The End of Civilization

[jtfields]

Has anyone here read much about Peak Oil? Someone forwarded me a link to the website http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ today. I normally don't read this kind of stuff (I hate conspiracy theories and other junk like that) but for whatever reason I started reading it and ended up reading the whole thing (which is no small accomplishment as it is a very long site.) Anyway, the guy (some attorney) lays out a very well thought out argument for the fact that we are all essentially screwed. Not only is it well thought out but he cites a lot of documentation to back up various portions of his claims. Hopefully the guy is a crackpot. But with the cost of oil (and, hence, gas) moving up as it has the last few years I can't help but believe there is a lot of truth in the site.

The summary of the theory is that once world oil production peaks it will no longer be able to meet world demand. So far world oil ouput has increased every year since the industrial revolution began and that will continue until this "Peak Oil" event occurs and then oil production will begin to decline at a rate of 2%-8% per year (depending on the "expert" you listen to.) Basically, it's saying that oil reserves are finite and at some point we are going to start running out (duh.) The price of oil will skyrocket almost over night to $200+ per barrel. Because civilization is essentially oil based this will bring the world economy to its knees (again overnight.) Unlike past "energy crisis" this is one we cannot come out of and it will will lead to "oil wars", famine, caos, etc. He cites the fact that past "oil crisis" were largely small events (usually created by OPEC purposely cutting production) where oil shortages were in the less than 5% range and those created global economic recessions.

The article basically is a doomsday article saying that at this point there is nothing we can do about it. So called "alternative" fuels really are no alternative. Current estimates have this "Peak Oil" event happening somewhere around 2010.

Anyway, check out the site. Are we screwed? Is this guy a nut case? Or is it somewhere in between? Other than reading this website I haven't tried researching the topic in any other way.

[neuroking]

DOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think we have to wrry much about running out or not filling demand. The planet won't be habitable by the time it is a problem (20-25 years)!

Hey, I love conspiracy theories (I don't believe them, but they're fun to consider). Check out your local AM radio affiliate that carries Coast to Coast AM if you want to hear stuff like this. Oh, and aliens and exorcisms. They show is on at 1am EST and last 4 hours. Good entertainment late at night, especially when they do ghost stories.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

[ECA]

as 1 person said...
DOOM DOOm, the end of the world is coming...NOT
The end of mankind MAY, but the world will continue...

Try alittle FACT..
Between 2000-2050 the worlds Population will increase by 3billion...THATS 1/2 again MORE. Looking at a few other things to correlate.
1. what happens to animals, with HIGH POPs..
2. Whats going to happen to all the trees to make HOMES with?? and the ROOM to put all these people.

MANy more questions...you figure them out...THEN find someone who cares..
I WONT be here when it happens AND I have NO children.

[jtfields]

I WONT be here when it happens AND I have NO children.

Whew!!! Thank goodness for that! :poke
:)

[jtfields]

DOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think we have to wrry much about running out or not filling demand. The planet won't be habitable by the time it is a problem (20-25 years)!

According to the site we don't have 20-25 years. Running out is not what gets us. It's the economic collapse that happens long before we run out. This guy claims a shortage of only 10%-15% can ruin the current financial and banking systems that we have. This kind of shortage, based on current estimates, could take place within the next ten years.

Again, they ("they" being the Peak Oil doomsday advocates) base their theory of economic collapse on the impact that small 2%-5% shortages have had in the past on the economy. Those shortages were short-lived events either artificially created by man (usually OPEC) or some other short-term event. They were known to be short-term at the time yet they still caused global recessions. His point is what happens when the shortage is more substantial and it is not short-term but, in fact, will only grow larger?

I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says. I haven't digested it enough to decide what I think are valid concerns and which ones are kind of extreme. I just found the site interesting enough and filled with enough facts to think there is some level of truth to what's there. Usually these type of sites are founded on some kind of way out there hypothesis that the person interprets to the extreme. I will admit that he has interpreted it to the extreme but the underlying idea that in a relatively short period of time we will be producing less oil than we want to consume is not so unrealistic. Whether or not his stated ramifications are realistic or not I have no idea.

[neuroking]

Yeah, but as the ozone layer is depleated we'll have fewer days that people can drive without dying of heat stroke, and unfiltered UV will cause a whole host of genetic mutations that will lead to fewer people able to drive.

Seriously, though, I've seen the argument and it makes sense. But there are factors governing the opposite, like as fuel prices increase, fewer people drive and more research money goes toward non-fossil fuel research. For instance, overnight the government *could* make any non-hybrid car illegal. It's an extreme example, I know, but one of many possible options.

[ECA]

yep,

Its the IDEA that the OWNERS of the oil companies in the USA, get over $100 per MINUTE(YEP thats right)(24/7), and they DONT want ANY competition to OIL based products.
If you are baseing DOOM, on the idea that OIL is a controlling factor in an economy, go look at brazil.

[jtfields]

Seriously, though, I've seen the argument and it makes sense. But there are factors governing the opposite, like as fuel prices increase, fewer people drive and more research money goes toward non-fossil fuel research. For instance, overnight the government *could* make any non-hybrid car illegal. It's an extreme example, I know, but one of many possible options.

The problem he points out is that oil is not an elastic good. That is as price goes up consumption does not and cannot go down significantly. Oil isn't just used in driving. Oil/petroleum products are necessary for just about everything. If they aren't flat out made out of it (plastics, etc.) then they require significant oil based transportation or are made with machinery that runs on oil based energy. For example, he cites that every bite of food we eat has been transported on average 1,500 miles by oil based energy to reach you. The actual process of manufacturing a single car uses 20 barrels of oil (if we all of a sudden mandated that everyone must drive a non-gasoline powered car we would use so much oil manufacturing all those new cars that we would actually run out of oil faster than if we just left things as they are now.) Besides, our infrastructure is so heavily based on oil that implementing any kind of significant change quickly is not remotely possible. For most "alternative" fuels there are still many technological hurdles to be jumped and decades of work to be done before they are even in the ballpark of being a viable replacement for oil based fuels and then you still have the massive undertaking of changing our infrastructure to accomodate it.

