you can take the Paris accord and shove it...... 1.4 gigawatt coal fired plant

justoffal

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
3,298
Points
350
  • facebook share
  • twitter share
  • linkedin share
  • mail share

  • New Plant to Provide Additional 1,000 Megawatts to the Local Grid, Enough Energy for Nearly 2 Million People
  • Four-Year €1 Billion Project Completed by a Global Consortium of GE, Mudajaya and Shin Eversendai
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA-March 21, 2016-GE (NYSE: GE) announced today that as part of a contract worth over €1 billion, Malakoff Corporation Berhad’s (Malakoff) 1,000-megawatt (MW) Tanjung Bin Energy Power Plant (T4) has entered commercial operation on schedule. GE’s Steam Power Systems, together with its consortium partners Mudajaya and Shin Eversenda, has executed the engineering, procurement and construction agreement for the plant. The ultra-supercritical, coal-fired power plant, which commenced construction in March 2012, was completed on schedule in four years.
GE was the leader of the consortium, engineered and supplied key equipment and was responsible for the overall integration and commissioning of the plant. The plant operates on GE’s most modern steam turbine and generator technology, its ultra-supercritical boiler and GE’s proprietary environmental control systems. The emissions at the plant are significantly reduced through the use of low NOx burners, a highly efficient seawater flue gas desulphurization facility and fabric filters to lower nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide and dust emissions.
“GE’s highly efficient technology solution implemented at our T4 plant is helping us to ensure the generation of affordable electricity at lower environmental impact,” said Habib Husin, acting CEO, Malakoff Corporation Berhad. “This ultra-supercritical plant will deliver an additional 1,000 MW to the grid.”

“GE’s Steam Power Systems pioneered ultra-supercritical steam generation and is today one of the technology leaders in advanced and ultra-supercritical technology. This technology has achieved efficiencies up to 47 percent-above the global average rate of existing power plants of around 30 percent-lowering fuel consumption and emissions. Each additional percentage point in efficiency reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 2 to 3 percent,” said Andreas Lusch, CEO, GE’s Steam Power Systems. “This project is another example of GE’s commitment to the development of energy mix diversification in the region. The plant provides enough energy to power 2 million people.”

GE’s Steam Power Systems has more than a century in steam expertise and has installed 320 gigawatts of power across the globe with all fuels available-from coal to nuclear energy to biomass. To respond to the continuous and increasing energy demand, GE’s Steam Power Systems offers a wide portfolio from component to full turnkey power plants and stands by its partners with full services activities to maintain the equipment.

Malakoff is an independent water and power producer (IPP) with core focuses on power generation, water desalination and operation and maintenance services. In Malaysia, Malakoff is the largest IPP with a net generating capacity of 6,346 MW from six power plants.
About GE
GE (NYSE: GE) is the world’s Digital Industrial Company, transforming industry with software-defined machines and solutions that are connected, responsive and predictive. GE is organized around a global exchange of knowledge, the "GE Store," through which each business shares and accesses the same technology, markets, structure and intellect. Each invention further fuels innovation and application across our industrial sectors. With people, services, technology and scale, GE delivers better outcomes for customers by speaking the language of industry. www.ge.com
About GE Power
GE Power is a world leader in power generation with deep domain expertise to help customers deliver electricity from a wide spectrum of fuel sources. We are transforming the electricity industry with the digital power plant, the world’s largest and most efficient gas turbine, full balance of plant, upgrade and service solutions as well as our data-leveraging software. Our innovative technologies and digital offerings help make power more affordable, reliable, accessible and sustainable.
For more information, visit the company's website at www.gepower.com. Follow GE Power on Twitter @GE_Power and on LinkedIn at GE Power.
Katie Jackson
GE Power
katie.jackson@ge.com
+1 518 385 5976
Katja Antila
GE Capital
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026799
Katja Antila
GE Steam Power Systems
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026300
BUSINESS UNIT
GE Power
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
  • facebook share
  • twitter share
  • linkedin share
  • mail share

