Why is Gas at $4 a Gallon?
Conspiracy theories abound, but the soaring price of crude oil (today around $137 a barrel) is related to four more mundane forces:
(1) growing demand from developing nations, especially China and India. This is the main reason for the price rise over the last six years.
(2) the dropping dollar. As it drops, because of our trade imbalance and overall indebtedness to the rest of the world as well as our slowing economy, everything we buy from abroad -- including much of the oil we import -- costs more; everything we sell to foreigners -- including much of the oil we produce -- costs less to them. I attribute half of oil's price rise since January to this.
(3) Global investors (including, perhaps, your own pension fund) are anxious about the American economy, and looking to hedge their bets against future declines. Oil is one of the commodities that looks like a good bet. Hence, there's speculation in oil futures. This isn't a nefarious plot. It's the way the market works. A bit of a speculative bubble is forming, so beware. I attribute a big part of oil's price rise over the last few weeks to this.
(4) Instability in the Middle East. Israel's recent bellicose statements about Iran have generated fears about the continuing capacity and willingness of Middle Eastern oil producers to generate oil (about a third of world oil production). OPEC refuses to produce more. Some of oil's price rise over the last week is attributable to this.
In other words, a perfect storm. Given the US recession and slowing of European economies, I expect oil to fall to around $125 a barrel but then be pushed up by speculators and the falling dollar to around $135 over the next several weeks. Wall Street investment houses are talking about $150 by July but that's their way of stoking more speculation (in which they have a financial interest).
Bottom line: The days of cheap energy are over, folks. Gas may go down to $3.50 a gallon by this time next year, but you'd be wise to trade in your SUV for an economy car. And you'd be wise to avoid building that new addition to your home and put the money instead into better insulation.
(1) growing demand from developing nations, especially China and India. This is the main reason for the price rise over the last six years.
(2) the dropping dollar. As it drops, because of our trade imbalance and overall indebtedness to the rest of the world as well as our slowing economy, everything we buy from abroad -- including much of the oil we import -- costs more; everything we sell to foreigners -- including much of the oil we produce -- costs less to them. I attribute half of oil's price rise since January to this.
(3) Global investors (including, perhaps, your own pension fund) are anxious about the American economy, and looking to hedge their bets against future declines. Oil is one of the commodities that looks like a good bet. Hence, there's speculation in oil futures. This isn't a nefarious plot. It's the way the market works. A bit of a speculative bubble is forming, so beware. I attribute a big part of oil's price rise over the last few weeks to this.
(4) Instability in the Middle East. Israel's recent bellicose statements about Iran have generated fears about the continuing capacity and willingness of Middle Eastern oil producers to generate oil (about a third of world oil production). OPEC refuses to produce more. Some of oil's price rise over the last week is attributable to this.
In other words, a perfect storm. Given the US recession and slowing of European economies, I expect oil to fall to around $125 a barrel but then be pushed up by speculators and the falling dollar to around $135 over the next several weeks. Wall Street investment houses are talking about $150 by July but that's their way of stoking more speculation (in which they have a financial interest).
Bottom line: The days of cheap energy are over, folks. Gas may go down to $3.50 a gallon by this time next year, but you'd be wise to trade in your SUV for an economy car. And you'd be wise to avoid building that new addition to your home and put the money instead into better insulation.
posted by Robert Reich | 6:48 AM
192 Comments:
Your "bottom line" statement says it all . . . there are too many forces that will continue to push the cost of energy higher and higher; the days of $0.69 gasoline (the price it was when I started driving) are long gone.
Now if only I could convince my parents of this before they spend their retirement savings fueling their vehicles . . .
I am hoping oil goes to $200 a barrel. This will spark market forces toward finding alternative energy sources. The government is incapable of mandating or organizing an alternative energy movement, so it is left to the market forces to drive a change this massive.
We need to make sacrifices today for our children's and the world's future.
I am also anxious for the China/India "brain bank" to start kicking in and begin driving inovation around alternative engery research.
The middle east is taking advantage (stealing) of all of the West's technology and intellectual capital for free, while holding the West hostage with its dependency on physical commodity that we are unable to steal.
Conspiracy or happy coincidence, Exxon needs to borrow Bush's old Mission Accomplished banner. When oil hits $200, they can make a copy for Osama Bin Laden.
I'd attriblute it to part rising demand from abroad as well as a bunch of capital looking for somehwere - anywhere - to go now that those AAA mortgage backed securities turned out to be not so AAA. Oil looks as safe as gold right now - if not safer.
There's only so many places to invest $5B at one time, so they invest in oil and drive the price up.
I still remember how we were promised that if oil went to $14 / barrel, then alternative energy would become so cheap, that the oil industry would go out of business.
As the price of oil rises, so does the price break for alternatives. It's the classic carrot on a stick.
The rising prices, just prove that the market works. It's capitalism in action.
I still resent the oil companies huge profits and can't help but think that there's something rotten in Denmark.
I mean, no objects to companies making profit from their activities but those profits are just obscene.
To Anonymous - There's some doubt about whether market forces alone can stimulate innovation in alternative energy or anything for that matter. As Jonathan Frost (http://www.actionsustainability.com/partners/Jack_Frost.asp) has said, consumers can't demand that which doesn't yet exist.
Instead it is the role of reasonable government policy to mandate such innovation. Think about the clean air standards of the 1970s, and the innovation that brought us the catalytic converter. Two years before those regs, engineers would have scoffed at the idea of a catalytic converter small enough to be mounted on an automobile engine. They did it. Because they had to.
Fledermaus said...
"I'd attriblute it to part rising demand from abroad as well as a bunch of capital looking for somehwere - anywhere - to go now that those AAA mortgage backed securities turned out to be not so AAA. Oil looks as safe as gold right now - if not safer.
There's only so many places to invest $5B at one time, so they invest in oil and drive the price up".
Amen. Well-said.
From the New Statesman:
“Investment houses, pension funds, private equity groups and banks are driven by profit not morality, and they invest wherever they can see the biggest return. It is not a conspiracy, but it is a conscious strategy, backed by the central bankers of the west as they try to help Wall Street back on its feet. Put another way, the banks are exporting our debts to the developing world“.
This mentality has contributed significantly to the very rapid rise in basic food commodities as well as the alarming rise in oil. It’s time to kneecap the investors and speculators with whatever is necessary to prevent them from playing this game. It’s literally killing people around the world who are trying to survive on $2 per day.
Got peak oil, anyone?
At this point, only 2 events can significantly bring down the price of oil:
1) demand destruction. A significant recession here or elsewhere.
2) a new oil find on the order of the Saudi oil fields. The impact of such a find would not change prices in the near term but would impact planning and pricing down the road.
The problem is there have been no, I repeat, no finds of this magnitude in the past 30 years. High and higher oil prices (with fluctuations) are here to stay.
