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:47eedad5$0$30547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
> population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually
serves
> as housing (about 5-6%).
>
> Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
> about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.
(At
> 35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).
>
>
>

The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and so
forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is never
lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these days.

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 9:25 am

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy.com...
> The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
> world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

> We moved farther and farther away from the cities,

This is a flat-out lie. In 2006 for the first time half the human
population worldwide was urbanized. Cities are growing because there are
fewer and fewer (in percentage terms too) rural dwellers. Half of all USA
counties are LOSING population.

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 9:25 am

"PeterBP" <ask@me.com> wrote in message
news:1ielkhw.1kuhls1m9v8dlN%ask@me.com...
> Enough Already <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.
>
> What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
> area covered by roads.

A trivial amount.

>
> I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
> Anybody know is this is correct?
>

A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are devoted
to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.

jloomis

2008-03-30, 1:25 pm

I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......
All over Calif. there are massive subdivisions that most have to drive,
anywhere from 10 to 60 miles to go to work and then when shopping comes it
is an easy 30 mile or more round trip......
I am not lieing....
Just making facts......
anyway......
I still lift heavy objects?
What is this about horses?
I am not sure where you are coming from.......
jloomis
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy
> lifting.
> We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a flat-out lie. In 2006 for the first time half the human
> population worldwide was urbanized. Cities are growing because there are
> fewer and fewer (in percentage terms too) rural dwellers. Half of all USA
> counties are LOSING population.
>
>

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
> news:X7BHj.101456$Ft5.14505@newsfe15.lga...
> serves
> (At
>
> The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
> If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and
> so
> forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used
> up"
> and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is
> never
> lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
> with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these
> days.

In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
your last sentence).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoslette...sletterv6n1.pdf

Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
that).

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:fsmqlq022eq@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy
> lifting.
> We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
to arises.

All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fsocl608q3@news5.newsguy.com...
>I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
>areas......
> All over Calif. there are massive subdivisions that most have to drive,
> anywhere from 10 to 60 miles to go to work and then when shopping comes it
> is an easy 30 mile or more round trip......

So what?

> I am not lieing....
> Just making facts......
> anyway......
> I still lift heavy objects?
> What is this about horses?
> I am not sure where you are coming from.......

He's trying to explain things to someone utterly clueless.

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:%ySHj.51156$097.34182@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13uv4uls3c5s7d4@corp.supernews.com...
you[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
is.[color=darkred]
severe.[color=darkred]
society[color=darkred]
>
> In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
> your last sentence).
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoslette...sletterv6n1.pdf
>
> Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
> DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
> reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
> that).
>
>
>

It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
roads.

2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
to a crawl.

3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost" due
to too much traffic.

4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert to
a "walking city."

George Conklin

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13uv564ftoqq70@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> A trivial amount.
>
>

Yes, it is. So what? How much land space of the lower 48 does Manhattan
cover?
[color=darkred]
>
> A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are
> devoted
> to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.

Because car-dependant suburbs don't fit the profile that the statists
desire.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-30, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13v01bhalr6s4c0@corp.supernews.com...

>
> It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
> streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
> roads.
>
> 2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
> to a crawl.
>
> 3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost"
> due
> to too much traffic.

The university of Texas (Houston, I think) did a study 20 years ago and
found we waste 20-25% of our annual gasoline usage to such traffic systems.

Think how much fixing THAT would contribute to "conservation" and "energy
independance".

> 4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert
> to
> a "walking city."

Dig into Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his "noble savage" to see the basis of
the society they want to instill. Essentially, it's primitive tribalism.

jloomis

2008-03-30, 8:25 pm

I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there and
then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many miles......No
buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups with one driver
and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......
We do have a problem with traffic, and highways, and commuting......Gas
prices are a sign, and like the tip of the ice-berg.......more to
come.........
Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
living in a dream.
whatever...."Fill er Up"
jloomis
"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13v01cp2bk8ife7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:fsocl608q3@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> Most of the residents of such places work locally. Your imagination
> that
> everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.
>
>

royls@telus.net

2008-03-31, 3:25 am

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
<mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote:

>"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:13usu3ujtc69d8d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

-- Roy L

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 3:25 am

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fspddg027u2@news4.newsguy.com...
>I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
>the suburbs........now business's there.....
> Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
> Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there
> and then commute......
> Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many
> miles......No buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups
> with one driver and no baggage.......
> Anyway......I am wasting my breath......