  • New Plant to Provide Additional 1,000 Megawatts to the Local Grid, Enough Energy for Nearly 2 Million People
  • Four-Year €1 Billion Project Completed by a Global Consortium of GE, Mudajaya and Shin Eversendai
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA-March 21, 2016-GE (NYSE: GE) announced today that as part of a contract worth over €1 billion, Malakoff Corporation Berhad’s (Malakoff) 1,000-megawatt (MW) Tanjung Bin Energy Power Plant (T4) has entered commercial operation on schedule. GE’s Steam Power Systems, together with its consortium partners Mudajaya and Shin Eversenda, has executed the engineering, procurement and construction agreement for the plant. The ultra-supercritical, coal-fired power plant, which commenced construction in March 2012, was completed on schedule in four years.
GE was the leader of the consortium, engineered and supplied key equipment and was responsible for the overall integration and commissioning of the plant. The plant operates on GE’s most modern steam turbine and generator technology, its ultra-supercritical boiler and GE’s proprietary environmental control systems. The emissions at the plant are significantly reduced through the use of low NOx burners, a highly efficient seawater flue gas desulphurization facility and fabric filters to lower nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide and dust emissions.
“GE’s highly efficient technology solution implemented at our T4 plant is helping us to ensure the generation of affordable electricity at lower environmental impact,” said Habib Husin, acting CEO, Malakoff Corporation Berhad. “This ultra-supercritical plant will deliver an additional 1,000 MW to the grid.”

“GE’s Steam Power Systems pioneered ultra-supercritical steam generation and is today one of the technology leaders in advanced and ultra-supercritical technology. This technology has achieved efficiencies up to 47 percent-above the global average rate of existing power plants of around 30 percent-lowering fuel consumption and emissions. Each additional percentage point in efficiency reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 2 to 3 percent,” said Andreas Lusch, CEO, GE’s Steam Power Systems. “This project is another example of GE’s commitment to the development of energy mix diversification in the region. The plant provides enough energy to power 2 million people.”

GE’s Steam Power Systems has more than a century in steam expertise and has installed 320 gigawatts of power across the globe with all fuels available-from coal to nuclear energy to biomass. To respond to the continuous and increasing energy demand, GE’s Steam Power Systems offers a wide portfolio from component to full turnkey power plants and stands by its partners with full services activities to maintain the equipment.

Malakoff is an independent water and power producer (IPP) with core focuses on power generation, water desalination and operation and maintenance services. In Malaysia, Malakoff is the largest IPP with a net generating capacity of 6,346 MW from six power plants.
About GE
GE (NYSE: GE) is the world’s Digital Industrial Company, transforming industry with software-defined machines and solutions that are connected, responsive and predictive. GE is organized around a global exchange of knowledge, the "GE Store," through which each business shares and accesses the same technology, markets, structure and intellect. Each invention further fuels innovation and application across our industrial sectors. With people, services, technology and scale, GE delivers better outcomes for customers by speaking the language of industry. www.ge.com
About GE Power
GE Power is a world leader in power generation with deep domain expertise to help customers deliver electricity from a wide spectrum of fuel sources. We are transforming the electricity industry with the digital power plant, the world’s largest and most efficient gas turbine, full balance of plant, upgrade and service solutions as well as our data-leveraging software. Our innovative technologies and digital offerings help make power more affordable, reliable, accessible and sustainable.
For more information, visit the company's website at www.gepower.com. Follow GE Power on Twitter @GE_Power and on LinkedIn at GE Power.
Katie Jackson
GE Power
katie.jackson@ge.com
+1 518 385 5976
Katja Antila
GE Capital
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026799
Katja Antila
GE Steam Power Systems
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026300
BUSINESS UNIT
GE Power
Okay, let's take a look. The location has coal. It doesn't have Natural Gas. And the cost of building and operating a NG plant is many times cheaper than that coal plant. Some countries can't deforest in order to do Solar and Wind. But if that country had the option to buy NG from the US, they would in a heart beat because it does a cleaner and cheaper job. I know the system isn't as clean as a NG power plant. They left out the Scrubbers which reduces most of the nasty chemicals down to that of the NG plant.