All that said, I'm not saying I agree with the doomsday nature of this guy's opinion. There's probably a good chance that there will come a day when supply cannot meet demand and I'm sure that there is going to be some sort of economic impact (and it won't be a good one.) But I also doubt that everyone will just sit around on our hands while the world crumbles. Things happen, people adjust. Maybe this guy is just trying to get everyone to take the "prepare for the worst and hope for the best" approach.

One of my favorite doomsday quotes from one of the guy's sources is this:

"Industrial Civilization doesn't evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes 'the necessary physical prerequisites' for its own existence. It's short-term, unsustainable. 'This is a one shot affair.... there will be one chance, and one chance only.'"

It sounds like the beginning of a Mad Max movie or something. :)

Anyway, I just found it all kind of interesting. I just hope there is enough oil to produce all those cool gadgets we like to write about here.

[ECA]

YEP, mad max...

But, REALLy there are other alternatives to plastics, and HOw they are made.
THATs the real point...DO we NEED oil to make most of our peoducts? Are there OTHER scources that could be used?

[jtfields]

But, REALLy there are other alternatives to plastics, and HOw they are made.
THATs the real point...DO we NEED oil to make most of our peoducts? Are there OTHER scources that could be used?

No there aren't really any vialble alternatives. There are alternatives people are researching or using in immaterial quantities but they either are so far from being ready for prime time or take so much energy to create themselves that they really aren't alternatives. In fact they argue that most supposed "oil alternatives" aren't oil alternatives at all but are "oil derivatives" because the equipment and processes used to create them use oil based energy.

If you read the article you can see his point. Its rather long because the guy really tries to lay out a clear thorough argument (as most attorneys do) so he tends to babble a little (just like me :) ), quotes a lot of sources and sometimes repeats himself. Here is a shorter more concise website that makes some of the key points:

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

By the way, a buddy of mine who works as a commercial salesman for one of the big oil companies in one of their alternative fuels divisions read the site. He commented that he has attended a lot of seminars both put on by his company and by third parties about this very thing. His comments were that this problem is very real, however, most "normal" experts believe we are more like 30+ years away from it happening. Even then unless we start planning for it soon we won't be ready for it. Essentially he said "it won't be our problem unless it cuts off the power to our life support but it will be your kids' problem." He also said the "loonies" all predict 5-7 years and if they are right then just be sure you buy a good bike. :rolleyes:

[neuroking]

Yeah but teh same logical applies across the board. Imagine if overnight every grocery store was forced to use paper bags? Or all gadget casings were made of metals? Or a 200% tax on styrofoam cups? Market CAN influence consumption rates, because as it becomes less attainable, more people will opt for other choices. Hell, if they told me they would charge an extra $.25 for each plastic bag at the grocery store, I'd switch to paper.

What we really need is better (quality, cost, environmental impact) recycling. I think the day is quickly approaching that we will all have two garbage cans at home. One for organic material, one for everything else. Organic for fuel, inorganic for materials. There's a guy in FL that supposedly has worked out an uber recycling system that creates building materials from nearly any type of garbage.

[jtfields]

Yeah but teh same logical applies across the board. Imagine if overnight every grocery store was forced to use paper bags? Or all gadget casings were made of metals? Or a 200% tax on styrofoam cups? Market CAN influence consumption rates, because as it becomes less attainable, more people will opt for other choices.

Apples and oranges. You keep tossing out examples that, while would be inconvenient, aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. The Industrial Revolution, our banking and financial systems, even our agricultural system, everything is based on oil or significantly impacted by oil. I bet you cannot think of one facet of your life that is not somehow affected by oil. The price of oil moving up or down a few dollars can make or break entire economies. The effects of the price of styrofoam (which is a petroleum product by the way) or even steel pales by comparison. If someone told you tomorrow to stop using those things there are viable alternatives immediately available. There would be an economic impact but there certainly would not be a social collapse or worldwide financial crises. The same is not true for oil. There are no real feasible alternatives that aren't years or decades away from being remotely reasonable.

Think about our current situation. Oil is now over $70 per barrel. The price of gas tripled over the last ten years and gone up 33% in the last year or so (not to mention my electric bill.) Has it really affected your use of oil based products and energy? Maybe a little but not significantly. I try to conserve electricity a little. When I buy my next car I might take gas mileage into a little more of a consideration. But no, for the most part I go where I need to go and I buy the things that I need to buy. I have to, I have no choice. Everyone I know still drives their SUV. There probably is a breaking point (if gas shot up to $10 a gallon or something) but at that point the economy is probably in shambles.

Hopefully, this "peak oil" event is decades away and hopefully we start actually planning for it. If it is a slow thing then I think you are correct, we will compensate and do what we have to do to move on. But if there becomes a huge supply gap relatively quickly I think we would be screwed. Until I read these articles I really had not considered how crucial a plentiful supply of oil is to our society. I always considered it a huge economic component simply because oil prices influence inflation and the stock moarket so much but I never really thought about the fact that EVERYTHING is somehow affected by oil.

One last site. This guy is more realistic and shows the different scenarios from "we'll never run out of oil" to " we slowly run out" to "we run out tomorrow." Notice the original website I referred to is in the "head for the hills" bottom scenario :) .

http://www.oilscenarios.info

[ECA]

JT,
THERE ARE alternatives...
The statements they are useing are inflamitory and mostly propaganda.
Look up Peanut oil for rubbers, Look up Corn for making plastics.. we can even use Hemp oils.
they DONT give you alternatives, becasue they want yuo to think, THER IS NO OTHER WAY. There ARE other ways, and MORE natural..
The Gas companies dont want you to know that they SCRUBBED the nitrogen use projects.. This is like the Electric company saying, WE raise our prices, BECAUSE there is no other way to make electricy... And you KNOW better, that solar, wind, and other options are out there to make power. but they make it HARD to get established and running.

