Episode-16- Banks Collapse, More on Nuclear Power and Jim Cramer Get’s One Right

Today’s show is another free for all with quite a few subjects, today we discuss..

  • The continued drop in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock
  • Steve Forbes Suggestion to break up and privatize Fannie and Freddie
  • Jim Cramer is right for a change, kill ethanol and mandate natural gas?
  • My personal ways I conserve energy in the home
  • The greed of modern cities and oppressive property taxation
  • Your gas is being subsidized by over charging the airlines
  • The survival podcast grows to 100 plus listeners in less then 25 days!

Remember to comment on episodes, ask questions or suggest topics.

5 Responses to Episode-16- Banks Collapse, More on Nuclear Power and Jim Cramer Get’s One Right

  1. Jack, thanks for the podcast.

    From a purely logical vantage point, I would agree with you and by extension, Jim Cramer, that ethanol is a significant factor in the global food cost rise over the past few years; and that cutting ethanol’s mandated use is a good idea (though it’s funny, when it was originally suggested years ago, the idea as interesting and promising; it’s been the execution of that idea though that has caused so many issues). I would though suggest (playing devil’s advocate here) that your comment (and maybe you’re just noting what Jim Cramer might have said) to mandate natural gas use is not necessarily in line with your Libertarian ideals (and the freedom to choose) and seems to sound very much like you’re giving into the idea that government should force this upon people… 😉

    I do also agree with you that modern cities and their property taxation is oppressive. I though don’t necessarily see a good solution (in the short term) to cities for most people already living in them. Ideally, living in smaller and better designed and sustainable communities is a wonderful idea; though how do we get from here to there?

    Thanks for the brief comment on your homes energy setup, et al. As I foresee living in my home for a couple of decades, I will be making the best of what I have here; thankfully I was able to place a down-payment of 25% of on my home, of money my wife and I already had; so that is some security compared to many people both my younger and slightly older in Canada who have bought with much less down or even 0% down and living more on credit than we are.

    The idea that the oil companies are using the airlines to subsidize the price of gas, is both (I think) terrible and underhanded. Though do oil companies deserve to have the massive subsidies that they receive annually from governments… I would suggest they are robbers and subsidies to them should be stopped (as they are long established companies). I know you mightn’t want to subsidize solar/wind/microhydro companies; but I would suggest that at the present time, as oil companies have such a strong market share and are so well funded (in all forms), the alternative energy companies need some assistance (say for 5 years or so) to help them get up and going.

    That said, the podcast is good and keeps me thinking.

  2. Modern Survival

    @BlackMacX,

    Well let me be clear about what I said on a natural gas mandate, I actually said “if you are going to mandate anything, mandate natural gas”, That does not mean that I think mandating anything is an actual good idea because I think any “mandate” is completely inconsistent with the U.S. constitution. My statement was at a point of exasperation, accepting that the megalomaniacs in our government would need to “do something” rather then do nothing as they should.

    You want to hear me at my pure libertarian best, tune into my next show, ;>)

  3. Modern Survival

    Oh and hey on a similar vein, I indeed also don’t think subsidizing the wind, solar, etc is a good idea but it is a MUCH BETTER idea then subsidizing oil and ethanol. So just like above where I would prefer no mandate but one is much better then the other, if we could take all the oil subsidies and put them into wind or solar, etc that would be a LOT better then what we do now.

    Of course the other side is that many times the oil companies get a bad rap. For instance right now they are being attacked for not drilling where they have been given leases already. The reality is much of that land won’t produce good oil and on a lot of the rest they can “explore” but they can’t pump. Like I said all the problems government is currently trying to solve they first created. Perhaps one day the socialist minded among us (jab gently intended) will realize that and stop expecting them to “do it the right way”.

    Everything any of the governments of the world have ever done has ended up more screwed up then a “football bat”, people should stop expecting anything else.

  4. Jack,

    Fair points and thanks for the jab… I do agree that things aren’t always as they are portrayed. Personally, I don’t want to see the currently protected areas (or recently unprotected ones (the offshore locations that President Bush removed the embargo on)) drilled for oil. Natural gas is a good gap measure that can (from my understanding) be used in nearly all the ways oil’s refined components are currently (primarily for vehicle, heating and other building uses).

    I look forward to tomorrow’s episode (you rant…;).

  5. Modern Survival

    You do realize that only US companies are actually prevented from drilling in the shelf right? I mean 50 miles out is in international waters, if someone such as China drilled there then there isn’t much we could do about it. They are already drilling about 60 miles off of Florida.