Yes, because, like a little kid, your world revolves around your own limited
horizon.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 3:25 am

<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:47f036f3.36409055@news.telus.net...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote:
>
>
> IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

More than likely, but it's everything from major metro areas, suburbia, to
small rural communities.

Probably "residential" would be a more apt term - homes and the supporting
area (commercial, streets, infrastructure, etc.).

IIRC, 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the
Canadian-US border.

Tadej Brezina

2008-03-31, 9:25 am

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13uv52d9amq723@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
> 100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
> to arises.

Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the
USA become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
oil in secret shelters?

The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

> All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
> tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
> from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
wrong and misconceptional ways,
probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's implications.

Tadej
--
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.”
<Upton Sinclair in The Jungle>

jloomis

2008-03-31, 9:25 am

"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:RqZHj.101532$Ft5.17080@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:fspddg027u2@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Yes, because, like a little kid, your world revolves around your own
> limited horizon.

this quote, from you, ("Most of the residents of such places work locally.
Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.")
shows who's world is revolving around a limited horizon..........
look out your window.........
Just got back from Hawaii.......You want to see traffic problems!
this is about fuel, and waste, and trying to figure out better ways to move
people.....
I am not sure where you are coming from.............
jloomis

>
>

zzbunker

2008-03-31, 1:25 pm

On Mar 29, 12:25=A0pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?

Yes, of course, many people do often.
Since as fate would have it, that's the limit of what the moron
politiciians in the US even know about economics, buisness,
science, engineering, or any subject really.
So, that's obviously where the robots, digital, computers,
fiber optics, laser disks, satellittes, artifical intelligence,
tasers,
D.U., D,N.A., and cruise missiles came from for the "stsrt-me-up"
imbeciles.

This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> important economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 5:25 pm

"Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the USA
> become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
> Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
> oil in secret shelters?

[See comment at bottom]
>
> The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
> exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
of known reserves?

Indeed, based on your arguments, it would be a complete waste of time and
effort.

>
> From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
> wrong and misconceptional ways,
> probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's
> implications.

And you obviously don't know the long term history of the environmental
movement back to Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

Now, you're demonstrating complete ignorance, so, no, I won't waste my time.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 5:25 pm

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fsqr6f01ih4@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
> news:RqZHj.101532$Ft5.17080@newsfe15.lga...
>
> this quote, from you, ("Most of the residents of such places work locally.
> Your imagination that
> everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.")
> shows who's world is revolving around a limited horizon..........
> look out your window.........
> Just got back from Hawaii.......You want to see traffic problems!
> this is about fuel, and waste, and trying to figure out better ways to
> move people.....
> I am not sure where you are coming from.............

We can tell where you're coming from - it's the same school of thought and
writing that the idiot from Brazil came from.

When you become moderately coherent, we can discuss this issue. Until then.

George Conklin

2008-03-31, 5:25 pm

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fspddg027u2@news4.newsguy.com...
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13v01cp2bk8ife7@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
> the suburbs........now business's there.....
> Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
> Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there
and
> then commute......
> Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many
miles......No
> buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups with one driver
> and no baggage.......
> Anyway......I am wasting my breath......
> We do have a problem with traffic, and highways, and commuting......Gas
> prices are a sign, and like the tip of the ice-berg.......more to
> come.........
> Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
> living in a dream.
> whatever...."Fill er Up"
> jloomis

The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most commutes are
suburb-to-suburb.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 5:25 pm

"George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iIadnVyFQohZx2zanZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
> news:fspddg027u2@news4.newsguy.com...
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]

Again, Loomis' narrow world-view rears it's ugly head.
[color=darkred]
>
> The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most commutes are
> suburb-to-suburb.

With the economy moving away from manufacturing (centralized) to services
(de-centralized), the majority of people now live AND work in the suburbs,
and the numbers, both percentage wise and shear numbers) are rising.

[Loomis, your emotional diatribes don't work on people that have been around
the block a few times. I'm, sure your teachers taught you that you opinion
was important, but it's not so.]

