Occupy Wall Street?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mgoforth said:
Whether you agree with the growing protest movement in America (and the world) or not, they will likely continue and get even bigger.

Some unpleasant facts about our world (Don’t believe me? Then you probably haven’t researched it enough):
  1. We have run out of cheap oil. Believe it. That’s what peak oil is about, not running out of oil but rather not being able to afford the oil.
  2. Our economies are completely dependent on cheap oil and alternatives would take something like 20 years for a healthy economy to develop and fully implement. Talk about a major catch-22.
  3. A lack of cheap energy is THE root cause of our current economic troubles. Yes there is too much debt, but if the economy was growing that wouldn’t be a problem. The economy can’t grow without cheap oil…see #2.
  4. There is no economic “work-around” or “fix” for this. The economy is not a problem to be solved at this point in the game, it’s terminally broken. Without cheap oil, it’s dead. Case in point: Europe. They’ve been in trouble for a year and a half and are no closer to any “solution”…in fact it gets worse by the day. Unfortunately, Europe is done. The U.S. and the rest of the world will follow.
  5. When our economies go south, people will get angry. This is natural, and the better your lifestyle before the upcoming collapse, the further you have to fall and the more angry you are likely to be. America and Europe will likely become more violent than what we saw in the Mid East this spring because we have more material wealth to lose.
Say a prayer for our world…we’re going to need it very soon.

Check out www.chrismartenson.com and www.zerohedge.com if you want to REALLY understand what this is all about.
Click to expand...
Good stuff. I’ve done a lot of reading on economic and business and political topics over the years, and it consistently points to the oil problems beginning in 1973 as a real turning point for America. We need a non-oil future. . . but how to get there?

While all this is happening, we try to maintain a declining standard of living by sending wives into the workforce. . . and then adding debt and debt. Unsustainable trajectory.
 
mgoforth said:
I assume you meant to say “…people did not get into trouble with their mortgages…”? Yes, some did. You really give the average American a lot of credit for making good financial decisions, Nate. I’m sure there were plenty of people who missed a mortgage payment “just to get through the month”…precisely so they wouldn’t have to shut off the cable, and because they probably didn’t understand that it placed them in default. They probably didn’t know what default meant. You’re telling me that the same country which watches a show called “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader” is full of people who understand financial contracts…please, Nate. MANY people skipped that mortgage payment and thought they would be allowed to make it up, with some penalty, the next month.

But the real kick in the pants was that rising gas prices in '08 hit small businesses hard, and they were forced to layoff some employees…at that point it’s not a question of paying the cable or the mortgage. Neither is getting paid. Cue economic contraction.

You don’t have to buy my explanation, I was just replying to your statements that debt was the root cause of the problem and that high oil prices don’t affect the economy. Those are both popular points of view, but I don’t think they hold up to analysis very well.
Click to expand...
Actually all of this really is downstream of the initial problem. The problem was loans being given out for houses with almost no money down and to people who couldn’t afford them. These people were dependent on the economy continuing to excel even to just barely be staying afloat. Please explain how the legislation that was passed to make banks give all these people loans for houses they couldn’t afford, is tied to oil.
 
mgoforth said:
Shale oil may be plentiful, but cheap? I thought maybe you were kidding until you kept posting it. Do you work for them or something? Shale oil is NOT cheap compared to conventional crude oil. Neither are the tar sands. Neither is getting crude from offshore or the arctic. Cheap is what we had for 100 years…you drill a hole on dry land and the oil flows out. That’s what our economy is dependent on, not shale.

From Wikipedia:

"According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of [shale] oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels."

That certainly doesn’t sound like a “cheap” solution to me. That’s not to say that it won’t continue, but at those prices it won’t make gas at the pump any cheaper.

And to your earlier point,** it’s not about cheap energy**. It’s just what I said, cheap oil. You need oil to power your car, or container ships or 18-wheelers. Without oil, nothing much will get transported. You can’t fill up your car with just any old “energy”, it has to be gasoline. Having plenty of coal or shale or natural gas won’t do you much good without cheap oil as well.