[jtfields]

I'm not saying that certain materials cannot be made from non-oil or petroleum products or that other sources of fuel and energy are not at all available. All I'm saying is that none can replace oil at least today. They either are not efficient enough (they don't produce enough energy based on the amount of energy it takes to produce them) or it would take huge shifts in our infrastructure to make happen which would take long periods of time. The technologies used in a lot these also have a long way to go before being considered perfected. It's one thing to do it on a limited test basis, its another to do it in a mass efficient way.

Let's take your corn example for making plastics. I didn't look it up but I will just trust you and say it's possible and efficient to do. First, to make plastic from corn you will have to have corn (duh.) Think about how much plastic is made today. The amount is probably mind boggling. So you would need massive amounts of corn. How do we get corn? We grow it on farms that use pesticides (made from petroleum products) and farmed by equipment powered by oil and manufactured in manufacturing facilities powered by oil based fuels. It is then transported all across the world using oil based fuels. On a small scale you might be able to get by without these items but to have large industrial farms to grow these kinds of volumes you will need industrial farm equipment (of which there are currently NONE that don't run on oil based fuels) and you will need things like pesticides to insure success rates. While we have managed to make some non-oil based fuel cars that can be classified as passenger vehicles we have not been able to make any powerfuld enough to handle commercial applications (unfortunately we have not found an alternative fuel that is efficient enough to power them.) In other words, there are no battery powered eighteen wheelers out there to truck your corn around the country.

Now lets say for a moment that we can generate the amount of corn that would be necessary to manufacture the amount of plastic the world currently needs. I'm assuming the process for making plastic from corn is a bit different than making it from petroleum. So all of the plastic manufacturing facilities in the world would need to be retooled to use corn based products instead of oil based products.

How long would it take get everything in place to produce that kind of volumes of corn, transport it, have the facilities in place to use it for manufacturing plastic and then distribute it...all without using oil based energy? My guess would be that it would not be a quick and easy thing.

I'm not saying all of this is not possible. It would just be very difficult to achieve in a relatively short amount of time. And that's just an example of one problem, the manufacturing of plastics, that would need to be tackled. I just don't see how if careful planning is not made we wouldn't possibly be screwed if we were presented with a significant long-term shortages of oil in a relatively short period of time. If it happens slowly over time then I'm with you, we will develop and perfect alternatives.

[ECA]

WAIT...
HOLD it...

I agree with some of it...BUT..
the only reason we use OIL...Is the profit margin...NOT THE COST.
THE USA oil wells were capped at $.04 per gallon, and the mineral leases were held, at $20 per year, sence the 30's.(CAPPED= PLUGGED, held over). ever seen one of those OLD movies with the Oil wells from 1 end of the valley to the other?? ITs TRUE, its was that bad.
Sence that time, NOTHING really has happened, except the locating of MORE oil.
Do you KNOW that the owners of the oil companies are earning and estimated $100 per second, sleeping, standing, bathing, passing gas, 24/7...WAGES...from the $3 per gallon cost of gas.
WE are basing our prices on OPEC/international gas prices and MOST of the gas is HERE, that we use. CAPPED at $0.04 per gallon...
THERE are alternatives that are in place, but its the PROFIT margin that they have, that makes it CHEAP. They can FORCE the price down on ANYthing, to force the other products out.

Consider: Hydrogen.
the thing they didnt want you to know, about the testing of useing it.. They are trying to make the process, PROPRITARY..So that you cant go to ANY weilding shop and pick up a can, and GO... Their reasoning for this, is SAYING that the gas is to explosive. But even their test SHOW, that its fairly safe. Even with a major Crash the gas container has to be breached, and that ISNT easy. And if it IS breached, the gas goes STRIGHT up, but wont explode and is gone in a matter of seconds. AND EVEN if it does get a spark or LIT, it dont spread out like gas/fuel/OIL WILL. And the WORSe that can happen, is a crack in the casing happens, and you have a flame thrower INSIDE the car, that can melt everything, Which isnt much worse then having FUEL/GAS/OIL splashed all over and burning everything to a crisp..

Its profits, nothing else.. Insted of making $1 per gallon PROFIT on every gallon sold, they would be making about $0.10...

Figures:
State and local taxes= 0.50-0.70 per gallon.
COST of the gas= 0.50 per gallon.
The RESt is profit.
and the only reason the taxes are so high is the MIN wage... for road repair.

[jtfields]

The reason we use oil is because it is cheap. Even though we think oil is expensive right now when you compare how much energy you get out of a barrel of oil for the 1$ versus anything else, it is very cheap. Oil is very efficient in terms of its energy production versus most alternatives. Currently it takes about as much energy to produce hydrogen (isolate the hydrogen molecule) as the energy hydrogen can provide.

Hydrogen: The "Do Less With More" Fuel

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=750

[neuroking]

You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that even if this 'peak oil event' occurs, there won't be a night and day shift in the world. It's not like you wake up tomorrow and the sun is gone. As production capacity is stretched, prices go up. As prices go up economies that relied on oil transition to less oil consuming, or no oil comsuming models. Those that don't, well, like evolution, adapt of die. My examples are of oil based products that use millions of barrels per year. I'm saying that, like a light switch, we can simply 'flick off' some unnecessary oil products that use significant resources literally overnight. Sure there might be trade offs, like it takes oil to produce solar panels, but then the mid to long term use of oil drops. First you have drop off of unnecessary uses of oil, then reduction in non-necessary but desirable uses of oil, and finally a reduction in essential oil. There isn't just one factor. Everything is in a push-pull mechanism. Seriously, $.15 increase in gas is no big deal. Let it hit $5. Hell, it only took until $3 per gallon for the president (with vested oil interests) and the vice president (actively part of the oil biz) to launch an investigation. And in these arguments, someone has to always point out the price of gas in Europe. I think it's about $6/gal, if my conversions are right (82p/L * 3.78 L/Gal, 100p=$1.7846).