Dan Bloomquist

2008-03-31, 8:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Tadej Brezina" <tadej_usenet@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:47f0e110$0$12126$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...

>
> Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
> of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen? They have little to do with
'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is almost non existent. We
have peaked in natural gas production in North America so sand oil is
pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts demand to go well
over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Matt W. Barrow

2008-03-31, 9:25 pm

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

> They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
> almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
> America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
> demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?
>

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

jloomis

2008-03-31, 9:25 pm

Just today the news stated that Atlanta Georgia is in a world of hurt with
the commuting situation.
They travel an average of 1 hour each way...........
this is wrong.....The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most
commutes are
Where do you get this from?..........You must be dreaming............
anyway, I am just wasting my breath.........
The United States is in a world of hurt when it comes to fuel consumption,
driving habits, and transportation.
Why do we have a war now going on in the middle east?
Could it be from oil?
Oh, I remember, we can use our reserves for 100 years.....we will be fine...
You said that too!
There is a glut of vehicles on the roadway, and no solutions yet to minimize
this problem.
Yes, we are trying with alternative vehicle development but it is a little
late in developing.....
The problem is here........

Anyway, I can see that nothing will help your ignorance......
"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:M5dIj.64030$y05.63561@newsfe22.lga...[color=darkred]
>
> "George Conklin" <nil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:iIadnVyFQohZx2zanZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> Again, Loomis' narrow world-view rears it's ugly head.
>
>
> With the economy moving away from manufacturing (centralized) to services
> (de-centralized), the majority of people now live AND work in the suburbs,
> and the numbers, both percentage wise and shear numbers) are rising.
>
> [Loomis, your emotional diatribes don't work on people that have been
> around the block a few times. I'm, sure your teachers taught you that you
> opinion was important, but it's not so.]
>
>

Dan Bloomquist

2008-03-31, 9:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:IIfIj.935$NU2.126@news01.roc.ny...
>
> Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.
>
>
> You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
> but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Pat

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

On Mar 31, 10:18=A0pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
is[color=darkred]
ts[color=darkred]
>
ns),[color=darkred]
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text=
-
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
ever. Period. End of sentence.

As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:wYgIj.962$Cn4.930@news02.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Not from kerogens.

Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

I do.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fss4a802o4f@news3.newsguy.com...
> Just today the news stated that Atlanta Georgia is in a world of hurt with
> the commuting situation.
> They travel an average of 1 hour each way...........
> this is wrong.....The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most
> commutes are
> Where do you get this from?..........You must be dreaming............
> anyway, I am just wasting my breath.........
> The United States is in a world of hurt when it comes to fuel consumption,
> driving habits, and transportation.
> Why do we have a war now going on in the middle east?
> Could it be from oil?
> Oh, I remember, we can use our reserves for 100 years.....we will be
> fine...
> You said that too!
> There is a glut of vehicles on the roadway, and no solutions yet to
> minimize this problem.
> Yes, we are trying with alternative vehicle development but it is a little
> late in developing.....
> The problem is here........
>
> Anyway, I can see that nothing will help your ignorance......

(Some one must have left the door unlocked at the funny-farm - Can anyone
make sense of that incoherent mess?)

Coming from someone as apparently demented as you, I take that in a positive
fashion.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:b54b54f3-be7b-4c96-b64d-d09ad5a765dc@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 31, 10:18 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
> ever. Period. End of sentence.

> As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
> goes up, substitutes become feasible.

Well, we could, if alternative are not developed.

But not only are substitutes developed, drilling in more difficult and
inhospitable locations becomes feasible, both technologically and
economically.

> As substitutes become more
> plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventually, substitutes will
> take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
> oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

Econ 101 - something these two ratchetheads don't comprehend. They
apparently have been innured with the "Fixed Pie" school of thought.

> So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
> to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
> end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
readily.

Just one hundred years ago, a 1000 foot well was a major accomplishment.
Today, 28,000 feet is no big deal.

As well, major strides are being made in nuclear generation
http://gt-mhr.ga.com, even the Tokomac Fusion generator holds some longer
term promise.

our lives are enhanced by the geniuses of the world (like those mentioned in
the above web articles), not the putzes banging away on daddy's computer
like Bloomquist and Loomis.

