Michael Fitzsimmons

Comment Stream

Michael Fitzsimmons picture
174
Profile Articles (46)
Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • Surprising Call for Return to the Gold Standard

      see the comments to Paul's article:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      on what the price of gold would be to back up every US dollar now on the market (over $10,000/oz). fact is: the US has printed so much money over the past years that going to a gold standard is simply not an option. either the price of gold would need to skyrocket, or, ALL the dollars bush has printed in the last 8 years to fund his insane fiscal and foreign policies (and then some) would need to be pulled from the market. either way, gold goes up and the US economy tanks. unsustainable. the US has already gone over the cliff on monetary policy. the only hope is a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      combined with realistic tax and spend policies (pay-go).

      Nov 19 08:35 am |Rating: +1 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Buffett Increases Stake in COP - Smart Move!
      more good commens...so i am back yet again...

      kurt walter: i'll get back to you when he sells and we'll see how he fairs.

      chris B: i like RIG too, but it pays no dividend and i can get 4% with COP. not bad during a deflationary cycle where we may have to wait awhile. wrt energy policy, good comments you have, but buffet, with his consumer holdings, needs a functioning economy which we will not have if we don't enact a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy. i wasn't necessarily saying he should invest in the related plays, i was simply saying that he should back it with the same vigor in which, for instance, he came out against the insanely ignorant bush tax policies. wrt nat gas, the idea isn't to put all our eggs in that basket, but to *diversify* away from our near total dependence on oil. nat gas does that, is better for the environment, and we have huge US reserves. it's a no-brainer. i support ethanol, but not the bush mandates which simply blew out the agricultural market with huge corn related dislocations. we agree on railroads. people not want to hear about changes in their lifestyles, but in case anyone isn't paying attention..it has been happening anyway. we can either be proactive and reduce the impact, or roll over (like we have been) and be victims of reality. wrt buffet and his tax opinions, i am fully aware and have said many times what you said all so well: you can make more money being taxed in a functioning economy/ currency than you can make in an unstable inflation (and i would add deflation swings, like now) riddled economy/currency. this is the debate i have been having with so-called "conservative&quo... republicans for years now. they are finally listenin now that their investments are down 30-50%.

      wiz: don't care about im-bev - i stick to energy related stuff. i can't criticize buffet for trying to make money, i am too. however, i think buffet does have the interest in the country in mind, didn't you hear him discuss bush policies? he cares. he is a patriot. i don't question him on that. wrt iraq, obama gave a speech on the floor of the senate in which he attempted to warn congress, the president, and the american people that it would be a very big mistake. he was right - it was. wrt taxes, obama basically wants to have a much fairer tax/spend policy very similar to clinton. i agree totally. bush fiscal policy has been a complete unmitigated disaster from which the country will be lucky to survive. if we do, it will take decades to recover.

      Mmarrkk: please read the last paragraph of Chris B's comment above. he said what i have been trying to convince you of, but apparently even the present financial crisis doesnt convince you about the ignorance of bush fiscal policies, so, i am sure my words wont convince you. wrt spending, it doubled under bush in a short 8 years. that was after clinton gave him a balanced budget. end of that discussion. there is nothing "conservatively republican" about bush - he is a radical fascist. period. the amazing thing about bush's policies, is not just that he spent the country into the deepest deficit ever, but that we don't have a single thing to show for it all. i can't wait to see the lousy sad sack out of office! my biggest fear now is how much damage he can do before he leaves (i.e. raping the treasury like he did for iraq by giving even more money to millionaires and billionaires on wall street and the well connected). since you love the guy so much, i can only assume that you are well connected to him and have been given US tax-payer money for doing absolutely nothing for it.

      longoil: there is nothing wrong with Pickens' plan, it should be adopted and supported by the natural gas producers & distributors, the american auto industry (do you realize NONE of the big 3 even make a nat gas powered car or truck for consumer sale in the US?), as well as the electric utility CEO's. the problem is, they are all scared to death that the "big oil boogyman" will break into their house at night and take their first born. wrt energy plans, the US needs to adopt one now and stick too it regardless of short term energy costs. in fact, it is even more important, as you pointed out, to stick to it now that energy has fallen off a cliff. now we can build the infrastructure cheaper, and Lord knows there are going to be plenty of unemployed to help do it....