[ECA]

Thats RIGHT...its CHEAP...
Hydrogen is the most abundant material in the galaxy...
and you want to crack it from water...TRY THIS.. Electrolosis, MAKES lots of hydrogen.
TRY THIS...Aluminum and HCL(draino) or Lye...Makes LOTS of hydrogen...ALL those cans we use(Beer, pop, ANYTHING)...

[ECA]

ANd thats Euro price is for Middle EAST oil...
We use 60+% USA oils, and from the america's most of the rest.
THEY WANt to force the price up, so that IF/WHEN we change to alternatives, THEY can keep their profit margins... WOULDNT you like to have $200,000 PER DAY as a WAGE??

I posted LONG ago...
Efficentcy SUCKS...
Think about this.
A small town has Nat gas heating...they are 60% efficent, and they are being charged $60 per month.
IF' some one gets a better heater, like 99.9% efficent(sp), and his bill goes down to $40, no big deal...
But after about 30-40% of them see THIS, and convert...ITS NOT lack of GAS, but LACK of sales that the gas company RAISES the price...
SO...that you are STILL paying $60, even with a 99.9% efficent heater...AND those with the 60%, are NOW paying $90+...
They keep SAYING that we must SAVE and be MORE efficent...We can, WE do, and they KEEP raiseing the prices..WE PAY the smae price we did 20-30 years ago...with better, MORE COSTLY equipment...

[jtfields]

You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that even if this 'peak oil event' occurs, there won't be a night and day shift in the world. It's not like you wake up tomorrow and the sun is gone.

Again, the price elasticity oil is very low. However, I agree with you if once the peak ocurrs and demand exceeds supply the shortfall grows at a slow pace and prices rise at a relatively slow pace. These guys are arguing that the economic crash will be so quick that that there will be no time to adjust. Hence, the financial markets will crumble and we will fall into a worldwide depression that will make the Great Depression seem like good times.

Remember the price increases we are seeing today are ocurring when there isn't even a shortage. Supply actually exceeds demand at this point it's just that the gap isn't as large as normal and there is a lot of uncertainty. They are saying if in a 36 month period or so we went from an excess supply to a 10%-15% shortage there would be no time for any kind of adjustment. The financial markets would crash, there would be oil wars, blah blah blah. Again, they point to how severely the economy was effected by short-term very small shortages in the past (much less than 5%). Worldwide recessions resulted.

Personally, I think these guys are somewhat extreme. I would think, or at least I'm hopeful, that it would be a gradual enough event that normal supply/demand balances would occur. That is the scenario you put forth. However, if it were something that happened very quickly, and by very quickly I mean over a few short years, then I would guess there would be a economic/social disaster that results. We just don't have any alternatives that can be quickly implemented on the kind of scale that would be needed to prevent a collapse.

This is a blog entry from a guy regarding the price elasticity of oil. It's just a blog entry but he expresses my opinion better than I can :) :

http://langabi.name/blog/2005/03/23/price-elasticity-of-oil

[jtfields]

Hydrogen is the most abundant material in the galaxy...
and you want to crack it from water...TRY THIS.. Electrolosis, MAKES lots of hydrogen.
TRY THIS...Aluminum and HCL(draino) or Lye...Makes LOTS of hydrogen...ALL those cans we use(Beer, pop, ANYTHING)...

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the galaxy. However, it does not exist in a pure form (at least on our planet) so the problem is you must use energy to extract it. Electrolysis requires electricity so it is a very inefficient process because you have to use so much energy to create it. The creation of aluminum uses large quantities of electricity as well (in fact the cost of the electricity to make aluminum comprises 1/3 of the total cost of aluminum) so making aluminum to turn around and try and create hydrogen probably has a negative return. I doubt that we have enough aluminum waste (all your beer cans :cheers ) sitting around to power the entire world from the hydrogen you could extract from it. By the way, the electricity used in those processes is typically oil based energy :P .

You will be hard pressed to find even the most optimistic of experts that don't believe that we are not decades away from being able to achieve the "hydrogen economy" as they like to refer to it. Don't get me wrong, I hope they get there. But if it is something we had to do in a relatively short period of time (5-10 years) then we are all screwed.

[jtfields]

Oh, and also ECA, I'm not denying that oil companies aren't making tons of money (obviously they are.) They will continue to make tons of money until every last drop of oil is sucked from Mother Earth. I'm not big on conspiracy theories so I don't sit around thinking Big Oil is artificially jacking the price way up (well, maybe a little. :) )

In any case, this is independent of that. How much money they do or don't make won't change a thing. If tomorrow they started selling oil at their cost we would still be screwed as the supply started to dwindle after the oil peak. One of the key attributes of the Peak Oil theory is that once any oil reserve is below its peak the costs of extracting each barrel of oil go up tremendously. That part of the theory is not hypothetical at all, it's been proven out since the 50's. Basically, you still spend the same amount of money or even more to keep pumping out oil, you just don't get as much. Hence, the cost per barrel goes up and continues to go up until at some point it doesn't make sense to even continue.

[ECA]

NOT really...
the MAIN REAL problem.. Is companies in the US, only install the BASIC(VERY BASIC) requirements to do a job, in tech and every other JOB THEY DO..
they DONt want to invest ANY money in updateing ANYTHING until its REALLY required, or mandated, and 20 years past due.
Cellphones started in Hawaii, 10 years before they EVEN considered it in the 48 states. It was a test run, and its HARd to run phone wires in hawaii, its ALL rock.
I live in a rural area, and the phone station hasnt been updated in 40 years(until recently), they just installed DSL. We had a ISP here, and they had to LEAVE because they didnt have enough phone lines for their service. Cable, got here first, 2 years ago. And Celphones STILL suck in this area.. And its been 40+ years sence they were introduced.
Japan, has setup their cellphones on a VERY advanced system and has had it for years..
This is the main reasoning behind the fact we are 4th in tech in the world. The companies WANT profit over expanding tech, and its leaving us behind everyone else.

[jtfields]

[QUOTE=ECA]NOT really...[QUOTE]

Not really, what? Anyway, it sounds like you live in the boonies :) .

