| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
SOTU
|
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had ?ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.? It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap. You really are something else. You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment and you didn't get it? Post something specific about the Fat Harry Krause bankruptcies. I've never heard of anyone getting away with it TWICE. Your story would be a fascinating read. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:12:38 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: I choked a little on that myself but it is only money. The Germans figured how to make clean fuel from coal 75 years ago and there is a coal gassification plant that we got a look at in Beulah North Dakota. It just can't compete with gasoline from shale or fracked natural gas. Trump talks up the idea of clean coal, but where in the United States would one be doing the carbon capture and storage? How about under Trump Tower or below Mar-a-Lago? Like I said it is only money. Scrubbing the stacks makes it better to live near the plant but it is not cheap. Up until this latest fad, CO2 was the good gas that came out of the tail pipe "just like the fizz in soda pop" according to the people who sold us the catalytic converter back in the leisure suit days. They just need another stage in the scrub cycle to extract the CO2. The real problem with coal is it isn't clean, unless you are in the anthracite country in West Virginia. |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? === You've spent 20 years in this group trying to convince us that you are an affluent yachtsman. Do you really think that's possible without being in the top 10 percent? So were you a fraud then or are you a fraud now? My guess is both. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. |
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. |
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. Lots f those $50k workers have 401k. What replaced defined benefit plans. Was good for most of the high tech world. As most jobs did not stay long enough to very in a defined benefit plan. I get monthly checks from 2 plans. One place I worked 17years and left in 1979. A little over $230. Another place I was there 5 years, but turned 55. $250 a month. Not much. My 401k / iras are worth a shot pot more a month if I need to tap them. For now I get the RMD’s. And live off my other investments. Spend 85% of your income and invest the rest, and you will never notice the 15% loss and will be well off at retirement. |
|
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
SOTU
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:41:31 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote: Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. I agree defined benefit pension plans started disappearing rapidly during the Clinton phoney "prosperity" days and most were gone by the time his tech bubble popped. Most employers are offering matching 401k program s now and the idea of "vesting" is pretty much an obsolete term. Your 401k is all yours from day one. The employer contribution may have a time on the job requirement at some places tho. BTW if you plan on living after you stop working, your savings ARE living expenses. That new big screen TV you buy when you are 25 would be 8 to 10 times as much when you retire if you invested it. The same is true of that new car. Many years ago I heard you have to pay yourself first. I put my first raise at IBM into the stock plan and continued doing that until I maxed out at 10% of my gross. It really just meant I deferred getting a raise for a while but I was racking up savings. When I finally got over the "new car" thing and paid off my car, I saved that money too. Pretty soon I was buying cars with cash. By your standards I was never rich but I still managed to save money. I would rather be financially secure than have a lot of flashy things. I think that is rare in the US. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![Mr. Luddite[_4_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