Maybe they didn't have a real choice. But that's no reason that the US needs to have to make that choice.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
  • facebook share
  • twitter share
  • linkedin share
  • mail share

  • New Plant to Provide Additional 1,000 Megawatts to the Local Grid, Enough Energy for Nearly 2 Million People
  • Four-Year €1 Billion Project Completed by a Global Consortium of GE, Mudajaya and Shin Eversendai
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA-March 21, 2016-GE (NYSE: GE) announced today that as part of a contract worth over €1 billion, Malakoff Corporation Berhad’s (Malakoff) 1,000-megawatt (MW) Tanjung Bin Energy Power Plant (T4) has entered commercial operation on schedule. GE’s Steam Power Systems, together with its consortium partners Mudajaya and Shin Eversenda, has executed the engineering, procurement and construction agreement for the plant. The ultra-supercritical, coal-fired power plant, which commenced construction in March 2012, was completed on schedule in four years.
GE was the leader of the consortium, engineered and supplied key equipment and was responsible for the overall integration and commissioning of the plant. The plant operates on GE’s most modern steam turbine and generator technology, its ultra-supercritical boiler and GE’s proprietary environmental control systems. The emissions at the plant are significantly reduced through the use of low NOx burners, a highly efficient seawater flue gas desulphurization facility and fabric filters to lower nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide and dust emissions.
“GE’s highly efficient technology solution implemented at our T4 plant is helping us to ensure the generation of affordable electricity at lower environmental impact,” said Habib Husin, acting CEO, Malakoff Corporation Berhad. “This ultra-supercritical plant will deliver an additional 1,000 MW to the grid.”

“GE’s Steam Power Systems pioneered ultra-supercritical steam generation and is today one of the technology leaders in advanced and ultra-supercritical technology. This technology has achieved efficiencies up to 47 percent-above the global average rate of existing power plants of around 30 percent-lowering fuel consumption and emissions. Each additional percentage point in efficiency reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 2 to 3 percent,” said Andreas Lusch, CEO, GE’s Steam Power Systems. “This project is another example of GE’s commitment to the development of energy mix diversification in the region. The plant provides enough energy to power 2 million people.”

GE’s Steam Power Systems has more than a century in steam expertise and has installed 320 gigawatts of power across the globe with all fuels available-from coal to nuclear energy to biomass. To respond to the continuous and increasing energy demand, GE’s Steam Power Systems offers a wide portfolio from component to full turnkey power plants and stands by its partners with full services activities to maintain the equipment.

Malakoff is an independent water and power producer (IPP) with core focuses on power generation, water desalination and operation and maintenance services. In Malaysia, Malakoff is the largest IPP with a net generating capacity of 6,346 MW from six power plants.
About GE
GE (NYSE: GE) is the world’s Digital Industrial Company, transforming industry with software-defined machines and solutions that are connected, responsive and predictive. GE is organized around a global exchange of knowledge, the "GE Store," through which each business shares and accesses the same technology, markets, structure and intellect. Each invention further fuels innovation and application across our industrial sectors. With people, services, technology and scale, GE delivers better outcomes for customers by speaking the language of industry. www.ge.com
About GE Power
GE Power is a world leader in power generation with deep domain expertise to help customers deliver electricity from a wide spectrum of fuel sources. We are transforming the electricity industry with the digital power plant, the world’s largest and most efficient gas turbine, full balance of plant, upgrade and service solutions as well as our data-leveraging software. Our innovative technologies and digital offerings help make power more affordable, reliable, accessible and sustainable.
For more information, visit the company's website at www.gepower.com. Follow GE Power on Twitter @GE_Power and on LinkedIn at GE Power.
Katie Jackson
GE Power
katie.jackson@ge.com
+1 518 385 5976
Katja Antila
GE Capital
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026799
Katja Antila
GE Steam Power Systems
katja.antila@ge.com
+44 207 3026300
BUSINESS UNIT
GE Power
Okay, let's take a look. The location has coal. It doesn't have Natural Gas. And the cost of building and operating a NG plant is many times cheaper than that coal plant. Some countries can't deforest in order to do Solar and Wind. But if that country had the option to buy NG from the US, they would in a heart beat because it does a cleaner and cheaper job. I know the system isn't as clean as a NG power plant. They left out the Scrubbers which reduces most of the nasty chemicals down to that of the NG plant.

Maybe they didn't have a real choice. But that's no reason that the US needs to have to make that choice.
It is not that clear NG is cleaner than coal.
While coal releases a lot more when burned, NG releases far more when fracking, transporting, etc.
With coal, you just dig it up and pile it up.
It just sits there till you need it.
NG is constantly under pressure and escaping, causing much more harm per calorie than coal does.
NG is about 20 times the greenhouse gas as CO2 is.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.