There are some definite infrastructure issues in the U.S. that needs to be addressed in many industries. You are correct that in any capitalistic society most companies are going to make sure they will see a return on their investment before they spend any money (as they should.) However, a lot of the problems aren't necessarily that companies won't spend the money on the equipment but simply the bureaucratic, social and political red tape is too much to overcome to get anything done. Try building a new petrochemical plant in this country. It can't be done. How about a new nuclear power plant, one of the few viable alternatives to oil based energy? It can't be done either.

We go out of our way so much to try and make everyone happy that no one can be happy.

Some things are easier for Japan because they are so small in physical size (smaller than California.) But, yes, by and large Japan seems to like to stay on the cutting edge of technology more so than any other country.

[ECA]

Delta airlines, asked ALL there employees to take a $500 per month CUT..to SAVE the company...
6 months later, they gave a bonus to all the upper executives and never GAVE back the $500 per month. these are the FOOLS that make 10-100 times MORE money then the GUY flying that plane, or the guy FIXING that plane.
2 years later, BACK into bankruptcy...They were TOLD that IF' they dropped ALL their Pensions, they could remain solvent.
1 upper exec that worked for them for 6 years, has a clause against Bankruptcy, AND was paid 21 years of pension...

ENRON, after ALL they are going through, the CEO, says "I DIDNT KNOW what was going on, I was playing golf/on vacation/ in greese/whatever..."

These folks maje so much money that could be invested INTO new tech, and EVERYTHING ELSE...But what are they doing for the money they are making??

[jtfields]

These folks maje so much money that could be invested INTO new tech, and EVERYTHING ELSE...But what are they doing for the money they are making??

They are running billion dollar corporations. We give athletes millions of dollars and support their rich owners with tax dollars for playing games. I don't think it's wrong that the top dogs of very large corporations who employ thousands of people and produce goods and services for millions of people to make a lot of money if the company is largely successful. I agree that it seems fundamentally wrong for companies that are in financial straits to pay their top executives millions of dollars.

My brother-in-law works for Continental Airlines. Last year every employee had to take a 10% pay cut. That has been very difficult for him and his family as they already were living paycheck to paycheck and especially considering that things like medical insurance and gasoline continue to skyrocket. At the same time the CEO of Continental Airlines got a raise (as you can imagine he was already making millions.) Most of the raise was not salary but was in other types of compensation but it still doesn't sit right.

All that said, labor is subject to supply and demand as well. Why do athletes make so much money? Because there are so few people who can do what they do. Why do the top business leaders of the world make so much? For the same reason. If you or I could do it we would. Again, I do agree that their compensation should be almost 100% based on corporate performance. If the company doesn't make the money its supposed to then the top executive's pay should be relatively small. If he guides them in making billions then he should probably make millions.

[ECA]

capitalism is based on 1 fact...SHARE the money, make it MOVE around, DONT over price, LET people BUY your products, PAy your employees well to make them WORK well.
THIS is money grubbing, Plutocracy. It has NOTHING to do with haveing a decent product and selling it..
I dont mind paying 4 times the Makers prices...Its when a concert ticket costs $300 and that ISNT going to the players. Its a movie ticket thats $10 and the food inside bankrupts you.. Its also farmers getting paid $3 for 100 lbs of potatoes, and we are charged $1.59 for 1/4 lb french fries, and ranchers that get paid $2 per lb for GOOD beef, and thats ALL of it, not just HAMBURGER, and stores sell PARTS upto $4-6 per lb..

[jtfields]

capitalism is based on 1 fact...SHARE the money, make it MOVE around, DONT over price, LET people BUY your products, PAy your employees well to make them WORK well.

Capitalisim is based on free markets. Supply and demand. When you go to the movies you know the food inside is going to be expensive. If you don't want to pay for it then don't buy it or don't go to the movies. Once the movie theaters start losing their customers they'll be forced to lower their prices.

If someone is not paying you what you deserve then quit your job and go to work somewhere that will. Once your employer starts losing its employees they'll start raising their wages to keep them. If you can't go do what you are doing somewhere else for more than you are currently getting then apparently you are being paid market value for your services.

The farmer is getting $3 for the potatoes because that's what the market has dictated it's worth. Otherwise he'd raise his price. If he can't make a living at that price then he'll find something else to grow, there'll be a shortage of potatoes and the price will then go up. If he thinks the restaurants are getting to make all the money on his potatoes then quit farming and go open a restaurant. Same for your rancher raising cattle...go open a meat market.

It cracks me up when I'm at a restaurant and someone complains about the price of a soda and how that soda they just paid $1 for probably only cost the restuarant $.05. Same for your complaint about the french fries and how little they paid for the potatoes. Somehow people seem to not understand the concept of overhead. The only income a restaurant gets comes from the food they sell. It not only has to pay for the cost of the food but it has to pay for the rent, electricity, the wages of the waiter that brought it to you and the cook that cooked it for you, not to mention the guy who owns the place has to make a reasonable profit (or why bother owning it.) Most restaurants fail in the first year or two so the high price of french fries everyone is complaining about apparently isn't high enough. The ones that do it well make money, the ones that don't go out of business and every now and then you get someone who does it so well they turn it into a huge chain making millions of dollars. But the free market decided it all.

The only time capitalism can break down is when there are a lack of alternatives for a given good or service and/or it is a good or service we can't do without...LIKE OIL (and the Windows operating system :) .)

[ECA]

NO cap can go HAYWIRE when OTHERS understand HOw its setup...
BUT, there are 3 layers, at this pount...the maker, the distributour, the seller.
Sorry abit drunk.
WHO will loose??? NOT the Maker... He has only 1-2 costs and sells it AT HIS COST..

[jtfields]

BUT, there are 3 layers, at this pount...the maker, the distributour, the seller.
<snip>
WHO will loose??? NOT the Maker

Don't forget the consumer.

