MTSkiBum
-
Content Count
18,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by MTSkiBum
-
-
From my understanding it is all gulf coast refined gasoline. However, it is cheaper to send gasoline from Texas/Lousianna to Bahamas, then stage the gasoline in bahamas and then export the gasoline from bahamas to California because of the Jones act. I don't think Bahama's has any oil refineries and they definitely don't have a domestic oil industry.
The jones act states that any goods shipped from one US state to another have to be on US ships with US personnel. This is a loophole so that the shipping of gasoline can be done cheaper by foreign companies using cheap labor and poorly maintained boats.
Many states import gasoline from Texas/Louisiana, not sure how many use a loophole to get around Jones act though.
-
On 1/30/2026 at 8:54 PM, Gypsybrat said:I will make some stripper slightly happier in your name!
Only if her name is Charity.
-
41 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:I know what a leap given that nothing was handled well at all. From how she reacted, to how her security reacted, to the guy himself. I find it weird or you don’t question at all because your cult tells you not to and you’re defending Omar for God sakes. Just take a step back and think about that for a second.
Why would you worry that it’s going to get far worse? You’re American bad ass remember. Did you sign up for the Academy last night? When is your trip to Minneapolis to go fight the good fight?
Again, I’d hate to think you’re full of shiit. Would HATE it.
I am not following this at all, however I just checked foxnews to see where you are getting your information that it is staged, and they say nothing about it. They are saying that someone was arrested on assault charges?
What is your news source?
Suspect Anthony James Kazmierczak was arrested and held in Hennepin County Jail on a third-degree assault charge, records show.
-
You can donate it to library or a museum when you go out somewhere that has a donation box.
-
29 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:Was it the one sentence that made it unclear?
It doesn't seem like wanting to kill people that have a different political opinion is a part of the democratic republic that our founding fathers were hoping for.
-
3 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:I hope we kill them all.
You hope protestors are killed because they have a different political opinion than you?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I have the below, bought it years ago when i doubt it was more than 80 dollars, but it is expensive now.
I use it constantly, packaging fish I catch/fillet before freezing is the main use, but also use it for souse vide and storing other food in the freezer occasionally. I have used at least ~30-50+ rolls by now and it still works like new.
edit: I could never get the hose attachment to work and probably threw that away years ago. They might make a cheaper model without the hose attachment.
-
Also, there will be a huge bubble burst later this year in stock market.
There is circular finance going around in the AI space. Nvidia is investing in it's customers, which then use that money to purchase computing power from data centers, the money the data centers receive from AI companies, then goes right back to Nvidia.
CoreWeave is going to go under first though i think and that will start the toppling. Coreweave sells its computing power at a loss, and is building more data centers to sell at a loss. Eventually it's funding will run dry, and that will be the start. When coreweave and other data centers no longer buy from Nvidia, then nvidia's stock will tank. At about this point people will quit investing in venture capital's that invest in AI, this will cause companies like Open AI and Anthropic to declare bankruptcy.
Then the banks that loaned them tons of cash like JP Morgan chase and Deutsche Bank will then realize they invested billions to tens of billions that they are never getting back.
My guess is around July-September timeframe, but depending on if people keep throwing money at venture capital, maybe this bubble lasts another year.
I don't think people realize the negative margins that both the data center companies and AI companies have. They are all just burning cash.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, WhiteWonder said:Paying in cash should only be for people without enough self discipline to not view credit cards as endless money or not pay the balance in full every month… which you should be able to do if you follow one simple rule…
can I go to the atm and take enough cash to pay for this purchase?
. … get a few good cash back cards to cover every scenario (dining/entertainment, rotating high cash back categories, flat % for everything else) and none with annual fees.
otherwise you are just leaving money on the table. Even the typical areas where people have been taught to pay cash, like gas stations. The difference between a ‘same price cash or credit’ station and a cheaper cash station is likely 2 or 3 cents per gallon. It’s well offset if you’re getting cash back
It screws businesses and poorer people though, since the average credit card processing fee is around 2-3%.
When margins are tight that sucks.
It also then affects poorer people since they are more likely to use cash over card. Businesses have to raise their prices by that 2-3% to cover the transaction, which means that the poorer people paying cash are subsidizing the people with more money who then get cash back through their credit card.
I use card for almost everything. I am guilty of this, but it still sucks. No way am I carrying cash around, and stopping at an ATM machine every week.
-
1 hour ago, 5-Points said:Homes in certain markets appreciate faster than homes in other markets.
So, if you're selling and buying in the same market, it might be a wash.
But if you're selling in a hot market and buying in a different market, it isn't a wash.
But the reason a market is hot is because more people are moving there and the reason a market is cold is because there is less demand.
By how the market works there will always be less people moving from hot market to to cold market than the other way around. This would only benefit a minority of home owners.
-
15 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:home/apartment complex building is no issue in my area. Even with proximity to NYC, the amount of new complexes going up (and still vacant units in these complexes) is crazy right now.