The big question now is how do we respond to this dramatic fact?
I think that it is the role of our government, not some as-of-yet unheard of company, to come up with the alternative fuel that would power our cars in the future. Why did Toyota come out with Hybrid on a main market first, why didn't the Pentagon in our military vehicles?
Our government should fund and use these technologies, after all, that is one of their main jobs.
Thanks
Robert Barga
http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
Also, on a side note, is there a reason that we do not build refineries anymore? think about it, a 300million tax raise (that is $1 per person per year) and build a new refinery per year. The problem is not oil, it is refining the oil.
The major oil fields are in terminal decline while demand is growing worldwide. Deep sea oil exploration and tar sand extraction are too expensive. We are behind the 8 ball.
Since two thirds of the oil we use goes for PERSONAL transportation, perhaps the easiest and most rational thing we could do is:
1) Get intercity trains up and running again for routes under 300 miles. Get the federal government to develop the tracks and let private industry own and run the trains.
2) Start commuter rail in all our top 25 metro areas that don't have it, and light rail/trolley cars in the top 50 metro areas. Again, a federal/state/local tax funding mechanism.
This is something we know how to do-now. We don't have to wait for some new, future technology to be developed. Plus it would have many benefits:
1) reduced carbon inputs
2) transportation options
3) lower the cost of transportation for millions
4) slow oil subsidies to OPEC
5) slow use of nonrenewable oil
6) create permanent, good paying jobs in US
7) help reshape our urban/suburban environments away from car dependency
8) get lots of people walking again
9) add anymore you can think of
Isn't it remarkable that there's been no coherent energy policy that would engender more innovative approaches? Where is the leadership? All I can figure is that enough of the oil profits are going back to Washington DC that the well oiled machine of government never needs to get its collective hands dirty changing the oil to cleaner greener fuels. It's so obvious that "our representatives" in congress are really representing the oil magnates.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
Dr Reich thanks for the explanation of $4 dollar gas. As you say, “The days of cheap energy are over, folks.” So what should our energy policy be? Oil speculators are making as much as oil producers while oil consumers must pay the price. OPEC says the price of a barrel of oil should be less than $70 a barrel. The law of supply and demand is not working. So government must step in.
More production is not the answer. OPEC is willing to sell as much oil as is needed. Opening new American reserves will not come on line for 10 years and will deplete our remaining reserves while we are building our national reserves for emergencies. It has been estimated that if Anwar came on line today it would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75. Increasing oil production also means more carbon dioxide and increased global warning. Giving oil companies tax dollars has not helped in the past and if anything would only deplete our oil reserves faster.
Europe has the right energy policy. They have more efficient cars, homes, heating, air conditioning, and lighting. They are leading in alternate energy sources and cleaner environments. So how did they do it? They put a tax on oil.
Look at what a tax on oil would do. A $100 tax on oil would decrease the use of oil, decrease carbon dioxide, make alternative energy sources more attractive, encourage mass transit, reduce oil speculating, and replace a proposed excess profits tax. Like a cap and trade carbon dioxide system, tax money could be returned to the citizens hurt the most.
The days of cheap energy are over, folks.
Uh, not sure I agree. No disrespect, M. Reich (after all, I was pleased to read you came out for Obama) but I would be shocked if, medium-to-long term, oil prices didn't fall "dramatically." Of the forces you mention, only (a) really matters for the price of oil in the long run.
I'm only a (former) trader, and not an economist, but I think the dollar can only strengthen from these levels (it's one of the only assets not overvalued these days), Middle East instability ebbs and flows, as usual, and the price ebbs and flows, as usual, and as for (c), the speculators will run for the exits, when the cliff-diving crash in oil prices comes.
As for demand, short and medium term, the coming global recession, as well as elimination of fuel subsidies in many countries, should do the trick.
Wouldn't it be lovely if oil really operated in a "free market"? It's not free at all. If it really were, we'd have been off of oil 30 years ago when we had the last oil crisis.
We subsidize our oil companies very heavily. China and India subsidize their gas prices so that gas is relatively cheap. The oil lobby has done everything in its power to stamp out alternative energy funding at every level of government, and big oil and auto are sitting on the patents for the electric car.
The bright side though, is that people are figuring out that cars aren't really as much of a necessity as we once thought. Listen to the radio or read the paper (or internet)and you'll see that as folks are turning to bikes and public transit, they're realizing that it works and will stick with it even if the price of gas drops. Even if gas were $0.69 a gallon I'd still be biking. It's just a good thing to do.
As for those folks who don't have the liberty of alternative transit (hopefully, very soon we'll be calling cars alternative transit), well they're changing their lifestyles as well. The empty condos in the exurbs aren't just a result of the housing crisis.
We're finally seeing the market forces that our governments and corporations have so desperately tried to suppress take effect and whaddya know? The consumers are reacting accordingly!
Considering that approximately 70% of the oil/gas used in this country is consumed for transportation, fueling 50,000 commercial aircraft flights a day; propelling a couple of hundred thousand 18 wheeler trailers delivering food and merchandise to local stores, and fueling the 230,000,000 privately and corporate owned automobiles, don't hold out much hope for new technologies such as solar or wind power. We can't put windmills on the roofs of cars or fly airplanes with solar panels for wings. But what we can do is start massive conservation. Let's start with a real low cost high mileage auto that most everybody can buy. No future in selling half a million or so $30,000.00 hybreds a year while adding 15 million gas guzzlers to the current 1/4 billion already in use. Maybe make a $7,500.00 car in China or India and sell it through WalMart. We are going to need to sell 10 million high mileage cars a years and even than it will take 20 years or longer to replace all the existing gas guzzlers.
Someting could be done virtually overnight; lower the speed limit to 55-60 mph.
An estimated 2-3% reduction in demand would occur with a corresponding 10% reduction in price. Fuel engineers say a speed of 60 mph is the threshold on your typical car/driving conditions where wind resistance begins to seriously undermine mileage.
Speed reduction would reduce emissions as well as possibly save lives.
Regarding your number (4): ...fears about the continuing capacity and willingness of Middle Eastern oil producers to generate oil....
Nobody generate oil, nor do they produce oil. They extract oil from rapidly dwindling stocks in the earth that was produced millions of years ago by geological forces. The rapidly increasing oil prices should be taken as a warning that one cannot go on consuming oil as if there is no tomorrow.
melancholy korean:
Don't disagree with many of your premises. I do question the speculator assertion however. Being a former trader you certainly have a better perspective than I do but my instincts tell me that a crash in oil prices will only feed the beast. Speculators tend to make money from either direction. They don't always care whether the market is going up or going down.
This is especially true when they can have a significant impact on the movement of prices. It seems far from coincidence that a press release that oil could hit $150 a barrel is then immediately followed by an $11 a barrel increase in market price.
As best I can tell, cursorily, the rate of increase in demand has been no where near the rate of increase in price. The supply is relatively constant so it sure looks like some other non-market influence is manipulating the price.