Manufacturers go out of business all the time. I work for a "maker" and we have the same issues as anyone else. We have to make payroll, pay the rent, buy our raw materials and get enough money for our product to make a profit. Some of our customers (our equipment is sold to construction related companies) make more money than we do and some don't. There are other companies that make our product so it's not like we can just name our price. We are subject to the same supply and demand constraints as everyone else. Having the means of production doesn't mean you set the market unless you control ALL of the means of production (again making my point that the only time capitalism can break down is when there are no alternatives.)

It isn't always the ones at the beginning of the line making them most money. Take Wal-Mart for example. They have so much buying power they probably make more money on most of their products than the actual manufacturer. I've read of manufacturers who sell at a loss just so Wal-Mart will carry their products.

Besides the line you are describing...production, distribution, retail, and consumption is an almost infinite line as the producer is also a consumer (they have to buy their raw materials, furnish offices, etc.). There is no ultimate "maker" at the beginning of this cycle you describe.

Earlier you were saying the guy at the beginning of the line gets screwed (the guy growing the potatoes) and now you're saying the guy at the end of the line gets screwed. So which is it?

I'll tell you. It varies from product to product and market to market...but it is all determined by supply and demand. In all cases there will be someone in the chain making more money than others, however, its not always the same role player. In some cases its the manufacturer and in others it will be the seller and it can even be the distributor or the consumer (if he is also a producer.)

Sorry abit drunk. :cheers

[ECA]

WELL, about 2/3'd of the problem comes from imports.
US cars arbt BUILT in the US. The parts are made EVERYWHERE, mexico, indoneasa, taiwan, japan, and so forth...Shipped to the US, and then put together at 1/10-1/100th the COST of making the parts HERE. Then THEY charge AS IF, the car was MADE here.
There is $10,000+ profit margin on US cars. and they DONT compete. Even tho there are ONLY 3 of them, and the Quality is going DOWN the hill..

I LOVe their complaints that it COSTS to much to make things in the US, as the Price REALLy hasnt changed in 20+ years.. With advances in machinery, and Cad/CAM and robot controls. But they still find it cheaper to SHIP the products into the US.

Its the smaller companies that are suffering in this country. The person WHO MADE the 1st TFT screen was in the US. He tried to market it to the US companies such as compac, IBM, INTELL. But they WOULDNT BUY IT, he ended up selling it to Taiwan, and the FIST laptops were made.

MORE companies would rather STEAL your idea then pay you for it. Ever read contracts for inovators? ANYTHING they make has to be OWNED by the company, even if its made AT THEIR HOME. The innovator gets paid salery, for what the company sells and makes millions. It isnt fair. and I remember when you could MAKE your own products for cheaper and better, but the prices for PARTS is so high, even a hobby is getting 'to expencive'..

[ECA]

See,
the one thing that we are fighing is WORLD priceing...
Making something in another country, at there prices is great, but when we bring it BACK to this country, we price it LIKE GOLD in the other..

IF we are going to do WORLD priceing, we should be WILLING to EQUAL the price HERE, as is paid in others.. But, China wants WOOd and metals from the US, because of the quality.. WE, order timber from canada to fill the orders, and INFLATE the prices to CHINA, but then the US price ALSO goes up. THEN housing prices go up, and the rest follow. Its stupid.
That Video card you got, was probably MADE in Taiwan, for about $20US, then shipped here and was priced at $200.. $1-10 US in MOST countries is like 1 weeks wages in the US.. and the BIG comapnies are taking advantage of this.
In Japan, CELLPHONES are CHEAP...and have LOTS more abilities then HERE. BUT, HERE, they price them like GOLD. They want you to THINK, that selling you a $200 phone for $50 with a 2 year contract, is a NICE thing for them to do..In Japan, the phone costs $50US, or LESS...

[ECA]

I prefer to call it GAS INDUSTRY GREED! Please read and try this, as we have to do something or none of us will be ale to even drive to work anymore!