Google “liquid fuel crisis”.
Click to expand...
**There is a radical difference between shale oil and oil shale. Fully explained previously … here is the repost … a MUST READ if you are a serious poster:
**
Aug 18, '11, 8:33 am

KostyaJMJ
Regular Member

Re: Bachmann: I’ll get gas under $2

Quote:
The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
**ANWR is not shale oil.

So discussion of shale oil costs with respect to ANWR is irrelevant.
I didn’t mean that ANWR was shale only that it was expensive to produce, and delivering it to market is fraught with risks so it is only profitable when oil is high. If the cost of a barrel of oil were to drop I imagine that oil companies would go towards more profitable, easily accessible reservoirs and produce in ANWR in the future when oil is high again. **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
**A shale well costs around $5 million.

So the break-even per barrel cost depends on how long the well lasts. And how much oil they get out of it.

The earlier estimates of what percent of the total recovery they get has jumped substantially, so the volume is way up. The decline rates have gotten much better. All of the technology improves every month with new innovations.

Almost all of the natural gas for the whole East Coast of the U.S. is being provided by only a few hundred wells in Pennsylvania. There is so much natural gas that the price has dropped by more than 50%, and the natural gas companies are still drilling and still connecting up wells to the major pipelines. The big problem now is finding more customers. And they are doing that … but putting in the distribution pipelines takes time. NYC has now two huge electric generators that use natural gas … one in Brooklyn and one in Bayonne, NJ. Distribution mains are going in everywhere. And at least one pipe factory has reopened (in Ohio).
**
 
Cut for length, but it addresses the issues you raised:

#40
Aug 18, '11, 10:27 am
Monte RCMS
Senior Member

Join Date: November 9, 2008
Posts: 6,545
Re: Bachmann: I’ll get gas under $2
*Quote:
Originally Posted by KostyaJMJ

Oil shale may indeed be profitable and bring thousands of jobs to the US but it will not bring enough oil to the global market to significantly reduce the price of a barrel of oil. If Bachmann wants to influence the market for oil she will have to come up with another plan.

"According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels. The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. "*

**Oil shale and shale oil are two totally different things.

However that actually applies only to Canadian oil shale and a failed Colorado project … more like Canadian tar sands. And to certain shale that needs to be dug up and heated.

This article describes the difference between oil shale and shale oil.

But they are two totally absoutely different geologies and “processes”.

Please read this article:

The Difference Between Oil Shale and Shale Oil

seekingalpha.com/article/175771-the-difference-between-oil-shale-and-shale-oil

That is NOT the way they extract shale oil in North Dakota or other stateside places.

The shale in North Dakota merely needs to be drilled and fractured to put paper thin cracks in the rock. And then the oil or natural gas just flows naturally.

Oil shale in North Dakota:

money.cnn.com/2011/03/04/news/economy/oil_shale_bakken/index.htm

We don’t use retorts to heat sand or shale that they dig up, the way they do in Canada. The tar sands or oil shale oil is extremely messy and we don’t do that in the U.S.

So, the article should be retitled or been made clearer. … sort of as “tar sands” oil. Or something similar.

With tar sands and oil shale, they dig up the stuff and run it through a messy energy intensive process.

Not the same process as Bakken or other shale oil.

ANWR oil is basic Oil 101. Nothing risky at all. No more risky than developing oil at Prudhoe Bay and pumping it 800 miles to Valdez.

Sorry. But the link and the article are not applicable to this discussion.

Oil developed in the U.S. would likely stay in the U.S. the same way that natural gas in the U.S. would stay in the U.S. While the international price could affect the local price, the fact that so much energy is locally produced would be a bigger factor.

Natural gas is being sold within the United States at rock bottom prices and affects energy prices locally … and causes local prices for energy to drop to rock bottom prices.

And only a relative handful of natural gas wells in Pennsylvania is totally dominating natural gas markets in both the Eastern and Southwestern United States with super low cost energy.

IN ADDITION, natural gas/ methane can be converted to methanol … a liquid at room temperature … and burned in cars and trucks. And the free market cost is half of gasoline’s cost on an energy specific basis.