Dr. Reich gives credence to that premise, I just disagree on the degree of impact. Speculating in oil is not nearly as risky as the speculation in the housing market. True it's much more volatile but final returns and therefore values are not dependent on a third party delivering on a promise.
Granted the oil producing countries could sharply increase supply driving the price down in a hurry but why would they do that? OPEC, a far lesser player than 30 years ago, was the villain for years. Even though they catch heat today they don't appear to be attempting much price manipulation. Hell, they don't need to. The other major producers are fairly newbies and are wallowing in unbelievable fortunes so they have little reason to kill the golden goose.
We know that oversight of the trading industry has been nonexistent. There is increased activity on that front both from the Commodity Exchange folks and the government. As those efforts go forward they may dampen the zeal and almost unmitigated gall of the traders but I doubt it will happen without an attempted swan song.
I will not be surprised to see a big fall in oil prices, beyond even that which Dr. Reich suggests, but without some strongly increased oversight, prices just might fall and then begin rising again. In the short term it seems almost an infinite playground and without other "bubbles" for pension fund players, etc. to drift to they will all be willing to continue the game. For many of the big funds, returning to moderate, reasonable rates of return would be like swallowing castor oil.
Here is some good information that is worth discussing regarding the current gas / oil crisis:
Amory Lovins on winning the energy/oil endgame ...
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51
Listen to the point about who will make efficient cars to replace foreign oil imports...
Maybe Amory should be on Obama's board of advisors as well.
notsofast:
Speed reduction would reduce emissions as well as possibly save lives.
Notwithstanding a variance in the rate of emissions at higher speeds which I would have no clue how to calculate, I question the first part of your statement.
I drive, everyday, 60 miles (30 miles one way) and all but 3 or so miles of that is on a four lane highway. I drive the highway at 75 miles an hour. The round trip takes me about 48 minutes. If I drove at 55 miles an hour the trip would take 65 minutes. That means that my engine is running for 17 more minutes; spewing emissions. Reduced emissions should be made of sterner stuff.
As for saving lives: Been driving at high speeds, not astronomical ones, most of my driving life and am still alive. In fact I have not been in an accident, my fault, their fault, nobody's fault, in 40 years. Speed kills when those speeding are reckless or some other dipsh-t driver is reckless. Traveling at 55 mph and ramming someone at that speed bodes ill for both of us.
Did anyone see the show about Peak Oil on the documentary channel the other night?
You should be afraid. VERY VERY afraid.
We missed our chance for incremental change when Ronald Reagan pulled the solar panels off the white house. We missed our chance for substantial change when the supreme court appointed another conservative incompetent to the white house. Now we are facing a crises that threatens the very existence of our way of life.
We don't need an Apollo type project, nor a Manhattan type project. To solve the economic/energy/environmental/population problem that threatens us, we need nothing less than the equivalent of a WWII effort!
Entire industries must switch to building energy saving and alternative energy devices. Massive amounts of government spending on non-carbon research. Budgetary switches from military and carbon promotion expenditures to carbon reduction expenditures. There must be sacrifice by ALL. Higher taxes, rationing ... whatever it takes to get the carbon fuel needle the conservatives stuck deep into Americas arm out as soon as possible.
Nothing is more important to our National security, nothing is more important to our economic health, nothing is more important to stopping the climate disaster taking place, than to get away from carbon based energy.
rs love;
I've had the greatest respect for Amory Lovins since the mid 70's and he would make an excellent adviser to president Obama. As I sit here in my home in the Rockies, about 100 miles north of where he lives,
and with 100% of my electricity and 80% of my heat load produced from solar energy, I thank him for his well reasoned approach to the soft energy path. And I can only laugh at those absurd conservatives who think the solution is to go to the ends of the earth and squeeze the last drops of oil from the ground because solar, wind and other alternatives won't be ready for decades. :)
Art A Layman said...
notsofast:
"Speed reduction would reduce emissions as well as possibly save lives". (?)
I vaguely remember some data I believe was put out by the Union Of Concerned Scientists(experimental physicists). It’s not particularly intuitive but not very complicated either. It’s air resistance and not gallons of fuel burned in say an hour of time that's critical. You burn less fuel going slower and the fuel that you do burn has more time to completely combust thereby creating less carbon residue. The difference is small but there nonetheless. You can email them and they’ll gladly refer you to sources.
"Conspiracy theories abound" for a good reason. Back in 2001 in California we had rolling blackouts and electricity alerts all over the place, and we were told it was "supply and demand" and any number of other reasonable theories, but it turned out to be illegal manipulation of the market by unscrupulous traders such as Enron. Demand did not double this year, and supply did not dwindle, yet the price of crude has doubled in one year. Just as Republicans cry out for "tax cuts" no matter what the current situation is, so do economists offer "supply and demand" to explain everything and its opposite. Sometimes the conspiracy theorists are correct. Sometimes there is deliberate market manipulation by white collar criminals who steal billions and yet hardly ever pay a price.
Oil has not always been traded on the commodities market. Removing oil would remove the speculation. The commodity traders could find other jobs (registered nurse, anesthetist, x-ray technician, physical therapist, c/o Alan Greenspan and "labor specialization" as he calls it). The 5B would go elsewhere, maybe into wind energy investment. American Superconductor stock has done well recently, rising from $10/share to ~$40/share.
As for Toyota and the Prius comment, you are correct, Toyota is most definitely not an American company; it's Japanese. When Toyota management visited the Big Three automakers, their reaction was supposedly "export everything about America except the American management system." Harvard Business School would be welcome to parse that statement! I think when the upper management visited the US, they were impressed by the American grocery store system, where the oldest cans were removed from the front of the shelf and the newest were supplied at the back. I think Toyota adopted this Americanism as the basis for their auto assembly. You can read further about Toyota management; it probably has very little in common with American management, hence the Prius. I wondered during the past 8 years why a US president wasn't pleading with Toyota to run three shifts a day to roll out Priuses, as if on a war footing.
McCain looks very old out there and culturally a relic of the past. Obama looks like a rock star in comparisan. lol
ok
The problem really is that we, the US and US corporations, only control a very small portion of the global oil supply and distribution system, including the financial control of speculation which drives prices up. Investors in London, Zurich, Paris, Milan, Beijing, Bombay and so on are all players bidding up oil and speculating for future price increases. None of these institutions fall under the control of the US regulatory agencies. We can put limits on the role of US based investors, such as employee and union pension funds, but the action will than just flow offshore and continue unabated, / We need to stop kidding ourselves and start facing reality. And the reality is that oil is becoming the new wealth standard replacing gold. Once that happens , as it is happening now, everybody will want to have oil options as an investment. Even were the US to permit massive new exploration in continental US, whatever they find will quickly be bid up to the highest prevailing market price. For the American consumer there will be no discounts in the price of gas they buy, just that more oil profit with go to the American corporations instead of foreign corporations. Unfortunately we are confronting a very painful end of the age of cheap energy, and we will be forced to make a million adjustments over the years in the nammer of how we live our lives, spend our money and engage in international affairs.