This makes a lot of sense ~ read to the end!
A man eats two eggs each morning for breakfast. When he goes to the grocery store he pays .60 cents a dozen. Since a dozen eggs won't last a week he normally buys two dozens at a time.
One day while buying eggs he notices that the price has risen to 72 cents. The next time he buys groceries, eggs are .76 cents a dozen. When asked to explain the price of eggs the store owner says, "the price has gone up and I have to raise my price accordingly."
This store buys 100 dozen eggs a day. I checked around for a better price and all the distributors have raised their prices. The distributors have begun to buy from the huge egg farms. The small egg farms have been driven out of business.
The huge egg farms sells 100,000 dozen eggs a day to distributors. With no competition, they can set the price as they see fit. The distributors then have to raise their prices to the grocery stores. And on and on and on. As the man kept buying eggs the price kept going up. He saw the big egg trucks delivering 100 dozen eggs each day. Nothing changed there.
He checked out the huge egg farms and found they were selling 100,000 dozen eggs to the distributors daily. Nothing had changed but the price of eggs.
Then the week before Thanksgiving the price of eggs shot up to $1.00 a dozen. Again he asked the grocery owner why and was told, "cakes and baking for the holiday." The huge egg farmers know there will be a lot of baking going on and more eggs will be used. Hence, the price of eggs goes up. Expect the same thing at Christmas and other times when family cooking, baking, etc. happen.
This pattern continues until the price of eggs is $2.00 a dozen. The man says, "There must be something we can do about the price of eggs".
He starts talking to all the people in his town and they decide to stop buying eggs. This didn't work because everyone needed eggs. Finally, the man suggested only buying what you need.
He ate 2 eggs a day. On the way home from work he would stop at the grocery and buy two eggs. Everyone in town started buying 2 or 3 eggs a day.
The grocery store owner began complaining that he had too many eggs in his cooler. He told the distributor that he didn't need any eggs. May be wouldn't need any all week.
The distributor had eggs piling up at his warehouse. He told the huge egg farms that he didn't have any room for eggs would not need any for at least two weeks.
At the egg farm, the chickens just kept on laying eggs.
To relieve the pressure, the huge egg farm told the distributor that they could buy the eggs at a lower price. The distributor said, " I don't have the room for the %$&^*&% eggs even if they were free."
The distributor told the grocery store owner that he would lower the price of the eggs if the store would start buying again. The grocery store owner said, "I don't have room for more eggs. The customers are only buying 2 or 3 eggs at a time." "Now if you were to drop the price of eggs back down to the original price, the customers would start buying by the dozen again."
The distributors sent that proposal to the huge egg farmers. They liked the price they were getting for their eggs but, them chickens just kept on laying.
Finally, the egg farmers lowered the price of their eggs. But only a few cents. The customers still bought 2 or 3 eggs at a time. They said, "When the price of eggs gets down to where it was before, we will start buying by the dozen."
Slowly the price of eggs started dropping. The distributors had to slash their prices to make room for the eggs coming from the egg farmers. The egg farmers cut their prices because the distributors wouldn't buy at a higher price than they were selling eggs for.
Anyway, they had full warehouses and wouldn't need eggs for quite a while.
And them chickens kept on laying eggs.
Eventually, the egg farmers cut their prices because they were throwing away eggs they couldn't sell. The distributors started buying again because the eggs were priced to where the stores could afford to sell them at the lower price.
And the customers starting buying by the dozen again.
Now, transpose this analogy to the gasoline industry.
What if everyone only bought $10.00 worth of gas each time they pulled to the pump. The dealers tanks would stay semi full all the time. The dealers wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the huge tank farms. The tank farms wouldn't have room for the gas coming from the refining plants. And the refining plants wouldn't have room for the oil being off loaded from the huge tankers coming from the Middle East.
Just $10.00 each time you buy gas. Don't fill it up. You may have to stop for gas twice a week but, the price should come down.
Think about it.
As an added note... When I buy $10.00 worth of gas, that leaves my tank a little under half full. The way prices are jumping around, you can buy gas for $2.65 a gallon and then the next morning it can be $2.15. If you have your tank full of $2.65 gas you don't have room for the $2.15 gas. You might not understand the economics of only buying two eggs at a time but, you can't buy cheaper gas if your tank is full of the high priced stuff.
Also, don't buy anything else at the gas station, don't give them any more of your hard earned money than what you spend on gas, until the prices come down..
**_Everyone should read this and send it on! _**
************************************************** ************************************************** ********
GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work
This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It's worth your consideration.
Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace... not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea:
For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.
I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =3D 3,000)... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it... THREE >>>>HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am, so trust me on this one.)
How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?
Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
THIS CAN REALLY WORK!

[jtfields]

First, the egg example (which is fictional of course as there is no monopoly on egg production) is a classic example of supply and demand.

Second, the gasoline suggestion is silly. The difference is that with the egg example the people were buying more eggs per week than they needed. They were buying two dozen (24) a week when they only needed 14-21 (two or three a day multiplied by seven days.) Therefore, they could cut back their total purchases without actually cutting back their consumption.

With gasoline it's not like currently you are buying more gas than you need and throwing the rest away. Say you need $70 of gas per week but you decide to take your own advice and purchase $10 at a time. You still need $70 of gas per week so instead of going to the gas station once a week you will go every day. The gas station, hence the big oil companies, are still selling you the same amount of gas per week you are just being inconvenienced by having to go to the gas station all the time.

The only way to affect gas prices is to adjust your consumption. Now if everyone was using $70 per week before and agreed to only use $35 per week by cutting their driving in half then you might afffect the price. Supply, demand. The demand would drop, the supply would be the same so they would have to lower their price to increase demand. The problem is that it is probably a lot easier to cut eggs out of your diet than to cut driving out of your life (which illustrates the concept of elasticity.)

The boycott ExonMobile scenario is not that realistic either. All the other gas companies would start getting more business and see their supply shrink so they'd raise their prices. Once that happened everyone would flock back to ExxonMobile.

Not to mention ExxonMobile sells more gas to mom and pop gas stations than any other oil company and many ExxonMobile gas stations are locally owned. So when you go to the little convenience store down the road to get gas there is a good chance you are buying ExxonMobile gas. If you did find out which stores were carrying ExxonMobile and initiated a boycott of them as well then you'd be driving a lot of little mom and pop stores out of business or hurting the local guy that sunk his life into buying an ExxonMobile gas franchise. Also, trust me, there is enough demand for gas in this world that ExxonMobile will find something to do with it without lowering their price much.

But if it makes you feel better, I'm already part of the boycott...I've never really bought much gas from ExxonMobile. There just aren't many conveniently located to me in my area. I pretty much exclusively buy at Chevron and Diamond Shamrock (now Valero). I probably buy from ExxonMobile twice a year. So now its everyone else's turn to do their part. :rolleyes:

[nightowl]

Interesting Discussion,


The boycott ExonMobile scenario is not that realistic either. All the other gas companies would start getting more business and see their supply shrink so they'd raise their prices. Once that happened everyone would flock back to ExxonMobile.

The boycot is to cause a competitive gas war between the oil companies. If Mobil/Exxon gets no business they will be forced to lower their prices. But this will only happen if enough people boycot them. :ioman

[ECA]

I understand what you are saying...But Why arent the cars ANY better with gas then they were in the past...You have a REAL small car, and a REAL small engine, that could run a motorcycle, and they STILL aint getting over 30mpg...
We've had cars in the past, MADE of STEEL...that did better then these BLOW AWAY cars. there are cars in Europe and canada that do ALOT better then what we have...

BUT, even if we changed over to better motors and better cars and USED less....They would STILL raise the price. BECAUSE, the boss on top, AINT getting his $100 per minute...
Everyother country, the CEO/OWNERS make ALOT less then US versions, and they farm out the work to other nations, but it ISNT saving us any money.. they just RAISE the min wage, WHICH is not a good idea, as it rasies the cost of living, makes foods cost more, makes it harder on the small companies..
For ALL the saving they MAKE, that they could pass(AT LEAST) 50% to the customers, THEY DONT... They dont EVEN give it to the stock holders..They put it in their POCKETS...

the only REAL thing that would work, is ALTERNATIVES, which they DONT WANT you to USE, or to STOP patronizing there service.