      Nov 18 15:05 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Buffett Increases Stake in COP - Smart Move!
      Mmmmmmark: haha, yeah, well glad you like COP. that said, i believe the verdict on bush and republican economics is in. please read my previous comments on russian risk and windfall profits taxes.

      i still cannot believe that pass that beat texas, but i loved it! that said, i will stand by my georgia tech yellowjackets and hope they beat miami thursday night.

      longoil: yeah, it's a mystery (conspirarcy?). i mean why would NBC not run pickens' commerical (at first...) when GE owns NBC and as you pointed out provides the turbines?! very weird. btw, there is nothing "alternative"... about natural gas powered transportation. it has been around for decades. this is not a technology issue, it's a mere *policy* issue. it's a friggin no-brainer. why isn't the natural gas industry supporting this? i have contacted my local nat gas provider and i am going to their next board meeting to get the answer directly. did u see the wall street journal article the other day? some electric utility CEO's got together and they have decided to fund large purchases of electric cars for their operations to help support US manufacturers. now, THAT Is common sense and good business. why aren't the natural gas providers doing the same thing for nat gas? it's an enigma, a mystery wrapped in a riddle. (or just fear of big oil....)

      john s.: oh, i am very aware of the composition of the 9/11 hijackers. i never said $145/barrel was "done by the ruskies" and i disagree that it was done by goldman sacks or 30/1 leverage. look, when the economy was strong, worldwide oil supply simply did not keep up with worldwide oil demand. period. supply never got over 86 million barrels a day. even at $145/barrel, look at the majors' production: XOM, CVX, COP - all had LOWER production volumes. it is a supply/demand issue and it will come back with a vengence when and if we make it through this financial meltdown. what i am saying is that now that prices have come down, we can act responsibly and adopt a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy to mitigate oil's rise in the future. it's only common sense. unfortunately, that is lacking in washington and congress. hopefully, obama will provide the necessary leadership and action.

      wiz: my dad had some GE and he was *pissed* at the 6% hit, and i agree. but, can't blame buffet on that...blame GE. as far as buffet paying more taxes, hey, listen he was very very critical of the bush tax plan when bush first announced it! he was on TV every day for weeks saying it was a mistake for his secretary to pay a higher rate then himself. he also pointed out all the loopholes for billionaire hedge fund managers not to pay ANY taxes on huge gains. no, buffet gets a gold star in my book for his outspokeness on common sense taxes. even mccain was against them (before he morphed into mini-george). it is the first time in history the US has fought two wars and cut taxes on the most wealthy. absolutely insane fiscal policy. unfortunately, rush limbaugh has all the people who would BENEFIT from obama's plan (very similiar to clinton's) thinking they would pay more. stupid is what stupid does.

      Mmmmmmark: please don't be another joe the plumber. joe didn't understand that his taxes would go DOWN under obama. again, buffet was AGAINST the bush tax cuts for billionaires and he had more to lose than anyone. and, history has shown the bush's tax policies were a huge mistake. the deficits skyrocketed (doubled in a mere 8 years to over $10 trillion dollars), and the dollar dropped by 40% (before this financial meltdown) which helped oil pop higher. i can only assume you make more than $250k and/or have $10 million or so and aren't satisfied with that amount. meantime, the idocracy and fact of republican tax policy is the following: the ultra wealthy save a few percent on their taxes, and everybody loses 50% in the equity markets. lunacy.
      Nov 17 19:16 pm |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
      wiz: i *absolutely* agree that hedge funds should be held to the same regulation (and tax policies) that mutual funds adhere to, including transparency, standard accounting practices, and disclosure. capitalism doesn't mean "complete de-regulation". in fact, anyone paying attention has learned that "complete de-regulation" has led to fascism.