Yeah and congress blocks oil drilling, nuke power, no new refineries. The federal government makes 18 cents a gallon tax on gas, and 24 cents per gallon of diesal. The oil companies make 9 cents per gallon. Whos ripping us off and blaming oil companies. Congress. Clinton vetoe drilling in anwar in 1995 what a ass
Mr. Reich, please read this article by F. William Engdahl and give us your opinion. He places much more emphasis on investor speculation than foreign competition regarding the rising price of oil.
As opposed to some of the comment sections at other sites, the dialogue here is measured, and quite erudite, mostly.
If a group of bloggers can come up with solutions, and engage in a discussion such as this, couldn't the people we send to Washington, since they are dispatched there to do the people's "bidness?"
The fact that they don't (or willfully, won't) speaks volumes about how broken the system is.
There are historical precedents of what to do during a crisis (if we still have the capability to learn from history); FDR's first 100 days might be a starting point.
It really doesn't matter who we send. What does matter is that who we send needs to get the message that the American people are sick of ideological hacks. Then again, you have to turn off the TV, or step away from the keyboard, and do some grassroots work to achieve that.
As the price of gasoline ratchets up, we'll find out whether we have a citizenry that is capable of this, or not.
The discussion here gives me hope. The comments here depresses the hell out of me.
Nice post, Dr. Reich. And I agree with anon 9:24.
China alone has 20% of world's population, which is quickly raising its standard of living and need for energy. If short term oil prices decline, it will be temporary. The only way to prosper in such an environment is to conduct policy that reduces burdens on the innovators: i.e. the people and their businesses.
Congress would not have to constantly look for new sources of tax revenue if it would act fiscally responsible, and not waste so much money in the first place. Improved fiscal behavior on the part of our leaders would do so much to raise the value of our dollar, and thereby improve affordability for the US citizenry.
As the people of our nation continue to be required to fund an inefficient government, our more efficient foreign neighbors will be in a stronger position to reap the benefits of a more affluent globe. Lowering burdens on US businesses and people will improve their ability to take advantage of the accompanying increase in demand of energy and other products by the world.
Because Bush would rather spend $12B/week in Iraq 'fighting terrorism' and 'protecting our energy resources' instead of investing in US energy technologies such as SwiftFuel (http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel.html).
After all, if we do import a lot less oil Suadi Arabia and Iran will lose their ability to fund Islamic terrorism and their own belligerent plans (their dollars will be needed solely to prop their regimes with subsidies to the population). However, having such terrorism as a threat is the GOP's bread and butter so there is no real incentive in that party to cut our oil dependence.
How about the fact that worldwide oil supplies are dwindling, Bob?
While many complain about the windfall profits of the oil companies, I haven't heard anyone complaining about the windfall tax revenues the states and municipalities are receiving from $4-$5 gas. And you can bet that once people in large numbers start driving less and using more fuel efficient vehicles, these government agencies will start screaming about a revenue crisis. It's already happening with toll roads, especially the privately owned ones like the Indiana Toll Road, where they've already raised toll rates significantly because of a substantial drop-off in the number of vehicles using the road. Apparently economics 101 doesn't apply there.
We have to change the way we travel. To some extent, that is already happening. Ridership on public transit has skyrocketed. Sales of lightweight motorcycles (most capable of 65 miles per gallon) and scooters (capable of 100 mpgs) are way up. Out here in Appalachia, I'm starting to see as many scooters on the road as I see cars.
It became a problem for the state of Maryland because scooters were defined as vehicles which did not need registration, and which operators did not need a license or a helmet. In the days of 15 mile per hour mopeds, that was OK. Some modern scooters are capable of 50 mph. So now the helmet and licensing laws apply to every vehicle capable of exceeding 35 mph.
There are less SUVs out there. The SUVs on the used car lots just sit. They are not worth the outstanding loans on them. Those who are driving SUVs tend to be the poor who previously drove fuel efficient clunkers--the late 80s Hondas, which were capable of low 40s mpg. The more fuel efficient cars, even the older ones, are now more expensive.
All of this is good. However, government needs to increase the fuel efficiency standards of the modern fleet. There's no reason why a properly tuned modern car can't get 55 mpgs. Frankly, you don't need more than three cylinders to go 65 on the highway. V-8s and V-6s are totally useless. There should be tax breaks for in-line fours. There also should be tax breaks--aimed at offsetting the insurance difference--for owners of low-powered motorcycles (below 500cc). Finally, there should be a tax break for users of public transit and money that was going into bridges and roads should be redirected towards extending mass transit to the outer ring suburbs. The fact is that the people who are hurt the most by high gas prices live out in the outer ring suburbs, and are living on a knife's edge.
Windfall profit is not the result of high prices due to surging demand and decreased supply (which is the case with oil today).
They are not even described with the collusive concept of "price gouging."
Windfall profits are something entirely different. It is the benefit gained from who inflationary money touches first (this certainly happens in the oil industry when they receive subsidies). What sense does it make to tax that profit? Why not just stop the inflation altogether?
anomymous 12:43:
There is no surging demand. Sure, worldwide demand is rising but not at the recent rate of price increases and there is no decreased supply presently.
"Price gouging" teeters on illegal activity and should not be claimed lightly. In fact, prices for gasoline rise, almost immediately, on a rise in the price of oil. The inventory in the pipeline at any given point in time is not subjected to any change in supply and demand, nor is it subject to any increased costs in production or delivery, yet the prices are increased providing excess (windfall) profits for the oil companies. That could qualify as "price gouging". Best you don't ask the question.
The 413% increase in Exxon profits, in 2007 versus 1999, is prima facie evidence that most of it is "windfall" profits and that's after tax profits, before tax profits have risen 800% in that time period. Gross sales have only increased 115% in that time. No amount of management wizardry can achieve that level of profit growth. Nor can subsidies explain that level of profit growth.
The first "person" inflation benefits in this venue is the oil companies. The price of oil is for future contracts not current ones. Therefore when gasoline prices rise commensurate to oil prices with immediacy, "windfall" profits ensue.
If supply and demand were truly driving prices we would see a much larger disparity at the retail gasoline point of sale. One oil company would surely have a greater supply than another and would tend to hold prices lower increasing market share from their competitors. This doesn't happen. If the BP station raises it's price then so does the Exxon station across the street in the same amount. What each's relative supply is has no bearing on the decision. Supply and demand segues to gouge the market for all you can get.
