Jobs outlook for small businesses may be getting bleaker

[Gaspar]

Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a nutjob.  

No.  I meant that FOTD never left. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yeah, there is more than enough water for grass.  Have you seen the kind of effort it takes to try to eradicate it?  It grows in the near desert of central Oklahoma in massive quantities with no real attention.  Think what just a little kindness would do.

ANY of the two would take fractions of what corn takes.  Would be on a par with dry wheat farming - which we do well here.  And the yields would be much greater.

And if water is gonna be a problem with grass, then it is just that much worse with other cultivated crops.  Rocky Mountains - like beets, sunflowers, cantaloupe (Rocky Ford).  All those heavily irrigated plants of the central valley of California.  Well, maybe we better keep growing all that stuff - how would all our illegals make a living otherwise?

[Gaspar]

Why is it that whenever the conversation turns to alternative energy the major focus of some becomes Marijuana?

It only yields 39 gallons per acre of bio-diesel oil.

Soybeans yield 48 gallons and meal as a byproduct.
Flax 51 gallons.
Sunflower 102 gallons and yield meal.
Peanuts 113 gallons and yield meal.
Caster Bean 151 gallons.

In fact hemp is quite meager in it's usefulness outside of a fiber crop.  Rice produces more than twice the oil per acre and tastes great with black beans!   Sorry to say, but marijuana is not the cure. 


Now when it comes to Cellulosic Ethanol, switchgrass is the way to go, but we'd have to grow a hell of a lot of it, and it would be expensive to produce.  Far far more expensive than bio-diesel.  IC engines cannot run on ethanol alone, at least not the ones we now have.  It's more of a supplement or filler than a solution at this point.

[Conan71]

Bio-diesel? Isn't that food used to make traditional diesel fuel? I honestly think using weeds is a better idea. I'm hoping to see a movement away from diesel anyway. Its low grade fuel that costs more than higher grades and is more polluting.

It costs more because they tax the smile out of it.

Diesel takes less energy to refine. It fuels ocean going ships, aircraft (basically similar to #1 oil) and it's BTU content per gallon is great. Jus a guess but 30 to 50% of our transportation infrastructure plus construction equipment runs on it.

[Gaspar]

It costs more because they tax the smile out of it.

Diesel takes less energy to refine. It fuels ocean going ships, aircraft (basically similar to #1 oil) and it's BTU content per gallon is great. Jus a guess but 30 to 50% of our transportation infrastructure plus construction equipment runs on it.

One thing to note is that the production of Bio-diesel is also friendlier. 

While burning of ethanol is relatively clean, fermentation of cellulose into ethanol releases significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide, and waste products.

Production of bio-diesel is carbon neutral.  Soda ash is added to separate the glycerin, and it's essentially ready to go into the gas tank.  The byproduct (glycerin) can be sold for many other uses including cosmetics. 

The new diesel engines are the cleanest IC engines on the market.  Even the carbon soot that used to be the trademark of a diesel has been eliminated. 

I will miss my old 190TD, with it's smoke screen capability. 

[Conan71]

Sorry I was sitting at Rocket Lube with my iPhone earlier and missed a few other points. 

Bio Diesel can be made with waste stocks like used (and plentiful) restaurant grease, tallow, and chicken fat.

Here's a great article from Popular Mechanics on diesel.  I was not aware that 50% of the car market in Europe was diesel.  I was commenting that up to 50% of our total transportation needs are based on diesel including over the road trucks, ocean-going ships (other than the nuke fleets of navies the ocean fleet is virtually all diesel powered), trains, and personal vehicles.

"The Future of Diesel in the US: Analysis
Concerns over fuel economy and carbon-dioxide emissions have left many wondering why more cars with diesel engines aren't available in America. After all, diesel-engined cars are 20 to 40 percent more efficient, and they're cleaner than ever. Diesels are wildly popular in Europe, accounting for roughly 50 percent of the car market there. So why don't automakers simply bring the European cars here? It comes down to intrinsic differences between U.S. and European governmental policies, consumer demand and fuel prices. Here is a primer on the future of diesel in the United States."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/4330313

[nathanm]

I will miss my old 190TD, with it's smoke screen capability. 

Nice car!

It's been some time now since passenger cars with diesel engines produced much soot. Now that ultra-low sulfur fuel is required, they produce even less emissions. They've always been better on the carbon dioxide front thanks to their fuel efficiency, despite diesel fuel containing more carbon than gasoline.

[Gaspar]

Nice car!

It's been some time now since passenger cars with diesel engines produced much soot. Now that ultra-low sulfur fuel is required, they produce even less emissions. They've always been better on the carbon dioxide front thanks to their fuel efficiency, despite diesel fuel containing more carbon than gasoline.

I put 260,000 miles on that car without a single visit to the mechanic.  Sold it because I needed a truck.  Could have put another 260K on it.

[nathanm]

I put 260,000 miles on that car without a single visit to the mechanic.  Sold it because I needed a truck.  Could have put another 260K on it.

Yeah, they don't make 'em like they used to. I guess the same could be said about many Japanese cars these days, too. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I am going by 1914 information where the British and Americans were able to get 50 gallons per ton from "grassy" type biomass, including grass and switchgrass.  (If some had been paying attention, there are ample references to both.  Shorthand "grass" is easier to type.)