      3rd party: yes on the typo, thanks. the foundation for natural gas powered transportation has been around for decades. it is simply a *policy* matter. nobody wants to pay any taxes, yet no one seems to understand that the deficit that bush has rung up are simply crushing and yet, we have absolutely nothing to show for it. my suggestion is a mere $0.02 tax, which no one will even notice now that gas has dropped below $2/gallon (from over $4...), and, the US and its people will actually GET something for it. i am certainly NOT in favor of doing anything unconsititutional...an... who has read me knows that i was in favor of impeaching bush in his first term for doing exactly that. i am afraid you took my words too literally. what i was proposing is for congress to pass legislation such that this tax is NOT thrown into some general spending fund, but is *specifically* tied to the expenditures that i itemized.
      Nov 17 18:56 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Buffett Increases Stake in COP - Smart Move!
      thanks for the comments, as usual i will jump in here:

      van Altendorf: well, yes, there is certainly some political risk doing business in russia - just ask BP or XOM. that said, i believe alot of the risk of doing business in russia has been increased during the bush administration due to the belligerent actions of the US foreign policy. did you know that after the collapse of the soviet union, in a meeting with clinton administration, russia actually asked to join NATO? the stunned clintonites, taken completely by surprise (understandably), declined the suggestion and let it go. enter bush. he supports a puppet in georgia and says he wants to put missiles in poland to "protect against iran". please. terrible, terrible moves. what did they expect russia to do in response? well, they found out. now russia is even more convinced it needs to use its energy power and influence (bad). look at the effect this has had on the chevron's caspian operations for example. the idiots at the wall street journal mocked russia's military performance in georgia by saying the russian missiles couldn't even knock out the BTC pipeline (through which chevron passes oil the EU). but they missed the point. what russia was saying is that hey, we can knock out this pipeline ANY time we want to (the missiles landed within 10 yards of the pipe). now, on the other hand, i see some reasons to be optimistic. sarkozy, speaking for the EU, has asked for a moratorium on new missile deployments - a smart move. obama, i believe, was aghast at US policy toward russia and will begin to try to mend the fence. certainly, i don't underestimate russia. at the same time, why overtly anger them? they are the world's largest oil exporter and owns the world's largest natural gas reserves, and sit right next to china. so, they will be a power to reckon with. wrt COP, everything i have seen so far in the relationship with LukOil has been positive. Mulva handles relationships well, and allows LukOil access to COP drilling and technology and production capability in return for access to reserves and income. the LukOil has been, still is, and will continue to be (IMHO) a mutually beneficial relationship that each partner will continue to enhance going forward. naive? perhaps. reason to be optimistic about their future - yes.

      investor88: oh yeah, financial storm is right. however, as i said in the article, we're either going to come out of this, or not. if we do, those investors who assumed risk and bought energy while it is deeply discounted will make millions. if we dont come out, not sure it matters where your money is. what is "safe"? so, i'd definitely take a portion of your investment dollars (certainly not all), and invest in energy stocks that pay nice safe dividends. hunker down, and wait. dont buy all at once, but take advantage of the panic de-leveraging.

      john s. gordon: just where do US oil companies invest? COP's LukOil investment, like BP's, has almost entirely paid for itself already. from here on out, it's gravy on top. everyone the US deals with wrt oil are thugs: saudi arabia (9/11 perpetrators in-spite of the bush marketing campaign), iraq, iran, venezuela. however, part of the "thuggery" is in response to US aggression and our apparent arrogance that these countries MUST give the US access to their oil at cheap prices. if they don't, we threaten military action. a much better, moral, and economically sustainable approach would be a long-term, strategic, comprehensive energy policy to control our own destiny:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      the bush administration's failure to understand this, and adopt such an energy policy, has done nothing but strengthen these thugs, led to $145/barrel oil, and put US economic and national security at great risks. we cannot continue this lunacy. my big hope is that obama "gets it" and will take appropriate action. i am still lobbying them strongly against windfall profits taxes (which would hurt US supply). indications are that they have softened on this and merely want to role back the subsidies that big oil currently enjoys. i am fine with that. their profits prove that subsidies are not needed. this money should go to building out nat gas trucks/autos, nat gas refueling infrastructure, wind, and solar.