Traders who set the price of oil, and therefore the price of gasoline, do not calculate everyday aggregate worldwide demand with aggregate worldwide supply. The price of oil is, on the future's market, what they say it is and it does not have to be predicated on any specific knowledge of supply and demand. They glom onto any minor nuance or potentiality to support raising the price of oil and currently there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Those that could have the biggest impact are the oil producing countries and since they benefit from the increased price there is no incentive for them to increase supply to drive down the price.
That could be happening soon however. OPEC was mindful that as prices increased beyond a certain point, actions would commence to reduce demand. A change to higher mileage autos; an intensified effort to find alternative fuel were signs to them that prices were getting to high. The increase in worldwide demand has tempered their concern but you can bet they are watching closely. They are aware that any innovations enabling increased mileage will spread worldwide. They know the same is true for any alternative fuel inventions. China and India are experiencing huge inflationary pressures. They will be first in line to acquire any inventions or improved methodolgies to reduce their dependence on oil.
When sensing that oil prices have pushed to a level where real change is likely to happen you can bet that OPEC will increase production, likely causing other oil producers to follow suit and the price will come down again. To what level nobody knows but it will decrease and a bunch of futures holders will get burned. Most likely the pension funds, the traders will be long out of the market, until the price appears to have bottomed out and then the dance may begin again.
There is no doubt that the oil companies have gained "windfall" profits and should be forced to give some of those up. Anyone failing to see that is a naive fool. Currently the political process can't seem to stop that, but the political process is about to change hats and then it will be a new ballgame. The biggest problem is in devising a methodology for taxing those profits in a uniform and least production discouraging way.
All the players in the oil pricing bonanza are well aware that, "All good things must end".
Interesting; just heard that Exxon is getting out of the retail gasoline business. Did they read my previous post?
One has to wonder if this is a profile move. Assume the retailers will have long term contracts with Exxon and therefore Exxon will still control the price of gasoline for the most part.
You write, "Israel's recent bellicose statements about Iran have generated fears about the continuing capacity and willingness of Middle Eastern oil producers to generate oil (about a third of world oil production)."
Israel's bellicose statements?
"They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on May 14, 2008
"This terrorist and criminal state (Israel) is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on May 13, 2008
"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken."
"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.… (Israel) has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on May 8, 2008.
Tell me who's being bellicose there?
If you care to, click the link and spread the word.
“Given the US recession”?
What recession?
To Art A Layman & all “windfall Tax” proponents:
You may want to read the following article by Elizabeth MacDonald, “How a Windfall Oil Profits Tax Would Hurt You”. Below are excerpts. The entire article is at http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/06/13/how-a-windfall-oil-profits-tax-would-hurt-you/
By Elizabeth MacDonald
But here’s an important economic point. Companies don’t pay taxes. Instead, they pass tax costs along to workers, consumers and shareholders. Or they pull stakes and move operations out of the country. Why do you think the US accounting firms have been steadily growing their operations overseas? It’s because of the US’s onerous tax and regulatory structure.
Besides, who reaps the windfall from a windfall profits tax? The government, whose elected officials then use that money to buy more votes with pork. I can assure you, despite the lip service paid to cutting the deficit, cutting the deficit would be last on the list once the revenues from a windfall profit tax comes in, because there will always be talk of more taxes, more spending, more pork to be found to preserve power, more regulation to control our lives.
“Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 bn annually in taxes, says Dr. Mark J. Perry. a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan. That’s as much in taxes annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers paid in 2004 (most recent year available), which is 65,000,000 people, Perry notes.
The combined top federal, state, and local corporate tax rate in the United States is 39.3%, the second highest (after Japan) among the 30 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation.
Also, the Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge and Jonathan Williams noted say that in recent decades federal, state and local governments “have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.”
And a 22-country study from the conservative American Enterprise Institute found that higher corporate tax rates lead to lower wages, with a 1% increase in corporate tax rates associated with a 0.7 to 0.9% drop in wage rates.
In past blogs I've stated oil companies excuse they need profits to devote to research and development. The geologic surveys of planet earth have been completed long ago. The Economist magazine had an article on oil exploration. To paraphrase, the most oil is under Saudi Arabia; however, the oil that's easiest to retrieve is under Iraq. While the US can produce 80 bbd, Iraq can produce 300 bbd.
Change of topic: our rain system is a closed system. Rain is our only renewable source of water. The polar ice and icebergs that have melted: are they now falling as massive amounts of rain in Iowa?
kayxyz,
Quoting the link I provided in my previous comment:
Quoting a study by the Rand Corporation (with my own emphasis):
“The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.”
“For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.”
Beyond that, in the Outer Continental Shelf alone, the USA has, as a mean estimate, FOUR TIMES our current proven reserves and more oil than the total proven reserves of 14 of the 20 countries listed in this chart from this link (figure 2.3).
I also suggest you read this link. We need some pragmatism here!
Additionally, I suggest you get some perspective on Climate Change from this link.
P.S.) Our current proven reserves are 22 Billion Barrels.
And, the mean estimate for the Outer Continental Shelf is 86 Billions Barrels.
86/22=3.9 times our current proven reserves (in the Outer Continental Shelf alone).
Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves are 262 Billion Barrels.
The mean estimate for our own Oil Shale is 800 Billion Barrels.
800/262=3.05 times Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves (in our Oil Shale alone).
Canada is already producing crude oil from their tremendous reserves in Oil Sands. Those Oil Sands are now officially “proven reserves” which now make Canada, even according to our own EIA, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.
The ONLY thing the USA needs to do in order to top the charts (BY FAR) in proven reserves is to convince the dang Democrats to ALLOW us to develop our own resources!
anonymous 12:14:
You and I may have had this discussion before. Your use of "anonymous" makes it impossible to be sure. Establishing a pseudonym is easy and does not impair your anonymity. It would save me from redundancy.
At the outset let me suggest two things. First, when reprinting from another's post or article it is customary to enclose it in quotes or italicize it to make it easy to know what is reproduced and what are your thoughts. Second, if you are going to use input from others to seemingly make an objective point it would be best to use a reference which is not thought of as being biased. Few of us, of the liberal persuasion would bother with articles from Fox Business.
There is some validity that firms pass through taxes to consumers. That fact is one of the bases for arguing the elimination of corporate income taxes. It is not an absolute that the pass through is variable. If supply and demand is the true determinate of prices then increased costs, be they taxes or material/labor costs, cannot be passed through in ever rising prices if the market provides other substitution products or services. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
The oil industry, not being subject to many substitutional products, likely does pass through their taxes but there are still limits to how effectively they can do that. The pass through would result in higher profits which would then be subject to any "windfall" taxes imposed and we would be in a virtual cycle where they would run up against a wall eventually.
Many companies have moved operations overseas, few of them do it soley for tax purposes. Cheaper labor costs and proximity to markets is by far the larger rational.
