Subject: Tejek claim that Lend Lease to the Soviets, pulled the U.S. out of the Depression.
False. The Soviets went to war with Germany in 1941 - before that time, the Soviets were outspokenly against America's support of Britain. Exactly how much of the lend lease loans did the Soviets pay back to the United States? When you "sell" equipment to someone, but don't expect to get paid, it is a gift. BTW, BEFORE the start of the Second World War (1939), the U.S. economy was in recovery - according to the NBER (the organization that officially dates recessions).
re:"Giving equipment? We were selling it. That's how we got out of the depression."
False? Russia was not the only nation in the war.
I guess you never heard of the "Cash and Carry Neutrality Act of 1939". It was an expansion of the 1935 Neutrality Act and allowed the US to sell arms to any warring parties with the expressed caveat that they pay for the goods upon receipt and ship them in their own ships back to Europe........thus the term 'cash and carry'. Like I said, the manu. and sale of war equipment to Europe helped the US get out of the Great Depression.
You did go to school, didn't you?
"In Nov., 1939, the act was revised in favor of supplying warring nations on the “cash-and-carry” principle; but U.S. vessels were excluded from combat zones, and U.S. citizens were forbidden from sailing on belligerent vessels. These provisions were lifted by amendment in Nov., 1941, after the lend-lease policy had been established."
infoplease.com
Subect: Tejek's claim that Canadian tar sands are not economic.
Wrong. You are living in the past. The bulk of Canadian oil are tar sands, not shale oil. I understand that a considerable amount of oil that Canada sells to the United States is from tar sands. Cost? About $12/barrel.
Wrong? You are too quick to jump to conclusions and you too are living in the past. I said oil shale and other composite materials.......I could not remember the correct name. However, its no longer "tar sands" as you thought but rather oil sands. Canada does have oil shale as well.
"Undaunted, energy companies have ploughed billions of dollars into bringing down the cost of producing oil from tar sands. This has dropped from about $30 a barrel three decades ago to less than $12 a barrel at the latest facility, which was officially opened by Royal Dutch/Shell and its partners on June 19th"- The Economist -http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1875182
You didn't read the whole article, did you? If you had, the following is what you would have read near the end of the article:
"It is true that the companies involved have made dramatic strides in reducing costs, but even $12 a barrel is too high for Alberta to be anything other than a marginal producer. One problem is that labour is extremely expensive in this Arctic wilderness. A bigger one is the assumption made by advocates of tar sands that oil prices will remain relatively stable."
And you do understand that the only oil sands that are worth extracting are those at 75 meters or less below the ground and that most Canadian oil sands are at 400 meters. You further understand that the extraction process is so energy intensive you use up as much energy as you get by extracting the oil from the sands. And finally, you do know that the oil extracted is heavy crude........nothing nearly is as good as the light crude drilled in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Here's another link that may further expand your knowledge of Canada's oil reserves:
peopleandplanet.net
I use to think that conservatives had a modicum of intelligence but frankly, I think I was being too generous. ;~)) |