Read www.energyvictory.net and also www.methanol.org All they would need is to have conventional automobiles and trucks be modified to burn the methanol. Very easy to do.

In order to compete locally, ALL energy would need to drop to meet the local natural gas price.

Vehicle fleets are already converting from diesel fuel to compressed natural gas.

That causes the localized price for diesel to drop somewhat. As more and more natural gas markets are developed, ALL local energy prices will be forced to drop and that will cause gasoline and diesel to drop.

The Federal government is working to prohibit use of natural gas for vehicles by requiring exorbitant certifications for conversion kits … for EACH AND EVERY SEPARATE APPLICATION.**
 
Apologies if my repost came out sloppy.

Was trying to combine two posts in response to KostyaJMJ on August 18th regarding the same question you raised.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
If you seriously want to learn about fracking shale to get natural gas and about the falsehoods with the movie “Gasland”, please read through this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564249&highlight=oil%2Bshale

The arguments contained in the movie Gasland have been refuted many times.
Click to expand...
There is a helpful critique of the movie Gasland on this Web site:

anga.us/srdlanding

Here is the direct link:

anga.us/links–resources/the-truth-about-gasland
 
Monte_RCMS said:
There is a helpful critique of the movie Gasland on this Web site:

anga.us/srdlanding

Here is the direct link:

anga.us/links–resources/the-truth-about-gasland
Click to expand...
The movie “Gasland” revolves around the situation of methane gas in the water wells.

The “inconvenient problem” is that there has been methane gas in the water supply of the area of the southern New York State counties to northern Pennsylvania counties for all of recorded history … written about since the early 1800’s. Children of all ages have been setting it on fire with great hilarity for at least 200 years. This is also the region where oil was first discovered in the United States; it just bubbles to the surface.

The water wells are shallow … a couple of hundred feet. The Marcellus Shale natural gas wells go down 5000 feet; deep.

A very few people blame the natural gas companies for methane in the water.

There are some alleged issues … that Cabot failed to seal the drill bore properly.

Anyway, as of today, here is the latest: … from a CBS presentation …

November 02, 2011, … the Early Show the last couple mornings? There were segments on Tues. and Wed. on drilling and fracking in Marcellus country. Aubrey handled the questions thrown at him quite well,imo, the two ladies Knapp and French are touring the country as anti drilling. What struck me was both signed leases, then when weren’t drilled on, switched sides and are against drilling, i thought it was done nonbiased, nothing from Dimock but did show the Leroy incedent.

“The real issue here is not safety,” he continued. “It’s about a very vocal minority of Dimock residents who continue to demand that taxpayers should foot the bill for a nearly $12 million public waterline along Route 29 to serve about a dozen homes.”

Glad you pointed out that it is about greed.

After reading the following comment I am now more aware of what is going on there.
Carter Road has 15 homes on it. 9 homes use their wells. 3 have treatment systems. Of the other homes one well provides water to two homes. 1 of the homes that uses it's well is in litigation. Recently one home became vacant and the owner was very quick to get someone to move into it. If it was that bad would you want someone to move into it? If all these people cared about the environment wouldn't they have taken treatment systems to clean up the water? If there is no other answer then maybe you'd put in a 12 mill dollar pipeline. If the water can be used then it should be. Haven't you all seen thru this yet it's all about money. These people have a massive lawyer bill to pay and they want someone else to pay it for them. The water needs to stop. Pick up the water buffalos and take them away. When that happens if all these people who need them so bad don't move then you will see the truth comes out. If it's so bad here then they will leave. They were already given twice the assessed value of their homes it waits in an escrow acct. for them. They have also been offered cash in the amt. of the assessed value for their homes.That's three times the amt. it's worth. Do they really think they are going to get 3-5 mill.$? One family has stated numerous times that they want to move so badly it's a toxic wasteland. They've said they want to move to Tenn. then it was Fla. They have every sign in their yard but a for sale sign. A real big one says Make Cabot Pay. You tell me who is greedy?
 