US accounting firms are not moving, en masse, overseas for tax reasons. They are expanding their operations overseas, through new offices and mergers, because more and more large firms are becoming global and require local services. The increase in worldwide financial regulation is also opening up more overseas markets for accounting firms. They are also outsourcing more work to achieve lower labor costs. Ms. MacDonald's broad implication, with no supporting reference by the way, is much more fancy than fact.
The constant harangue about inefficient spending by the government is ad hominem argument and therefore illogical. If we assume that oil companies have received ill-gotten gains then the most efficient means of redistributing those gains is through the medium of government. Can you imagine the hue and cry if the oil companies were told they had to calculate and issue rebate checks to all consumers of gasoline and oil?
Now Dr. Perry's statement is impressive. I have not bothered to try and find the full text of his assertions, nor does she reference it, but she throws out his statement as if it were significant of something. As it stands it means nothing, who cares, what is comparable about his comparison; more ad hominem.
She continues her illogical argument with the comparison of the US corporate tax rate to other countries around the world; The combined top federal, state, and local corporate tax rate in the United States is 39.3%, the second highest (after Japan) among the 30 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation. Again, what does that mean? Most other countries, especially European ones, have Value Added taxes in addition to progressive income taxes and many of them have far higher gasoline taxes that we in the US. It is complete folly to highlight corporate tax rate differences without listing all taxation variances.
The Tax Foundation, another questionable source, which gives us another really important statistic: ...that in recent decades federal, state and local governments “have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.” Now of what importance is that news? Most of those revenues for those governments go to fund highway repairs and construction. There are few examples of a tax and use application better than that one.
Oh my, the American Enterprise Institute, that bastion of objectivity, drawing from a study that suggests an inverse relationship to corporate tax rates and wages. She forgot to mention that there were exceptions taken to that conclusion by other parties just as renowned.
You left out, from her article, another big argument, which I have dispelled before, if you are the same anonymous. She proclaims the inequity of punishing oil companies because their after-tax profit margins are little different from the average for all commercial enterprises. She even defines profit margins, correctly, as after-tax profits divided by gross revenues. She, as all the oil executives pandering the same argument, fail to mention that included in those revenues are the federal, state and local taxes imposed by those governments on the sale of gasoline on the ultimate consumer. The oil companies merely collect and pay over those collections to the various governments. Technically they are not "revenues" of the oil companies, but more like "trust" taxes that belong to the governments as soon as they are collected. They are similar to the income tax withholding that your employer does from your paycheck. Because the law set them up as exise taxes instead of withholding taxes, they can, by accounting rules, be treated as revenue and expense items. If we deducted them from revenues and the calculated profit margins, the profit margins would rise significantly.
All in all, Ms. MacDonald produced a "puff piece" designed to stimulate the juices of the conservative right and any others who don't know, or care to find out, the real truths.
For you to have presented it as some sort of representation of absolute truths speaks volumes.
This post has been removed by the author.
Quote from someone who has actually lived in Iowa, more articulate than I:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/06/iowa_flooding_before_and_after.html?hpid=artslot
i grew up in des moines and left in 1980 -- but there never was flooding like this. the last major '100 year' flood was in 1993. this is a '500 year' flood. someone needs to recalculate their projections...
Posted by: linda | June 14, 2008 4:42 PM
kayxyz,
What? Is every weather anomaly to be blamed on anthropogenic CO2?
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause “Meltwater Pulse 1A”?
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause the hypsithermal of some 5-10 thousand years ago (the warmest period of the current interglacial warming period)? NOAA (via J. R. Petit et al., Nature 399, 429) pegs it at about 8,000 years ago on this chart.
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause the previous interglacial warming period (the Eemian) to be even warmer than the “recent” hypsithermal?
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause EACH of the previous four perfectly natural, perfectly normal interglacial warming periods to be warmer than even the “recent” hypsithermal?
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause the sea level variations depicted here and here?
If anthropogenic CO2 threatens the planet with “runaway global warming”, why did that not happen some 550 million years ago, when CO2 was about 22 times higher than today? How did the planet enter one of the three coldest Ice Ages at a time (about 460 million years ago) when CO2 was a good 12 times higher than today?
Climate changes all the time. It usually changes far more dramatically than it has at anytime during the last 7,000 years of unusual climactic stability.
Kyoto has already wasted $0.5 TRILLION in an absolutely futile attempt to micromanage climate.
The IEA now demands that we waste another $45 Trillion.
It’s time to wake up and realize that the utterly insignificant effect people have on climate really, REALLY pales in comparison to the perfectly natural cycles over which we have absolutely NO control. We are currently living during one of the most climactically friendly periods of the current Ice Age of the last 2.5 million years (or more). Be HAPPY for that!
Again, check my post and learn from real scientists what Al Gore never told you about Climate Change.
For SVBOR, i suppose you can search the Internet and find articles that contradict each other.
http://paper-money.blogspot.com/
I read the US news sites fully aware of their bias (Bill Gates owns MSNBC, Ted Turner owns CNN); in addition, I read the British and European web sites, because they sometimes offer a clearer view of the US. To my post about Toyota Motor Company, I will add read about the American press view of Toyota, but make certain you also read the Japanese point of view about Toyota, in Japanese, to get a well-rounded point of view.
Given I disregard most news websites, I've started reading financial blogs. I recommend Financial Ninja; he's a Canadian trader. He posts several links on his web site. Take a look at Paper Economy, to quote the June 12, 2008, Employment entry:
One notable feature of the post-“dot com” recession era that is, unlike other recent post-recession eras, job growth has been very weak, not succeeding to reach trend growth as had minimally accomplished in the past.
Another feature is that housing was apparently buffeted by the response to the last recession, preventing it from fully correcting thus postponing the full and far more severe downturn to today.
I think there is enough evidence to suggest that our potential “mid-cycle” slowdown, having been traded for a less severe downturn in the aftermath of the “dot-com” recession, may now be turning into a mid-cycle meltdown.
I just love these conservatives like sbvor. I've never met one that could use reasoning and real factual information in their discussions. Anyone who denies man made global warming at this point is just plain ignorant and irrational. And you'll never have a reasonable conversation with them, you'll just waste your time.
Here's how it always plays out. They quote an exception to the scientific norm, or misquote something similar but not directly related, or simply quote a lie from fox news or Rush or some right wing garbage web site. You dig up the facts and prove them wrong, then they do it again. And round and round you go, you proving every point they make as wrong or a lie, and they just denying reality.
The web sites he posted are mostly right wing propaganda with no facts, no real data, just irrational people making up their own numbers and denying reality.
Doesn't Rush have a web site where you can commingle with other members of the subspecies?
toast:
Oh but that I could say it with your grace and sophistication.
Three cheers!!!
Hi everybody!
I am an European citizent and leave in Greece. My English are not very good, so please excuse me in advance.
I just heared about Dr. Reich and I found his opinions interesting.
The subject of fuel prices is hot in Europe too.