And if you look at the Great Depression, one of the main causes has always been shown to be a series of trade war, protective tariffs, that greatly reduced trade.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
That is easy to prove.
What made the US suddenly so prosperous after WWII?
It was selling all those goods to Europe for their reconstruction after the war.
When you sell goods to another country, the money can permanently stay in your country and everyone in your country benefits from that.

The US invented lots of things like semiconductors, consumer electronics, etc., that made us wealthy.
Selling to each other inside the US does not increase the wealth in the US.
You have to sell outside the US in order to do that.

Why are we no longer doing that?
Because US companies decided to offshore to lower labor costs.
And that is bad because then the money goes to employees who are not in the US, and their purchases do not help our economy.
So we have to end that with trade agreements more in our favor.
We need trade agreements that punish offshoring.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
That is easy to prove.
What made the US suddenly so prosperous after WWII?
It was selling all those goods to Europe for their reconstruction after the war.
When you sell goods to another country, the money can permanently stay in your country and everyone in your country benefits from that.

The US invented lots of things like semiconductors, consumer electronics, etc., that made us wealthy.
Selling to each other inside the US does not increase the wealth in the US.
You have to sell outside the US in order to do that.

Why are we no longer doing that?
Because US companies decided to offshore to lower labor costs.
And that is bad because then the money goes to employees who are not in the US, and their purchases do not help our economy.
So we have to end that with trade agreements more in our favor.
We need trade agreements that punish offshoring.
.....no no no --you said the Accords/treaties are advantageous--what treaties are you talking about?
......we couldn't sell rice to Japan, but they sold ALL kinds of crap to the US!!! fkd over our auto industry
etc
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
That is easy to prove.
What made the US suddenly so prosperous after WWII?
It was selling all those goods to Europe for their reconstruction after the war.
When you sell goods to another country, the money can permanently stay in your country and everyone in your country benefits from that.

The US invented lots of things like semiconductors, consumer electronics, etc., that made us wealthy.
Selling to each other inside the US does not increase the wealth in the US.
You have to sell outside the US in order to do that.

Why are we no longer doing that?
Because US companies decided to offshore to lower labor costs.
And that is bad because then the money goes to employees who are not in the US, and their purchases do not help our economy.
So we have to end that with trade agreements more in our favor.
We need trade agreements that punish offshoring.
.....no no no --you said the Accords/treaties are advantageous--what treaties are you talking about?
......we couldn't sell rice to Japan, but they sold ALL kinds of crap to the US!!! fkd over our auto industry
etc
Without treaties or accords, then no one can sell anything to anyone.
Being able to sell somethings both ways is an improvement.
But if you mean that a one way deal, where only one gets to sell and the other does not, then I agree that is bad.
But we should be able to negotiate agreements to our advantage since we have such a large and lucrative market, as well as specialized products.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,481
Points
1,560
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
That is easy to prove.
What made the US suddenly so prosperous after WWII?
It was selling all those goods to Europe for their reconstruction after the war.
When you sell goods to another country, the money can permanently stay in your country and everyone in your country benefits from that.

The US invented lots of things like semiconductors, consumer electronics, etc., that made us wealthy.
Selling to each other inside the US does not increase the wealth in the US.
You have to sell outside the US in order to do that.