Monte,

I appreciate your enthusiasm for shale and honestly I hope it works out as you say. I have 3 young children, so trust me I don’t want to see them grow up with a lower standard of living than I had…but I’m convinced that is going to be the case.

Let’s assume for a minute that shale oil can be produced for a low cost. What are the proven reserves of the “good stuff” here in the US (in barrels, not years)? What is the likely extraction rate? And probably most importantly, what’s the EROEI?

As for converting cars to run on methane, even if the average American could afford a conversion right now (I don’t believe they can when we have 47+ million on food stamps and rising each month), where are they going to fill up? Where I live there are no methane pumps at the gas stations. So you’re also talking about re-fitting the entire distribution network…very pricey.

Like I said, I hope you end up being right but I’m afraid I wouldn’t put my money on it at this point.
 
Nate13 said:
Actually all of this really is downstream of the initial problem. The problem was loans being given out for houses with almost no money down and to people who couldn’t afford them. These people were dependent on the economy continuing to excel even to just barely be staying afloat. Please explain how the legislation that was passed to make banks give all these people loans for houses they couldn’t afford, is tied to oil.
Click to expand...
Nate, I agree that the debt situation got completely out of control. A financial collapse is definitely what will bring down our country. I wouldn’t say that the bad legislation and bad lending practices were “tied to oil”…I just mean that the price of oil rising is the straw that broke this camel’s back. Buying gas is an absolutely mandatory cost for most Americans if they want to get to work, the grocery store, etc. Not to mention that oil prices directly affect the price of food…also mandatory for most of us. Transportation costs definitely affect business profits too. So when gas prices go up, that exposes the weakness in our financial system.

I would say, however, that one reason such stupid legislation ever got passed in the first place was the assumption that economic growth would continue at an exponential rate forever. Like you said, “These people were dependent on the economy continuing to excel even to just barely be staying afloat.” I think that’s 100% correct and our politicians are really no smarter than the average American who got his/herself into a mortgage they couldn’t afford. Nearly everyone thought exponential growth would continue forever…that’s one reason most people were so surprised when the market tanked back in '08 and are still surprised that Europe can’t seem to be fixed today or that our unemployment rate is still at 9% after 2 years of “recovery”. Continued exponential growth is simply not possible when it’s dependent on exploiting finite natural resources.

Back to the original point of this thread though, I think understanding what’s causing the economy to die and the protests to grow is important because it might help us accurately predict what’s coming next. The US is headed for a situation like 1920’s Germany. Our economy will continue to crumble, with minor rebound periods that will feel like the “old growth” for maybe a few months or quarters. But the overall trajectory from here is down…we are passed our peak. That idea is very hard for Americans (especially the Boomer generation) to accept.

As those people who can’t accept the facts grow more frustrated, they will probably end up electing a “strong leader” (if our broken political parties can even find such a person anymore) who promises to fix our problems and restore America to its former glory, in return for even more control of everything at the federal level. Also, the super-committee style agreement that was used for the debt ceiling will probably become more normal because people are already sick of all the bickering in Congress. We’re moving toward a fascist level of control where we’ll give more and more power to smaller and smaller groups, as long as something actually gets done.

To me, that’s a scary future because it certainly won’t solve the underlying problem (which I believe is not “solvable” at this point without significant pain for many decades), and of course we all know what happened in 1930’s Germany. I’m not even referring to the Holocaust, just the type of police state society they lived in. Not looking forward to that personally. And for those who don’t believe we already live in a police state, take a look at the police response to these Occupy protesters. They’re being met with tear-gas, batons and rubber bullets…hey, aren’t those the same tactics our President denounced in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, etc? And the protesters aren’t even calling for any government officials to step down…yet. But I guess it’s ok somehow for our police to brutally crack down on free speech. Those dirty protesters must have been asking for it with all the drum playing and chanting…
 
mgoforth said:
Monte,

I appreciate your enthusiasm for shale and honestly I hope it works out as you say. I have 3 young children, so trust me I don’t want to see them grow up with a lower standard of living than I had…but I’m convinced that is going to be the case.