Maybe you heared that in many countries (U.K., Spain, Portugal) there are strikes and protests about fuel prices, with conflicts with police and deads.
I start my thoughts from Bruce Barnes coment.
I think that oil price has a big amount of money of Traders profits (speculators).
In my country (the cheapest in Europe) we buy gas for 1.28€ per litre. This means 7.50$ per galon. In Italy, Germany, France they buy gas 9.00$ and in Norway 9.90$.
The difference is the tax. As you understand the taxes that Eurorean States gather are big amount of money. This is the reason that people protest.
France President Sarkozy ask from Commision to reduce taxes (I don’t think he mean it) and Greek Prime Minister ask something similar. But Commision close its ears.
Something that shows the abnormality of the system is that when oil price increase, they increase the price of all other alternative energy sources. Even aiolian energy.
The biggest problem in Europe, especial in my country is the corruptness.
The dignitaries in Commision and in countries are not the better guys.
So people think that as many money these guys manage, some of them get rich.
And something important. As the indirect taxes increase, the tax system getting unfair.
In the other hand people can’t reduce any more their needs. As you said we have more efficient cars, homes, heating, air conditioning, and lighting. The next step is to stop use private cars, refrigarators, air condition, LCD, etc.
Do you think that this is my conclusion? No. I read it today in an article of Mr. A. Andrianopoulos. Former minister of Industry in Greece and today consult of Rusian State for free markets and antitrast policy and member of Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington for subjects of energy diplomacy of Russia.
This kind of article are mupltiply in Europe. They try to prepare us for something that I can’t understand today. They try to convince you that you need tax in oil to reduce use of oil. We have taxes so they try to convince us to reduce use of oil for other reasons. And the quality of life?
I think that the reason that oil prices increase is not the obvious.
Toast and Art,
When you have some evidence to address the science I cited, let me know.
Meantime, if you would care to review additional scientific evidence, in this link you will find:
1) My own “big picture” analysis (as an Environmental Scientist) of the directly cited peer reviewed science.
2) The insights, via video interviews, of former IPCC scientists, including former IPCC lead authors and more.
kayxyz,
It is said that:
“If you don’t read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are misinformed.”
The so-called “profession” of so-called “journalism” is, in general, a joke. It matters little which so-called “journalist” you read or watch.
Do I read them and watch them anyway? Yes. But, that is just the first step in my journey. I then set about to do my own research and find out where they got it right and where they got it wrong. Mostly, they get it wrong.
sbvor:
Toast is much more qualified than I to delve into the issue with you, though I doubt he will waste his time.
I only have two questions:
1) What if you and your various, though few, naysayers are wrong?
2) If, as you claim, we are looking at a natural phenomenon that is recurring, vis-a-vis previous Ice Ages or global warming events, are we not then doomed?
svbor:
In your response to kayxyz.
And after you have done your research and give us your pronouncements of the "real" truth we are then to just accept your conclusions and disregard any others to the contrary?
Journalists are not generally the creators of controversial news. They rely on information from "expert" sources, in doing their own research, and then they write articles. You may disagree with them or not but in an area that is based primarily on hypotheses, it is not hard to find discordant views.
It would appear in recent years your side is losing supporters.
Let the games begin, and watch how this plays out as I predicted.
I go to the link provided by Sbvor.
It contains a bunch of videos from right wing web sites and commentators, and one chart that says its from "peer reviewed science", but no journal or data source is given.
Move along folks, no science here.
So far, it's playing out as predicted!
Hmmmm, what's next? How about quoting the <1% of scientists in the field who disagree with the data and can't get published in real journals because the data doesn't support their conclusions?
Or, maybe we could go to the quoting out of context approach. Even leading scientists like Jim Hansen have been misquoted by the right wingers to make it sound like he doubts man made global warming.
How about using unsupported data? Oil reserves! Now there's some great numbers for you. Anyone who's been watching the oil markets for any time at all knows how these oil companies and government produced numbers are a joke. No one in their right minds believes the numbers from the Saudis, Russians, Exon ...
Oil Shale?! YES! There'll be and electric car in every garage and solar panels on every roof before squeezing oil outta rocks becomes anywhere near economically viable, even if you ever get it down to where you actually get a net energy gain.
Next.
toast:
It is fascinating to watch a thoughtful mind at work.
Art,
1) Your perception of “naysayers” is inaccurate.
Very few in the scientific community deny that anthropogenic CO2 has a (very slight) warming effect (of no concern at all). That particular “consensus” is constantly conflated by the alarmists into an assertion that all scientists agree with their alarmism.
The truth is, there are very, very few among the scientific community who join in the alarm sounded by the media, the activists and the politicians (for the sake of profit and ideology).
And, the momentum is clearly on the side of those scientists who are increasingly less afraid to speak up (for well founded fear of political reprisals).
This alarmism from the media is nothing new . It runs in cycles (just like the climate).
2) No, we are not doomed, not even close.
As Iowans will confirm, Mother Nature is a mean old (expletive omitted). That said, we are living in one of the most climactically stable and friendly periods in the history of the planet. And, the best peer reviewed science suggests we will enjoy this period of climactic stability for about another 50,000 years.
The next major climate challenge will come when we drop into the next glacial period (probably some 50,000 years down the road).
In the meantime, even the alarmist IPCC has toned down their (deeply flawed) estimates for sea level rise. They now predict 7-23 inches of sea level rise in the next 100 years. See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link.
But, even these modest IPCC estimates are grossly exaggerated. They are based upon deeply flawed computer models which presume, without reasonable evidence, a water vapor feedback which recent peer reviewed science is now proving not only incorrect, but upside down.
In the continental USA, we’ve been in a cooling trend since 1998. Globally, temperatures have been flat to down since 1998. The latest science (provided in that last link) suggests there will be no more warming for another decade (based on the cooling trend from 1934 to 1979, I’d guess another 3 decades or more).
Recent peer reviewed science suggest we’ll only see another 0.4C of man made warming in the next 100 years (see my post for the directly cited science and commentary). But, that is a mid-range estimate. Dr. Gray and Dr. Lindzen have calculated figures well below that.
A critical factor which very few laypersons understand is that every additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially LESS warming effect than the molecule which preceded it. (This chart demonstrates that quite well. In that chart, where the lines begin to broaden is where the human impact kicked in. Everything above 300ppm of CO2 is reasonably attributable to humans. We are currently at about 380ppm. 600 ppm is a worst case scenario for 100 years from now. The height of the broadened lines indicates the calculated total human impact.
3) I could be wrong, but I rather doubt “Toast” has any formal (or informal) training as a scientist.
If Toast could read, he/she would have clicked the first image in the first post and arrived at this post (where the directly cited peer reviewed science as published in peer reviewed science journals is found).
The videos in the first post which Toast derides each feature extremely well qualified, frequently published scientists, including IPCC scientists.