Its amazing that the movie industry TOUTS, that "THIS movie made $100,000,000 ..But this is NOT the number of people that WENT to the movie, but the HIGH price that was PAID to see the movie... Do you know the BIGGEST hit EVER?? by the AMOUNT of people to SEE it?? Gone with the wind. At 0.25-0.35 EACH it has made MORE money, and MORE people have seen it then ANY other movie...And on its release, MORe people SAW it, then ANY OTHER movie. Back in the 40's, when a movie sold 1,000,000 tickets on its release, THAT was ALOT of people...

[jtfields]

The boycot is to cause a competitive gas war between the oil companies. If Mobil/Exxon gets no business they will be forced to lower their prices. But this will only happen if enough people boycot them. :ioman

The e-mail about the boycott is old. I remember seeing it last summer. No one did it then so I'll be surprised if anyone does it now. Even if we tried there is no way people would stay away from them until the price hit $1.35. As soon as Exxon lowered their price a nickel below the competition everyone would forget about the boycott.

There is an HEB across the street from the Valero I fill up at all the time. Every now and then the HEB will lower their price to $.10 below everyone else around as part of a promotion. Man, the line to get gas at that HEB will be freaking out of the parking lot. This is just to save a dime a gallon. I just go right over to Valero and fill 'er up. My car only holds 13 gallons of gas and spending the extra $1.30 is well worth not spending 45 minutes in line.

[jtfields]

I understand what you are saying...But Why arent the cars ANY better with gas then they were in the past...You have a REAL small car, and a REAL small engine, that could run a motorcycle, and they STILL aint getting over 30mpg

It's funny you mention this. I was discussing this with my wife tonight. When I purchased my first car in 1986 I remember at the time Honda had a car (I think it was one of the first CRV's) that got over 50 MPG on the highway. I never conisidered buying the car but I remember being blown away by the gas mileage. The car I did buy got over 30 MPG (I'm embarrassed to say it was a Nissan Pulsar.) You don't see many hybrids that get that kind of gas mileage today much less regular cars. I'm not sure of all of the reasons but the obvious ones are that most cars are bigger these days and the engines are larger (that Pulsar had problems outrunning kids on bicycles...man is was a piece of s***.) Also, some of the emissions requirements that have been enacted since then lower fuel efficiency as well.

Back then the Japanese companies would brag about their fuel efficiency. Then gas prices plummeted in the early 90's and good gas mileage was no longer much of a selling point. Then the SUV came into vogue. I'm assuming as gas prices continue to rise with no end in site, fuel efficiency will once again be a marketing tool. I saw a billboard while I was driving tonight that advertised the gas mileage of a car (it got 29 MPG.)

As for the movies, that's always been a load of crap. They rarely adjust their figures for inflation when showing historical gross takes. Not that I care.

[ECA]

The funny thing,
I have a 1986 OLDS...dont tell me this is a small car.
it gets 30+ MPG at 20 years OLD... I DO need to do abit of Fixing on the engine, but it STILL gets great milage.. If these SMALL cars cant get better then my MIDDLE size car, I WONDER at the world.

YESS, Night owl, we are having fun...I LOVE a good debate, and this IS one.

If you took an OLd rambler and used synthetic motor oil, you could DOUBLE the milage in that BIG BORE engine, then ADD ($1000) fuel injection for another 30% and you would have whats AROUND TODAY...
Its REALLy lame that it ISNT anybetter. Even the BUGS did better then whats out today.

[nightowl]

The e-mail about the boycott is old. I remember seeing it last summer. No one did it then so I'll be surprised if anyone does it now. Even if we tried there is no way people would stay away from them until the price hit $1.35.

I saw it last summer also. If the price goes up to 4 dollars a gallon you may be in for a surprize..People cant afford to spend 100 bucks just to fill up!

[nightowl]

And trust me, Gas prices will effect my vote in the upcoming election!

[jtfields]

And trust me, Gas prices will effect my vote in the upcoming election!

Short of regulating the industry and setting the price themselves there may not be a whole lot the government can do. I admit I too find it disturbing that even middle class people are finding it hard to get by today while the oil companies make more money than anyone in history. But unless you can prove collusion amongst the oil companies they aren't technically doing anything wrong.

What can the government do:

The government can stop taxing gas. That's only going to shave off $.40 or so.

They can subsidize it but then they will have to get the tax dollars to do that somewhere.

They can pressure the oil companies to lower the price but I don't know how successful that can be. Remember, the U.S. imports far more oil than it produces and the U.S. has little impact on OPEC (in fact sometimes they raise the price or cut production just to put us in our place.)

[ECA]

WELL,
we can tell the GOV, we cant afford to goto work, until hte prices DROP...

Until the GOV makes a business plan that ALL business HAS to sit/play by, they will find WAYS to hide their money..

[nightowl]

Yea why work, when the money you earn just pays for the gas to get you there! :curse

[ECA]

and how many can live within walking distance, not taking 30+ min.

Many comapnies have gotten lazy, and dont have stores every few miles anymore. THIs would really SOCK it to them.

[jtfields]

Many comapnies have gotten lazy, and dont have stores every few miles anymore.

You crack me up, dude. :rotfl

I laughed out loud at 4 a.m. when I read that.

[ECA]

what amazes me is that the USA, is 12th in highspeed internet access...
Can you explain this??
BESIDES the fact that the companies want us to pay for EVERY upgrade/update to there system, and the RICH folks on top, dont want to loose ANY of their money doing it???

12 nations LEAD us... I wouldnt MIND being 2-3rd....BUT 12th???

[jtfields]

what amazes me is that the USA, is 12th in highspeed internet access...
Can you explain this??
12th in what? The number of people using highspeed? The percentage of the population with highspeed available?

[nightowl]

I have Direct Way Hi speed Internet, You know the one where the redhead advertises how fast it is on HBO. Well its slower than hell. Dont Get it.

I think ECA was saying the U.S has on the average 12th fastest internet speeds compared to some other countries.