Let’s assume for a minute that shale oil can be produced for a low cost. What are the proven reserves of the “good stuff” here in the US (in barrels, not years)? What is the likely extraction rate? And probably most importantly, what’s the EROEI?

As for converting cars to run on methane, even if the average American could afford a conversion right now (I don’t believe they can when we have 47+ million on food stamps and rising each month), where are they going to fill up? Where I live there are no methane pumps at the gas stations. So you’re also talking about re-fitting the entire distribution network…very pricey.

Like I said, I hope you end up being right but I’m afraid I wouldn’t put my money on it at this point.
Click to expand...
I guess I didn’t make it clear.

If you are in the midwest USA, you probably are already using gasoline from oil from shale in your car.

Shale oil and oil shale are two different things entirely.

Shale oil is produced by digging up shale and heating it to get the tarry stuff out and treating it and sending it to refineries. It is produced in Canada which exports it to the United States.

Oil from oil shale has been in production in North Dakota [and many other states] for several years already. North Dakota already accounts for about 8% of U.S. oil production. It does not require any heating. You drill down about one to two miles, depending on the specific rock formation, and then drill horizontally. Using sophisticated 3-D seismic studies, you drill horizontally directly through the thickness of the shale formation for a mile or so horizontally. Then you perforate the drill pipe based on the locations you want to tap into and pump in high pressure water and some “sand” [which may be made of glass … to prop open the cracks] to introduce paper thin cracks which releases the oil (and/or natural gas) from the pores of the shale. The natural gas then flows freely into the gathering lines and major pipelines to market … or is transported by train or truck to refineries, depending on the specifics of the operation.

The water from hydraulic fracturing is now being reclaimed and reused; as they get more experience, the technology improves … innovations are occurring every couple of weeks based on experience.

Year over year, production of North Dakota oil from shale is increasing at about 30% per year.

If you live in the eastern half of the United States and use natural gas, most likely it is natural gas from shale from only three or four counties of Pennsylvania.

CNG vehicles are in use already. They have been for some time, but it looks like UPS and other fleet operators are switching over.

Methanol made from methane is a free-mareket, unsubsidized, low-cost substitute for the very expensive, heavily subsidized corn-based ethanol that you are already using.

Because methanol does not require subsidies, the ethanol lobby has been fighting it for a number of years. However, methanol is an effective substitute for both ethanol and for gasoline. Visit www.energyvictory.net and www.methanol.org for more details on availability and the specifications for Flex Fuel Vehicles which use ANY mixture of gasoline, ethanol, and/or methanol … Could be 100% methanol or 100% gasoline or any mixture.
 
estesbob said:
Gasland is about as accurate as Gores “Inconvenient Truth”

energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread724358/pg1

nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...
The “Energyindepth.org” site is funded by oil and gas companies, through the “Independent Petroleum Association of America”, hardly an impartial commentary; and the NYT article you linked points this out, while it supports many of the facts presented in Gasland.
 
Ella said:
The “Energyindepth.org” site is funded by oil and gas companies, through the “Independent Petroleum Association of America”, hardly an impartial commentary; and the NYT article you linked points this out, while it supports many of the facts presented in Gasland.
Click to expand...
All I can suggest then to you is for you to drive to Dimock, Pennsylvania and witness for yourself the deliberate falsehoods contained in “Gasland”.
 
mgoforth said:
Nate, I agree that the debt situation got completely out of control. A financial collapse is definitely what will bring down our country. I wouldn’t say that the bad legislation and bad lending practices were “tied to oil”…I just mean that the price of oil rising is the straw that broke this camel’s back. Buying gas is an absolutely mandatory cost for most Americans if they want to get to work, the grocery store, etc. Not to mention that oil prices directly affect the price of food…also mandatory for most of us. Transportation costs definitely affect business profits too. So when gas prices go up, that exposes the weakness in our financial system.

