CNBC Editor blames Obama's Stimulus for recent stock woes

Is this supposed to make anyone feel better about the job they lost?

FYI the US consumed 3.23 Terawatts in 1999. Texas consumed 11.7 Quadrillion BTU's in 2006. While Texas happens to lead the nation in wind energy that 4,296 MW is gonna fall a little short.

Realistically though Obama is directly attacking the biggest source of income in the state of Texas.

 

Many energy companies are based soley on oil and gas. You are telling them to reinvest in something they know nothing about. Not a sound way to run a business.

 

Mmmm, Bologna.

 

Please do some research before you post crap like this.

1. This "shedding a few thousand jobs" is going to take place in your neighborhood and you are going to suffer. Not to mention I though Obama was creating jobs to help us out of a recession.

2. Have you ever been to a wind farm, there are no people and no jobs, none. After the things are built and errected they are VERY low maintenance. This is a good thing but doesn't "create 10s of thousands of jobs".

3. Who do you think owns and builds the wind farms? I'll help you out, energy companies.

4. While we are doing all of this for a "sounder future" we still have to keep the lights on.

 

Mmmmm, bacon.

 

the issue you are refusing to accept okierock is this problem is multiplied by the derivatives. if it was only bad loans, then the financial market wouldn't be in nearly the mess it is, the government could have bailed them as they did with the snl crisis in the eighties and we would be on our merry way. that's why I posted the snl number.

if it was only the mortgages, which btw aren't even defaulting yet, its the threat of default, causing the securities to be written down, causing an unwinding of all these transactions, causing banks not willing to lend.

 

That business is dying whether they realize it or not. They'll change or die.

The oil and gas business is like the wagon business in 1910. Yes, things are going well now, but if you can't see that you better make the move from buggies to automobiles, you'll be out of business within a couple decades.

 

I just started reading this thread but explain to me how is deregulation government interference?

 

Only one, really. Exxon.

 

I agree totally that the issue is multiplied by the derivatives and spread all over, thats why I liked SamFisher's analogy so much.

 

I'm not sure you have seen all the gas guzzelers on the road or how people heat their homes? I know eventually it will die, but probably not in our lifetimes. You stick with what you know and how you make money.

I'm not talking about the Exxons, more like the Anadarko's, Apache's, Nobles, Oxy's and then all the suppliers to the oilfield business's.

 

I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one.

 

Say you have a cop on the corner that protects your neighborhood. He was put there by the government. Then the government says "hey that area is great and safe" then takes away the cop. Next you start getting robed every week.

Is that government interference?

 

The average is one technician for every nine turbines. Factor in the support needed from payroll clerks to mechanics for the rigs they drive to each of their nine turbines and you could easily create thousands of new jobs with an increase in wind energy production. If we got to the point where we had 50% of our electricity coming from wind you can bet that would be many thousands of new jobs created... and more than likely those would be spread across the plains revitalizing a section of the country slowly dying because of industrial farming.

 

In light of the costs associated with new energy technology investments, I'd wager Exxon is the only one that matters, but I concede the point.

 

Tell that to the city of Houston. It is built on the oil and gas industry and that entails way more than Exxon.

 

That's a very pessimistic view of Capitalism. The future belongs to those who create new markets and new products. Sticking with what you know is a recipe for failure, particularly when what you know is dependent on a limited resource and is destroying the planet... and the political consensus on that will only get stronger with time.

 

I work in oil and gas in Houston - I am well aware. I just don't think smaller companies will ever diversify like that - it's not prudent financially. It's up to the big dudes like exxon, shell, BP, and chevron.

"One of these four ain't quite like the others...."

 

With oil prices down, these companies cannot spare extra on R&D to come up with new energy sources. I don't think you understand, these companies are based on oil and gas, as is the city of Houston!

 

I've read through the thread and I haven't seen a good answer. Removing the cop isn't government interference. Its a bad move and I agree it is but that isn't the government interfering. Not doing something isn't the same as interference. One is active act the other is passive.

I've read yours and stanleykurtz's posts and with all due respect you guys are making the argument of the burgler in your anology. Blaming the government for allowing you to rob. The government didn't force the mortgage industry to make bad loans. It made it much easier too but in the end banks made the decision to do so.

I agree completely that the Clinton Admin. and the Democratic Congress that supported deregulation of the mortgage and securities industries share blame. They should've known that there was a strong risk that deregulated would lead to irresponsible behavior but it wasn't them that forced those industries to behave irresponsibly.