      longoil: yeah, i think buffet's moves into oil and trains mean they are starting to get the long term impact of oil. what i don't understand about warren and charlie is why in the world they aren't more outspoken advocates of an energy policy? why don't they support pickens? perhaps nobody has more to lose if the US economic sinks into the abyss than does buffet and berkshire. so, as i said in the article, why in the world wouldn't they protect their assets (and alot is consumer oriented....) by using their influence so prod the US government into adopting an intelligent, strategic, long-term, and comprehensive energy policy. our economy (and thus our equity markets) simply do not have a chance unless we do so. look at the monetary situation these days. check out my question (and answer) in paul kedrosky's recent article on gold:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      question: what would the price of gold be if the US backed all its currency by gold at 1:1: answer: price of gold would be over $10,000 oz. what does that tell ya? and that is before the current bailout printing presses. surely warren and charlie must recognize the consequences of, as pickens says, the largest transfer of wealth (the US to oil producers) in the history of the world. why do they not use their influence to help stop it? sure wish i could ask him that question on CNBC and hear the answer....
      Nov 17 11:33 am |Rating: +1 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Our Biggest Infrastructure Need? Think Broadband
      with all due respect - absolutely not. the biggest infrastructure needed in the US is an energy infrastructure to combat our 70% addiction to foreign oil. if we don't do that, nothing else matters. we need to adopt a strategic, long-term, comprehensive, energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      and put bailout money toward jobs to create natural gas and electric cars and trucks, nat gas refueling infrastructure, solar, wind, and nuclear energy sources, and upgrade the electric grid. this should be priority #1.
      Nov 17 11:29 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Peak Oil's Bell Is Ringing

      the inability of worldwide oil supply to keep up with worldwide oil demand can only lead any thinking human being to once conclusion: any country that imports 70% of its oil must adopt a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy! here is one in case anyone needs help understanding what is necessary:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...
      Nov 16 10:16 am |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • What's Oil's Future?
      I just read that Warren Buffet increased his stake in ConocoPhillips to 84 million shares of COP in the last few months. That's about 6% of the company and one of buffet's largest bets. Oil is going to come back with a vengence. The US has not yet adopted an energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      so, the sky is the limit for the future price of oil. Unfortunately, for a country like the US that imports 70% of its oil, that's not good news. hopefully obama's team will act as soon as they get in office, and they will acknowledge that perhaps picken's suggestion that we move to nat gas powered transportation will be taken seriously.
      Nov 16 10:11 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Gold: Not Just for Gold Bugs Anymore
      hello paul - nice article. also enjoy your commentary on CNBC but they usually don't go back to you if the pundits there don't like what you are saying. but wrt this article, and as far as the using the gold standard for the US dollar as a world reserve currency, i have an excersize for you which may be enlightening:

      1) calculate the amount of gold the US government owns
      2) calculate the amount of US debt and dollars in circulation
      3) what price would an oz of gold have to fetch in order to back all the Us paper?

      please get back to me when you figure this out @
      fitzsimmons_mike@hotma...
      meantime, if you have time, please read my strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy and give me some feedback:
      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      reason i say this is because if the US doesn't adopt something like this pretty damn soon, gold and oil will be the world's reserve currency and the US dollar will be a footnote in history just like the weimar republic.
      Nov 16 00:58 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
      i'm back...

      fran: i read "brave new world" so long ago i cannot remember somma and feely passes...but i think i catch your drift.

      kunst: oh, i agree completely that we will, as you say, HAVE to get along with less. in addition, in my opinion, we face economic and social ruin if we don't prepare for this day, with a comprehensive, long-term, strategic energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      certainly conservation and efficiency is a part of such a plan, and is stated in "STEP 2: Conservation" of my plan...after "STEP 1: Acknowledge the Problem", which is where i fear we will regress to now that oil has dropped (albeit short-term) under $60.

      CW Man: thanks for the kind words., thanks also for the typo correction. not sure if i did that or the SA editor, anyhow, most people that read my stuff know these energy symbols in their sleep.