I would say, however, that one reason such stupid legislation ever got passed in the first place was the assumption that economic growth would continue at an exponential rate forever. Like you said, “These people were dependent on the economy continuing to excel even to just barely be staying afloat.” I think that’s 100% correct and our politicians are really no smarter than the average American who got his/herself into a mortgage they couldn’t afford. Nearly everyone thought exponential growth would continue forever….that’s one reason most people were so surprised when the market tanked back in '08 and are still surprised that Europe can’t seem to be fixed today or that our unemployment rate is still at 9% after 2 years of “recovery”. Continued exponential growth is simply not possible when it’s dependent on exploiting finite natural resources.

Back to the original point of this thread though, I think understanding what’s causing the economy to die and the protests to grow is important because it might help us accurately predict what’s coming next. The US is headed for a situation like 1920’s Germany. Our economy will continue to crumble, with minor rebound periods that will feel like the “old growth” for maybe a few months or quarters. But the overall trajectory from here is down…we are passed our peak. That idea is very hard for Americans (especially the Boomer generation) to accept.

As those people who can’t accept the facts grow more frustrated, they will probably end up electing a “strong leader” (if our broken political parties can even find such a person anymore) who promises to fix our problems and restore America to its former glory, in return for even more control of everything at the federal level. Also, the super-committee style agreement that was used for the debt ceiling will probably become more normal because people are already sick of all the bickering in Congress. We’re moving toward a fascist level of control where we’ll give more and more power to smaller and smaller groups, as long as something actually gets done.

To me, that’s a scary future because it certainly won’t solve the underlying problem (which I believe is not “solvable” at this point without significant pain for many decades), and of course we all know what happened in 1930’s Germany. I’m not even referring to the Holocaust, just the type of police state society they lived in. Not looking forward to that personally. And for those who don’t believe we already live in a police state, take a look at the police response to these Occupy protesters. They’re being met with tear-gas, batons and rubber bullets…hey, aren’t those the same tactics our President denounced in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, etc? And the protesters aren’t even calling for any government officials to step down…yet. But I guess it’s ok somehow for our police to brutally crack down on free speech. Those dirty protesters must have been asking for it with all the drum playing and chanting…
Click to expand...
I would say that the reason was NOT that people assumed that "Nearly everyone thought exponential growth would continue forever."

The reason was purely Cloward-Piven … meaning that they KNEW it would NOT continue forever and the deliberate plan was to purposely collapse the economy.

[You DO know what Cloward-Piven is, right?]
 
Look ladies and gentlemen, the system here is corrupt. Why is it that the 1% of this nation has more wealth than the 99% of the rest put together? When you hear of distribution of wealth, people automatically call it communism and wrong, but this doesn’t seem right either. I’ve seen poor neighborhoods where the apartment buildings have signs stating chemicals in apartments are known to cause cancer. These are the cheapest apartments available for the poorest. They have no other option but to live there because that is all they can afford. Now you tell me if that is fair?
 
JUAN_DIEGO said:
Look ladies and gentlemen, the system here is corrupt. Why is it that the 1% of this nation has more wealth than the 99% of the rest put together? When you hear of distribution of wealth, people automatically call it communism and wrong, but this doesn’t seem right either. I’ve seen poor neighborhoods where the apartment buildings have signs stating chemicals in apartments are known to cause cancer. These are the cheapest apartments available for the poorest. They have no other option but to live there because that is all they can afford. Now you tell me if that is fair?
Click to expand...
Why does it matter?
 
Because we are being used, while the elite live a lavish life while the rest are put into suffering created by mankind. They don’t care about us they exploit us. Even the pharmaceutical industry is a lucrative business that makes billions of dollars out of our sickness. They do not want you cured of your diseases, because they wouldn’t make money out of you. The system is corrupt. American Cancer society is a joke.
 
JUAN_DIEGO said:
Because we are being used, while the elite live a lavish life while the rest are put into suffering created by mankind. They don’t care about us they exploit us. Even the pharmaceutical industry is a lucrative business that makes billions of dollars out of our sickness. They do not want you cured of your diseases, because they wouldn’t make money out of you. The system is corrupt. American Cancer society is a joke.
Click to expand...
So if George soros makes less that translates into everybody else making more???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top