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:wYgIj.962$Cn4.930@news02.roc.ny...
>
> Not from kerogens.
>
> Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

> I do.

Then, answer the question.

My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
answer the question.

(hand waving goes here...)

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

Pat wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:18 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
> Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
> ever. Period. End of sentence.
>
> As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
> goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
> plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
> take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
> oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.
>
> So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
> to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
> end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.

Do see the Hirsch report.

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:4NjIj.960$NU2.256@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>
> You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
irrelevant.

>
>
> Then, answer the question.

You first.

>
> My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
> answer the question.

No.

Your ignorance is incredible. Your reading skills substantially less.

Okay, here's a clue: the original point, that you completely ignored, was
NOT substitutes.

> (hand waving goes here...)

That's not hand waving, that's jerking off.

Now, I suspect you're still in school, and you've just finished a class in
which you're ego has just gotten a substantially inflated.

I may be wrong, but if I am, I wonder why you come off like a newbie with
inflated expectations of your knowledge.

Here's another clue: I am working right now, with several people in the Oil
& Gas industries in Wyoming, Colorado, and, to a lesser degree, Texas and
Oklahoma (I am in construction, not specifically O&G). They are a very good
source of real, objective and empirical data regarding O&G production
potentials.

You, on the other hand, are evidently a clueless dweeb whose ego is about to
get smashed because you believed your teachers when they told you that your
opinion was important, but didn't understand, because they didn't comprehend
it either, that your opinion was NOT VALID.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 3:25 am

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:tNjIj.977$Cn4.710@news02.roc.ny...
> Pat wrote:

>
> Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.
>
> Do see the Hirsch report.
>
> http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Yeah, saw that years ago.

It was poop then, it's poop now.

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 1:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:4NjIj.960$NU2.256@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
> irrelevant.

I did. Talk about reading skills.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

> Now, I suspect you're still in school...

Sounds like pot/kettle to me.

<snip worthless content>

(More hand waving goes here)

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 5:25 pm

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:OtsIj.973$NU2.834@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> I did. Talk about reading skills.

No, you made a GUESS.

Actually, you made two GUESSES. Indeed, your reading comprehension skills
ARE pathetic.

>
> So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.
>
>
> Sounds like pot/kettle to me.

Another SFB guess! I'm in my 50's, with an BSEE and MSCE and run my own $6M
company.

>
> <snip worthless content>
>
> (More hand waving goes here)

You couldn't even discern something from the hints I gave you.

So, go back and keep jerking off. Your teacher will love you for it, aside
from the FACT that many get out of school at 18 and never mature, other than
physically, beyond that point.

Can you GUESS what that means? Here's another hint: I've already surmised
YOUR position - it's typical from your "arguments".

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 5:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:[color=darkred]
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:OtsIj.973$NU2.834@news01.roc.ny...
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]

You didn't answer the question.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 5:25 pm

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:iaxIj.982$NU2.398@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>
>
> You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did, I just wasn't about the be drawn
into your guessing game.

You're the one that made the claim, snotball. You said we were running out
of fuel and used two totally irrelevant substitutes to make your point. That
is utter ignorance that I'm not willing to sift out from you.

Then you GUESSED at what we (a couple others) meant.

(I'm having such fun playing with this pompous and pretentious know-nothing)

Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it - I'm not going
to respond to your SFB tantrums.

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 8:26 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:iaxIj.982$NU2.398@news01.roc.ny...
>
> You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did...

No, you did not. I only see the claim:
"Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available
fairly readily."

So, you didn't answer the question.

, I just wasn't about the be drawn
> into your guessing game.

I'm asking you to answer the question, 'Where will the oil come from?'

You won't answer the question so I've been left to do the guessing.

> Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it...

Where will the oil for the future come from? Where are these 50 years of
oil in the U.S.? Why are we producing at some 5 mb/d and consuming at 21
mb/d if it is 'somewhere'?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/p...dc_mbblpd_a.htm

As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-01, 8:26 pm

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:13zIj.991$NU2.409@news01.roc.ny...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
> No, you did not. I only see the claim:
> "Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
> readily."
>
> So, you didn't answer the question.
>
> , I just wasn't about the be drawn
>
> I'm asking you to answer the question, 'Where will the oil come from?'