Do you think we could maybe refine the processes a little to do better than was done a century ago???

Maybe not...

[nathanm]

If this AEI person is right, the answer is yes, the jobs outlook will indeed get worse.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100971

He argues for the Fed to take action, although his arguments are actually more supportive of another stimulus. He rightly points out that banks aren't lending a lot of money. For that reason, government spending would be a more effective tool. Tax cuts would be an option, but households are also hanging on to cash. Nobody wants to spend.

Too bad there's no political will for another stimulus. Maybe there will be when deflation sets in and we really see the job losses mount.

[guido911]

Sorry I was sitting at Rocket Lube...

sorry

[Gaspar]

If this AEI person is right, the answer is yes, the jobs outlook will indeed get worse.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100971

He argues for the Fed to take action, although his arguments are actually more supportive of another stimulus. He rightly points out that banks aren't lending a lot of money. For that reason, government spending would be a more effective tool. Tax cuts would be an option, but households are also hanging on to cash. Nobody wants to spend.

Too bad there's no political will for another stimulus. Maybe there will be when deflation sets in and we really see the job losses mount.

I think the disconnect is related to the term "stimulus."  As we saw with the previous bill, just because you label it "stimulus" does not make it so.  Another bill full of government programs, infrastructure improvement projects, and congressional pork will only waste more money.

Unfortunately we will most likely not see a another stimulus bill because the terminology has been trashed.  We will have to wait until after the mid-term elections, or perhaps even the next presidential election to repair the economy now. 

The banks are hunkering down to ride this thing out.  There's been a huge shift to Gold which is a sign that banks and investors are boarding up the windows until the storm passes.

The blame falls mostly on congress.  The Pelosi/Reid led congress is the most dysfunctional disconnected group I've seen in my lifetime.  It was unfortunate for all of those Hopy Changie people that President Obama had to operate under the finger of this group. 

The President is guilty too, but his crime is based more in inexperience, idealism, and naiveté than corruption.  In Chicago, the "Cult of Personality" is king, and you can say anything to get elected, this doesn't get you so far in Washington, as he is learning.

I think the President would do better with a more diverse congress, I also think that he needs to surround himself with a better group of advisors.  His drive to include everyone from the Chicago Machine has done more harm than good.  The national spotlight is much brighter than the Chicago stage lamp.

[we vs us]

I think the disconnect is related to the term "stimulus."  As we saw with the previous bill, just because you label it "stimulus" does not make it so.  Another bill full of government programs, infrastructure improvement projects, and congressional pork will only waste more money.

This is a perfect example of why our political system kinda sucks.  Half of our country is bound up in an ideology that proudly has no grasp of history, and no grasp of basic economics.  

Gaspar, "government programs and infrastructure improvement projects" are quintessential economic stimuli, and have been since the Depression.  What's more, they work to bring the economy around, albeit slowly.  And, of course, one man's hand out is another man's hand up, but it's obvious that 99% of the stuff you see around you is the former.  

Keynes, who helped pioneer this approach, has yet to be debunked.  In fact, he's broadly considered to be the guy who saved us from the Great Depression (Keynes came up with the theory, FDR implemented it with policy).  Why suddenly it's so heinous to follow that same path now is absolutely beyond me.  

I haven't yet heard any sort of proof as to why getting money back into the system through government programs is actually a bad thing.  Like, actual proof.  I've heard a smile-ton of ideological spew that has absolutely no backing beyond what Fox News or the Talk Radio Kuiper belt vomits forth.  I've also heard a lot of hyperventilation about why this somehow makes us unAmerican, or saps our Vital Bodily Fluids. It completely ignores that fact that we have had it this bad in the past, only worse, and that we fixed it by doing what Obama is doing now.  This is not controversial by historical standards, but if you know no history and don't care a whit for it then it will seem as radical as the anarchist bomb-throwers of 1848.

No one has been able to refute this.  Why the Great Depression solution is not also the Great Recession solution.  Until that happens, all of this is just half of the electorate being afraid of the dark.

Edited to add:  I think this fear stuff is being mainlined through certain media outlets directly into peoples' brains.  It's being ginned up in certain think tanks, and on certain radio shows.  It's being pushed by certain politicians, all of whom have something to gain from more, rather than less fear.  It's not news but we forget in each of these threads. But I suppose I should be surprised.   

[RecycleMichael]

The Pelosi/Reid led congress is the most dysfunctional disconnected group I've seen in my lifetime.  It was unfortunate for all of those Hopy Changie people that President Obama had to operate under the finger of this group.  

The President is guilty too, but his crime is based more in inexperience, idealism, and naiveté than corruption.  

His drive to include everyone from the Chicago Machine has done more harm than good.  The national spotlight is much brighter than the Chicago stage lamp.

Your blind partisanship is showing.

Congress has been disfunctional for a long time, even when the republicans were in charge. The difference now is the amount of coverage it gets from bloggers and the internet.

And former President Bush's appointees mostly came from Texas and the oil industry. I guess you must have just been unaware or uninformed of that.