Why are we no longer doing that?
Because US companies decided to offshore to lower labor costs.
And that is bad because then the money goes to employees who are not in the US, and their purchases do not help our economy.
So we have to end that with trade agreements more in our favor.
We need trade agreements that punish offshoring.
.....no no no --you said the Accords/treaties are advantageous--what treaties are you talking about?
......we couldn't sell rice to Japan, but they sold ALL kinds of crap to the US!!! fkd over our auto industry
etc
Without treaties or accords, then no one can sell anything to anyone.
Being able to sell somethings both ways is an improvement.
But if you mean that a one way deal, where only one gets to sell and the other does not, then I agree that is bad.
But we should be able to negotiate agreements to our advantage since we have such a large and lucrative market, as well as specialized products.
--- the Paris Accords is not a TRADE agreement!
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,757
Reaction score
2,062
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...most of these treaties/accords/etc are bullshit for the US...and cost the US tax $$$$--and we get nothing
Not really.
If you actually look at these treaties, what they appear to be is limits on pollution, but those actually are totally voluntary, and their real result is that since the US has decades of expertise to do these things more cleanly than anyone else, the end result would be to shift more manufacturing back to the US. In effect, these treaties allow us to sell our expertise in clean production. Greatly advantageous to the US economy.
yes--really ...treaties are usually shit for the US
No, because the US not only has more expertise and can negotiate or maneuver the treaties to our advantage, but also can use other pressures, like bribes, extortion, etc.
The only big flub I can think of is NAFTA, which failed because Mexico uses VAT taxes after the sale, and use income taxes before the sale. That meant things made in Mexico and sold in the US paid no taxes, while things made in the US and sold in Mexico payed double taxes.

I looked at the Paris Accord and previous ones like Kyoto, and we would have greatly benefited.
hahhahahahahahhahah
ok, if you say so
hahahahhahahahahah
AND, you prove my point by admitting NAFTA sucks for the US
It would not have been hard for NAFT to have been fixed.
People selling Mexican products could have been required to collect a VAT tax when sold in the US, or US products sold in Mexico could have been exempt from US taxes.
There were lots of easy fixes.
But the point is the treaties prevent protective tariffs, and increase total production, benefitting all with economy of scale.
The more trade the better.
That is why trade routes always prosper and everyone tries to live on a trade route if they can.
The whole cause of ancient civilization in the eastern Mediterranean was the ease of trade.
More trade decreases prices while improving expertise and quality.
...you say it would be advantageous for the US--that's just your opinion ...you can't prove it
Trade has always been inherently more efficient.
Instead of every one having to build the facilities to product both A and B, if one country just produced A and the other country produced B and they trade, then you save half of your infrastructure costs.
Once you have the infrastructure built, then how much you produce from it does not raise the cost very much.
The greater the production the lower the over head cost per unit.
Basic economy of scale.
Always well known and proven.
Even more true if different regions have specialized skills, resources, climates, etc.
unfair trade is not efficient
Depends on if you get the advantage or the other guy gets it?
Lets say you predicted the use of lithium for batteries and bought up all the world wide supplies.
Having a monopoly on something of such need allows you to set unfair prices.
But that certainly us efficient for you.
Just not good for everyone else.

So not only is fair trade good for you, but unfair trade can be if you are on winning side.
The only problem is if you are on the losing side of unfair trade, and that can always be fixed.
The US is powerful and smart enough where we should ensure we always benefit.
And we can also decide to be nice and benefit the other guy as well, if we want to.
....you made the claim it would be advantageous to the US...either prove it or it's just your opinion
That is easy to prove.
What made the US suddenly so prosperous after WWII?
It was selling all those goods to Europe for their reconstruction after the war.
When you sell goods to another country, the money can permanently stay in your country and everyone in your country benefits from that.

The US invented lots of things like semiconductors, consumer electronics, etc., that made us wealthy.
Selling to each other inside the US does not increase the wealth in the US.
You have to sell outside the US in order to do that.

Why are we no longer doing that?
Because US companies decided to offshore to lower labor costs.
And that is bad because then the money goes to employees who are not in the US, and their purchases do not help our economy.
So we have to end that with trade agreements more in our favor.
We need trade agreements that punish offshoring.
.....no no no --you said the Accords/treaties are advantageous--what treaties are you talking about?
......we couldn't sell rice to Japan, but they sold ALL kinds of crap to the US!!! fkd over our auto industry
etc
Without treaties or accords, then no one can sell anything to anyone.
Being able to sell somethings both ways is an improvement.
But if you mean that a one way deal, where only one gets to sell and the other does not, then I agree that is bad.
But we should be able to negotiate agreements to our advantage since we have such a large and lucrative market, as well as specialized products.
--- the Paris Accords is not a TRADE agreement!
From what I have read, it is a trade agreement.
In the attempt to reduce emissions, then those who do that well get more trade.
Reducing emissions is voluntary, but countries that do it are then rewarded with being able to sell more.
Countries that can't reduce emissions because they do not have the technology, then are encouraged to buy more from countries that can, like the US. So it increases the sale of our products.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top