From the known reserves.

>
> You won't answer the question so I've been left to do the guessing.
>
>
> Where will the oil for the future come from? Where are these 50 years of
> oil in the U.S.? Why are we producing at some 5 mb/d and consuming at 21
> mb/d if it is 'somewhere'?
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/p...dc_mbblpd_a.htm

Do you know what a "static" study is?

Do you know how much we CAN produce?

> As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
might have something to do with that?

Don't tie lead weights around a sprinters ankles then XXXXX that he keep
losing races.

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 9:25 pm

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:13zIj.991$NU2.409@news01.roc.ny...
>
> From the known reserves.

We have used more than half the known reserves in the world. That is why
conventional production is peaking. New discoveries are now running
about a sixth of demand.

>
> Do you know what a "static" study is?
>
> Do you know how much we CAN produce?

It seems we 'can' produce 5 mb/d and it is declining.

>
> Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
> might have something to do with that?

That is an old lame argument. Off shore plus ANWR might get 2 mb/d in
six or seven years. It is hardly the issue.

You really don't know much about oil, do you?....

jloomis

2008-04-01, 9:25 pm

I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
burning of fossil fuels.......
That should be interesting...............
Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
jloomis
What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
site........
Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
raving........
"Matt W. Barrow" <mbarrow@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:MsyIj.51356$097.22177@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:iaxIj.982$NU2.398@news01.roc.ny...
>
> You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did, I just wasn't about the be drawn
> into your guessing game.
>
> You're the one that made the claim, snotball. You said we were running out
> of fuel and used two totally irrelevant substitutes to make your point.
> That is utter ignorance that I'm not willing to sift out from you.
>
> Then you GUESSED at what we (a couple others) meant.
>
> (I'm having such fun playing with this pompous and pretentious
> know-nothing)
>
> Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it - I'm not
> going to respond to your SFB tantrums.
>
>
>
>
>

jloomis

2008-04-01, 9:25 pm

>
> Do you know what a "static" study is?
>
> Do you know how much we CAN produce?
>
>
> Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
> might have something to do with that?
>
> Don't tie lead weights around a sprinters ankles then XXXXX that he keep
> losing races.

Don't blow any smoke in his face either...........his oxygen intake may
suffer.
jloomis

>
>

Dan Bloomquist

2008-04-01, 9:25 pm

jloomis wrote:
> I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
> burning of fossil fuels.......
> That should be interesting...............
> Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
> jloomis
> What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
> site........
> Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
> raving........

Is this guy Matt one of yours? I'm posting from sci.econ. I'm discussing
this with another guy in a thread called, "Re: Financial Sector
self-destructing". There is better information there.

Here is my blog:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Best, Dan.

jloomis

2008-04-02, 3:25 am

not one of mine, but the way he acts, and does not communicate very well.
I like the bumper sticker that I have seen.....
"Don't believe everything you think"
It may fit him well.
jloomis

"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:dKBIj.1008$NU2.1006@news01.roc.ny...
> jloomis wrote:
>
> Is this guy Matt one of yours? I'm posting from sci.econ. I'm discussing
> this with another guy in a thread called, "Re: Financial Sector
> self-destructing". There is better information there.
>
> Here is my blog:
> http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
>
> Best, Dan.

Matt W. Barrow

2008-04-02, 3:25 am

"jloomis" <jloomis@ocean.net> wrote in message
news:fsv5mq02n3s@news4.newsguy.com...
> not one of mine, but the way he acts, and does not communicate very well.
> I like the bumper sticker that I have seen.....
> "Don't believe everything you think"
> It may fit him well.
> jloomis

You know something, Loomis? Given your eight year-old writing skill level,
you've got nothing to say about ability to communicate.

Punk!
[color=darkred]
>
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:dKBIj.1008$NU2.1006@news01.roc.ny...

Looking at the writing above, seems the only ranting in here is your
(continuous) incoherrence.

[plonk as well]

[color=darkred]

Yeah, your the same retard that was posting all that "Peak Oil" non-sense in
here a year or so ago.

Same ignorant Malthusian tripe.

[plonk]

Just as full of shit as ever.

LinkBot