In regards to home prices going up only sounding good on paper, your example makes sense, but there are a lot of people who buy vacation homes with the intention to eventually live in them full time after retirement and in the meantime, they rent them out. By the time they are ready to retire, that appreciation on their main home is actually quite beneficial. They make a bag on selling their large home and downsize, often to a state with lower property taxes. Meanwhile the vacation home was paying for itself via rentals. (yes this scenario requires an investors mindset)
About 5% of families own a 2nd home, and I do hope to be one of them in about ~5 years or so. But home building policies shouldn't be based around families that can afford 2 homes.
Going back to my first post, there were 6.8 million homes built in last decade when population was ~320 million people and in 1960's there were 9.3 million homes built when population was 200 million people.
That is 1 house per every 47 people in last decade, but 1 house for every 21 people in 1960's. If we don't build enough houses, then the cost of housing will be much higher. This is why housing costs have greatly outstripped inflation.
Maybe subsidies aren't the perfect answer, maybe there is a better solution. I do like trump's plan to limit corporate home ownership, but we also need to figure out a way to get more houses being built if young people are going to be able to afford housing in the future.
https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/nahb-second-home-areas-gain-market-share_c
The count for second homes across the country stands at 6.5 million, or 4.6% of the total housing stock, with 17.5% of single-family construction activity allocated to second homes, according to the NAHB.
-
46 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:College tuition, electric cars, health care, home buying tax credits. The list goes on. It does not bring prices down.
I understand where the confusion lies now.
When subsidizing something, you can subsidize either the producers or the consumers. For example our steel, aluminum, and concrete industries all receive subsidies somewhere of about 1-3% of their revenue. This is an example of a producer subsidy.
Subsidizing homeowners or college tuition is an example of a consumer subsidy.
When you subsidize the consumer, it creates artificial demand and that artificial demand can drive the price back up to the original cost.
However, when you subsidize the producer, it does not have that effect. This is why i stated that homebuilders should be subsidized, not homebuyers. I also explicitly layed out this risk in my previous post. If you go back and re-read it, the home building industry is both producer and a consumer. The largest products it consumes would be lumber and concrete. Specific care would have to be taken so that your concern would not happen. We would not want the cost of lumber to skyrocket because homebuilders were subsidized.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:Wut? Subsidize home builders? Have you learned nothing about what subsidizing does to markets?
Typically when an industry is subsidized it causes an increase in production and a decrease in cost for the end consumer. This is because when an industry is subsidized it encourages more companies to enter the market and for existing companies to increase production.
Subsidies are typically tax breaks, but can also include grants and low cost loans. Grants would be more for research, like the government subsidizing new computer chip development or new battery technology. But for existing industries it would probably be tax breaks.
Subsidies can cause an increase in pricing of raw materials for competing industries if that is not taken into account. For example if home builders were subsidized heavily then the demand for lumber would increase. If the supply of lumber is also not increased, either through subsidies or naturally then the price of the raw material will rise which negatively effects competing industries, ie furniture builders.
But all of this can be taken into account by the people who are working on putting the bill together to actually subsidize an industry.
-
10 hours ago, 5-Points said:Sure, let's build them in Montany. I'm tired of new construction around here. It stifles appreciation in existing homes.
We want to limit home appreciation. It sounds good on paper, your home goes up in price. However, once you sell your home you need another home, and that home also appreciated in price. So it is a wash.
The below stat is even worse than it initially looks. In 1960's there was roughly half the population then there is today and yet even though we had half the population we still built 50% more houses.
Corporate ownership and lack of houses being built are making home ownership way too expensive. Hopefully Trump addresses the former, but we still need the latter addressed.
The 2010s was by far the lowest decade of single-family production in the last 60 years. During this 10-year period, single-family home construction totaled just 6.8 million units. By comparison, single-family starts ranged from 9.3 million units in the 1960s to 12.3 million in the 2000s.
https://www.nahb.org/blog/2020/01/A-Decade-of-Home-Building-The-Long-Recovery-of-the-2010s
-
There should be a limit on how many homes you can own. Maybe set the limit somewhere around ~50 single family homes or ~10-25 apartment complexes?
We also probably need to subsidize home builders. We have built the least amount of houses per capita in last decade in a long time. We need to build more homes.
-
4 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:I believe Exec compensation is too high relative to lower level employees, however I don't believe the govt should have the authority to tell private corporations how much they can pay their employees.
Why not, this sounds like something that the government should do. Maybe go back to the ratio we had back in mid 80's between exec pay and lower level pay.
This won't happen, but the idea is not bad.
-
18 minutes ago, edjr said:My point still stands. Sacks are overrated. I didn't say meaningless. I said overrated. Myles Garrett proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt this season.
Why are people celebrating a useless record like sacks. Team had 5 wins. Why celebrate that?
I dont listen to much sports media, but if sirius xm or espn are overrating it then that is their fault.
It is still an impressive feat even though the team sucked. When a good player gets stuck on the jets, browns, raiders, or other bad team i generally don't hold it against the player. There is nothing they can do to turn the team around.