      Third Party Guy: i hate labels..they are so unhelpful. but if you want to label me green, it is a label i wil be glad to wear. instead of "stealing" your tax dollars like Bush has been doing for the past 8 years, please note the tax i am recommended would bypass Congress and go directly to jobs and infrastructure to make America more energy dependent and KEEP our money at home rather than sending it to countries that hate us. if this is green, then it's green for MONEY, which will be staying HERE. what happened to free market capitalism and enterpreneurship? it died with the bush administration. the US is now totally Fascist, with a Kaptial "F". and i am not "crying" about it, i am trying to educate you because you obviously have fallen victim to the government and media so that you think only the gasoline powered car is sufficient for you. THINK MAN, THINK. Nafta is not the sole problem here. Mexican oil production is dropping rapidly due to depletion rates and lack of investment in infrastructure. Canada has high cost tar sands. do you really want the US to hang our future oil supply on that? get real dude. i am all for stopping the subsidies to oil companies and it is the first real point you have made. so, then, after banging me for trying to get nat gas solutions in place, you end with telling me how much US nat gas is available. i can't follow your logic at all.

      wizard: good point on the totals as i left out part of what is included in "STEP 3" of my energy policy, is that gasoline taxes increase over time. 2 cents this year, 4 next year, etc. now, according to my calculations, the US uses 390,000.000 gallons of gasoline per day (EIA data), which correlates to $7.8 million dollars a day of revenue, or, 2.8 billion dollars per year. that builds alot of natural gas infrastructure! also, this is not the only source of funds...gas guzzler taxes as well as income from natural gas taxes, etc. etc. we need to get creative. if we just took half of the money bush is spending in iraq and on the bailout, we wouldn't need iraqi oil and could buildout *everything*. we have to start somewhere.






      Nov 15 19:36 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
      longoil: well, there are huge reserves in the US as well. also, plz note my energy plan supports a trans-canadian pipeline to bring nat gas from alaska to the lower 48. at the same time, look how much nat gas new drilling techniques have brought online just in the last 3 years in the lower 48. put LNG terminals on both coasts and in the gulf, and we have enough nat gas to power cars and trucks for decades to come. i cannot say the same about oil. also please note my energy policy supports electric cars, which should be used by those in cities who drive less than 40 miles a day to and from work. bottom line is, we'll need every gasoline alternative.

      kreg: you must have missed the discussion on CO2 emissions the first time i explained it in this forum. the reason you can get 19 lbs of CO2 from a single gallon of gasoline (~6.3lbs) is because only the carbon (the "C" in CO2) comes from the gasoline. oxygen, the "O" in CO2, comes from the air via the intake manifold of the internal combustion engine. when gas burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate, the hydrogen combining with oxygen to form water. the carbon combines with oxygen to form CO2. carbon has an atomic weight of 12, oxygen has an atomic weight of 16 and CO2 therefore has an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon, 32 from oxygen). a gallon of gasoline is roughly 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen. therefore the amount of carbon in one gallon of gas is (6.3 x .87)=5.5lbs. to calculate the amount of CO2 produced by a gallon of gasoline, you multiply 5.5 x (44/12), which is over 19 lbs of CO2. you can check these figures out for yourselves, and since it IS science, the answer is a fact. so, you are welcome for being accurate with my figures. hopefully, now that bush is gone, science will be back in vogue. which is good, since i am an engineer.
      Nov 14 15:12 pm |Rating: +2 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
      Thanks once again for all the comments. As usual, I like to jump in....

      Respirate: hello - your adage is most appropriate. thanks for the supporting comments as well.

      longoil: NG is a short term solution only if we get started now. that said, there are huge reserves of natural gas all over the world, which can power the worlds cars and trucks for 50 years or more. i'm not against biofuels, but if we can't even get the country to turn on to nat gas powered vehicles, how in the world can we get biofuels going? nat gas powered transportation is just a no-brainer. as far as the economy goes, i would agree we are in for a very very long haul. the concentration of wealth into the hands of the 0.001% of most the most wealthy (and well connected..) in the last 8 years can only have disastrous consequences.

      johnsgordon: and then when the saudis run out? what then?