-
24 minutes ago, Strike said:Bear in mind that the record he broke was set in 16 games, not 17. So, *******.
The browns this year faced the same number of pass attempts as giants in 2001. That is even though passing rate is up quite a bit over last 24 years and the fact that he got an extra game.
The sack rate was better for Garrett than Strahan.
-
1 minute ago, edjr said:He had FIVE sacks against the Patriots and they lost 32 to 13. Sacks really matter
The browns are a dysfunctional franchise and having 1 elite player does not solve the problem. It is a team game and while usually the QB gets blamed, it looks like the DE is getting blamed here.
Dillon Gabriel had 4.5 yards per attempt and 2 interceptions. It is amazing they had 13 points.
-
Garrett breaking the sack record is impressive because the Browns played from behind quite a bit and opposing teams didnt need to pass.
Through week 17 they faced the 3rd lowest number of pass attempts in the league at 448 attempts.
The jaguars and seahawks each had over 600 pass attempts against their defense. Imagine if he got another 150 chances to sack the QB.
-
1
-
-
It is concerning that he is given cognitive tests frequently. This is his 3rd test since he has taken office, which puts him on the every 6 month time table and not the once a year timetable. The major medical establishments, AAN, CDC, etc recommend yearly tests for healthy adults over 65, but more frequent testing when dementia is already suspected/diagnosed. This lets them monitor the dementia progression.
What if we as a country elected 2 presidents in a row with dementia. I wonder why we arent doing better.
My quotes got all messed up, maybe i need screened!
For healthy adults:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190919093916.htm
QuoteTo help physicians provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) is recommending physicians measure how frequently they complete annual assessments of people age 65 and older for thinking and memory problems. This metric for yearly cognitive screening tests is part of an AAN quality measurement set published in the September 18, 2019, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
https://mdinteractive.com/mips_quality_measure/2024-mips-quality-measure-281
Recommendation: Perform regular, comprehensive person-centered assessments and timely interim assessments.
Assessments, conducted at least every 6 months, should prioritize issues that help the person with dementia to live fully. These include assessments of the individual and care partner’s relationships and subjective experience and assessment of cognition, behavior, and function, using reliable and valid tools. Assessment is ongoing and dynamic, combining nomothetic (norm based) and idiographic (individualized) approaches (Fazio, Pace, Maslow, Zimmerman, & Kallmyer, 2018).-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Bigtraine said:FYI I am going to be out of cell range for most of our playoffs. I'll set my lineup as best as I can but I might be YOLOing some players that are questionable without a chance to replace them if they dont go.... I am sure my opponents wont mind if that happens.
Doing anything fun?
-
3 points away from being 4th in points, all i had to do was notice brock wright was on IR on thanksgiving day
-
26 minutes ago, edjr said:No you are correct. I hate liberals.
I dislike the political divide in America and the media is to blame. There really isn't much difference between the left and the right. Both sides dislike 90% of the decisions that politicians make.
The media just wants to perpetuate the one side verse the other side divide, because that is what draws views/clicks/likes. They go out of their way to make the other side appear as bad as possible, both sides do this, if you go to a primary left wing site like some sub-reddits you will see the same thing, but opposite as what is posted here, posters who hate conservatives, and find the most extreme examples to prove their point.
People have taken rooting for their political party like they root for a sports team, they blindly cheer on their side no matter what.
We need people on both sides to be more critical of their own party, to vote for politicians that want compromise, and to understand that the media has really shifted towards going for views/likes, rather than informing. This is especially true of social media like youtube, where how much they make is directly correlated with how many views they get.
I hope this country does not get swayed too much by either political party and that over the next 30 years half of the time republicans will have control, and other half democrats, I also hope that we start voting in more moderate candidates on both sides, and that we avoid slimeballs like Newsom.
None of what I want will happen though.
Good day to you ed, take care of yourself.
OK Libs, tell me how this helps climate change
in The Geek Club
Posted
A decline in refining capacity has been happening in many states, this is not unique to California. Texas is an outlier in this regards as our refining capacity is up, probably to pick up the slack.
All down:
North Dakota: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SND_a.htm
Wyoming: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SWY_a.htm
Louisiana: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SLA_a.htm
In addition many states import gasoline, for example Florida does not have a single refinery. There are certainly pro/con's when it comes to refineries, they are ugly, they pollute, and while the jobs are high paying, they come with risks. My kids have come to associate seeing the refineries as the signal that the drive to the beach is almost over. They will get happy when they see the refineries because they know they are almost there. Kind of sad if you put thought into it. Pristine beaches would be nice.
Closing refineries in California will certainly hurt this countries fuel supply. The two refineries that either recently shutdown or are do to shutdown this year in California provide 2% of the US refining capacity.
There is a reason we only do a tiny amount of rare earth processing in the US, it is a pollution heavy industry. I understand why Florida has never built any refineries. It would be kind of nice not living around this stuff.