      long_on_oil: i'd hate to have been in charge of energy hedging at a major corporation. i would have made terrible bets. as much as i have bashed george bush's economic policies and his administration's lack of competency, in my wild dreams i never foresaw the financial system meltdown which has led to energy demand dropping off a cliff worldwide. sorry for the CHK symbol and thanks for correcting my typo.

      bluesmoke: i've sent the Obama campaign my energy policy at least 3 times. i started back at the beginning of his campaign when i could tell his advisors were slow to pick up on the energy priority. i'd would love to talk to Obama about energy..and the first thing i would tell him is that windfall profits taxes are a BAD idea and will lead to the next oil spike being even bigger than i think it is going to be now (which is *big*). anyhow, i was just dreaming thinking they would ever listen to me. but thanks for the vote of confidence. i do believe obama will at least begin an energy policy, which is something we certainly do not currently have. wish they would call me though, i need a job now that my investments have all tanked...

      kreg: of course gasoline powered internal combustion engines are contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere - in fact, it is at the rate of 19 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned (!).

      engineer: thanks - i'm an engineer too. i agree with your comments.

      iThinkSmall: folly? you act as though natural gas cars don't exist. they do exist and the technology has been around for decades. countries like iran and brazil (oil exporters i might add..) see it in their interest to buy and/or convert their cars to it. there are millions of nat gas cars and trucks all over the world (just not int he US). so, why is it "folly" to think that a country that imports 12,000,000 barrels of foreign oil a day (70% and i am speaking about the US in case you are not keeping up) should do likewise? There is only one nat gas car for sale available in the US today, the Honda CIvic GX:

      automobiles.honda.com/.../

      but i can't even buy it in my state and it is generally not practical since the home refueling appliance is $4k and you can't fill it up anywhere. thus, my recommendations in the article. it is not folly to believe that the US can continue to wave a wand and get all the foreign oil it needs in the future. it is lunacy. that is reality. it is insane that the US has such large reserves of natural gas and we, due to ignorant policies, prefer to send our dollars to our enemies overseas. absolute insanity.

      c300man: i wish "we all know we have to employ all available energy sources and develop new and better ones." perhaps you can go to washington and clue congress and the administration in on this self-evident fact. there sure as hell aren't listening to me, and i have been bangin on em for 8 years now.
      Nov 14 13:52 pm |Rating: +1 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News
      the only way you'll see oil at $30/barrel is if the financial crisis leads to a total meltdown and the stock market crash another 50% down. of course, with the steps the current bush administration is taking bailing out their friends instead of the economy, this is entirely possible.
      Nov 14 07:40 am |Rating: +3 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Government Bailouts Multiply as Paulson Prepares to Leave Washington
      nice article edward. i like to call it buy it's real name: fascism. or at least "socialism for the rich". i think now people are beginning to understand why europeans held up pictures of hitler when bush visited their continent. you knew this was going to be a disaster for the american people when the paulsen and bernanke went to congress with the initial unconstitutional requests for billions of dollars to "spend" (give-away might be a better word...) as they saw fit. no taxpayer protection, no guidelines, just give us the money they said. naomi klein (author of Shock Doctrine) recently had a great article in Rolling Stone magazine about how the Bushies are using yet another shock (Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc) to bilk the US taxpayer out of their hard earned dollars:

      www.boingboing.net/200...

      note the person they put in charge of the bailout out, Reuben Jeffrey III, is the same guy that lorded over Bremer;s "Coalition Provisional Authority" in Baghdad. some government officials (not many....) are still trying to find billions of dollars which mr. jeffrey handed out over there.

      this is the main reason i contend bush is not, and never has been, a "conservative republican". fiscal discipline, long a tightly held belief of conservative republicans, is not an adjective that describes bush. yet, if you pay rush limbaugh and larry kudlow and the other hacks on CNBC enough money they will brainwash Americans into thinking bush IS a conservative republican. he is not. he is a fascist. and the US will be lucky to have survive his 8 years as "king george". how on earth the US dollar can be strong right now i have no idea. as jim rogers said in an interview the other day: "this is insanity. did they learn nothing from japan? this is the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the competent (the US tax-payer) to the incompetent (the Wall Streeters, bankers, insurance, and auto execs). captitalism isn't supposed to work that way. we are propping up institutions that should fail, just as japan did. it didn't work for them, it won't work for us. we have 9,000 banks...some of them need to fail, instead we are giving money to them which will go into the pockets of the executives who lent money irresponsibly". go figure. i am not surprised. but then again, after 8 years of bush, i am the biggest cynic on "capitalism" in the world today.
      Nov 14 07:25 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Demand More for Your Auto Bailout Dollar; Oil Patch Should Bounce Back Long Term
      Repper: i will get real, just like Real Time with bill maher.
      so, you are trying to tell me that the auto execs have been making the right decisions and turning the auto makers around for 10+ years? hmm...so, promoting hummer and SUV's and the such was a good thing right? so, how do you account for their huge drop in market share and the fact that they are both in near bankruptcy? perhaps they are making some good vehicles now...but you are right..when i think about a new car i think about a toyota or honda. i watched my dad lose thousands on crappy fords and gm's ... and that wasnt just the 80's that was in the 70's too. i finally convinced him to buy a toyota highlander and he loves it. never been in the shop and has 80k miles on, runs great. as i said, we need GM and Ford (as far as i am concerned the cerberus guys should just take the hit with chrysler...) to make fuel efficient nat gas and electric cars. my problem with the bailout is it will probably be more fascism (or, socialism for the rich), where the executives will take all the money, the firms will still end up in bankruptcy, and we will just have more debt on the middle class tax payer. however, if congress forced GM and Ford to use the money *exclusively* to build the infrastructure for nat gas and electric cars, we have a chance to not only save the companies, but help the US economically, wean ourselves off foreign oil, and save the US taxpayer. it's a win-win, which is probably why it wont happen (am i a cynic? you betcha....after 8 years of bush, is anyone anything else??)

      fam62c: the US does have alot of natural gas reserves. futhermore, if we buildout the LNG terminals (as my energy policy suggests...) we will have the capability to readily import it as needed. also, the nat gas pipeline from alaska has loads of capacity and is why it should have been constructed years ago (as my energy policy suggests...) but it only will pay for itself if we put more of the transportation (private and mass) onto natural gas cars, trucks, and trains. all in my policy. NG is now under $7, that is cheap, and is a result of all the new capacity that has been brought online. everything are you are saying about solar, wind, etc. is in my energy policy. here is the link:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      read it closely, give me feedback, and better yet, send it to your congressmen and senators. with respect to the middle east, please undersand that osama bin laden and sadam hussein were made by your own taxpayer dollars through the CIA. the US can be much more energy sufficient, but we just lost 8 years and time is running out. if you read my energy policy, the first step is for the governement, media, and US american public to ACKNOWLEDGE the problem and have it on their minds every single day. otherwise, we;ll never make it. totally agree with you that cheap oil is a terrible thing for the US right now.

      wizard: not surprised pickens is slowing down...funding has got to be a problem, he has lost his ass (as have i) in the energy markets, and i still dont know how he is going to get the wind energy in the plains to the markets that need them since the government is laggin on energy infrastructure work (i.e. transmission lines). also not surprised at all he voted for mccain - he is a lifelong republican and a billionaire - who has been better for billionaires then W? that said, buffet voted for obama cause buffet knows what is best for america in the long run. as far as the bailout goes..i dont like it either...and i hate it if it is done wrong (thus the article), however, as i said, if GM and Ford dont build nat gas and electric cars, toyota and honda will. we need them to succeed.

      byforeclosures: well, in this market i think it is safe to assume you can buy everything cheaper later. the US could well end up in a depression. just because oil goes to $50 doesnt mean the world is awash in cheap and plentiful oil - it just means the economic disaster that 8 years of bush has given us will cause oil demand to fall off a cliff (short term). eventually, if the econonmy ever comes back, oil will roar even worse than this year. if the economy doesn't come back..well, we're all 6 feet under eventually anyway.


      Nov 13 16:19 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Michael Fitzsimmons is a Top 100 Commentor

  • 303 Comments, 62 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 38