Toast does indeed seem to regard this as a “game” rather than a search for truth. It’s a shame that we don’t have a children’s section for such commentators on the net.
sbvor:
Well hooray!!! I guess that means I can proceed with plans for my 50,067th birthday.
It's always interesting how divergent sides of an issue always segue to some sort of grand conspiracy theory. Scientists can't stand up for fear of reprisals.
I know in science it is far more important to look at "historical periods" for analysis and prediction. Generally, however, those "historical periods" cover multiple generations of human life. While I am forever concerned for the future of my progeny, I tend to be more concerned for events that occur prior to many of my progeny.
I gave up on science, as a field of endeavor, when I realized that I didn't need to understand how a light bulb worked, I just needed to flip the light switch; when it became apparent that I didn't need to understand why it was 90 degrees outside, but that I needed to dress accordingly. I soon discovered that it was far easier to grasp the axiom that debits go on the left and credits on the right.
Doomsday may not be around the corner but we are seeing changes in weather patterns in various areas inconsistent with those in my lifetime. It can be argued that similar changes occurred 100+ years ago but as time goes by populations increase and the geographic dispersion of those populations change. This tends to imply that the impact of regional weather changes will have a far greater effect on normalcy than existed 100+ years ago.
Historically many animals apparently survived major weather changes because mobility for them was easier. They were also not faced, nor bothered with, a variety of scientists espousing differing theories. Their innate senses told them something was going on and maybe it was time to move on. We humans carry a whole lot more baggage, inhibiting mobility.
Methinks you will find out your opinion of "toast" is way off base and again he is a far more formidable adversary than I would be on these subjects.
Art,
I have no monopoly on the truth.
But, I do have evidence. And, I cite it.
From what I’ve seen in your comments both here and at my blog, you seem to have many (inaccurate) opinions but, no evidence to back them up.
In other words, in my experience, you are a typical Democrat.
Regarding the fear of losing employment if a scientist speaks out against the political dogma, watch the video and listen to Dr. David R. Legates, State Climatologist for Delaware, go on public record describing his experience. His experience is, sadly, far from unique.
There are tens of billions, even tens of trillions of dollars available to those who want to ride this hysteria gravy train. And that is a GIANT motivator to intimidate anyone who threatens the continued flow of that gravy train of tax dollars.
You speak of the climate change witnessed in your lifetime. Do you recall the cooling trend from 1934 to 1979 (documented in this post)? I lived through a portion of it. If your reference point was 1934, you would have an entirely different perspective vis a vis a reference point from 1979. Again, climate changes all the time. It is as natural as the sun rising in the east.
Regarding “Toast”, his/her type is common as dirt on the net. It is “impressive” only to those who enjoy playground antics. I find it nothing but tiresome.
Since Dr. Perry was cited in this thread, allow me to offer a shameless plug for his blog (Carpe Diem).
I read his blog frequently and find it enormously educational.
Art,
I just read everything Google can find from “Toast” (not bloody much).
To say that I am unimpressed would be the understatement of the century.
By all appearances, this commentator has only read one book and watched one movie. And, from that he/she has developed the latest and “greatest” Chicken Little philosophy for the ages.
He/she is nothing but the latest prophet of doom standing on the (virtual world) street corner ignorantly screaming about the end of the world.
What a sad, pathetic little joke this commentator is.
If it ain't on thing it's another.
Funny if you look at all the reasons oil went up.
Hurricanes, rebels, war in the Middle East, liberals that won't let us drill, greedy oil companies, speculators and in time probably even Santa and the Easter Bunny. So back in the 90s when oil was cheap the were no wars, no liberals, no speculators, no hurricanes, no rebels and oil companies operated on a non-profit basis only...and denial is a river in Africa.
Folks it's time to pull your heads out of a dark place and examine the evidence. Hint, it has something to do with supply and demand.
YoSki,
I think that perhaps your point was that the one thing which exists today and did not exist during the 1990s is rapidly exploding global demand for crude oil.
So, combine that with “liberals that [STILL] won't let us drill [or refine]”, and the process of “price discovery” creates the prices we see today.
Those who have no understanding of economics do not understand that “price discovery” (in a semi-free market) is the balancing beam which keeps supply in balance with demand. Artificially lower the price and you will suddenly find there is no gas available when you go to fill the tank.
If you’ve not yet done so, I would encourage you to examine the facts and then sign the petition.
P.S.) Mr. Reich describes “the dropping dollar”?
What dropping dollar?
That end of that cycle is history (with the end of Federal Reserve rate cuts).
And, the inflation fears expressed in that last link largely faded with the recent CPI report.
In other words, we just hit the proverbial “soft landing” and things are looking up.
But, don’t expect the so-called MSM to tell you that. Why? Because admitting the obvious would not help to elect Obama.
"Blogger SBVOR said...
If Toast could read, he/she would have clicked the first image in the first post and arrived at this post (where the directly cited peer reviewed science as published in peer reviewed science journals is found).
"
Soooo, I follow the second link, and where does it take me? Not to a peer reviewed journal, but to SBVOR's blog! On this blog page SBVOR asks himself a bunch of questions about global warming, then he answers his own questions. He has a bunch of links to some peered reviewed articles. I follow the 1st one and what do I find? It's the quote out of context approach that I predicted above!
In the study, the author himself in the conclusions questions the portion where it appears CO2 is a smaller contributer to global warming than previously thought.
"The situation invites scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation of the present study".
Of course FOX news and right winger blogs all over the internet are using this as proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
It turns out the author of the study was so concerned about the right winger misinterpretation of his study that he was quoted as saying;
I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."
--Stephen Schwartz, Sept. 06, 2007"
STRIKE II SBVOR!
Right out of the right wing playbook! Misinterpretation of legitimate data, quotes out of context ...
The only reason I'm playing this game is to demonstrate that conservatives are either deceptive, or out of touch with reality. Either way, you should NEVER EVER believe ANYTHING a conservative says without checking it out very carefully. Their propaganda techniques are very good and well practiced. But they're getting old and are very predictable.
Ok SBVOR, I'll give you one more shot. Show me something, anything, that's been published in a peer reviewed journal that concludes global warming is not happening or is not man made, and that has not been overwhelming proven wrong by follow up publications. No more bizarre interpretations of data, no more quoting out of context, no more misquotes.
I love your blog because you are honest and true. And, I would vote for you in any political office you would run for. Because you are sincere and authentic. But, I believe your statement is likely top ticking the oil market. Oil is going to bust. Not go down. Bust. Because the global economy is going to bust. This global growth story has been a complete ruse. There is no global growth. It's been fueled by a massive debt bubble. Take away the massive debt bubble and we are already in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Wait till that debt starts popping off. Especially in emerging markets. China's government could fall or we could see a resurgence of brutal rule in China to stop the liberalization of human rights.
What's next? Fire up the war engine because we are likely headed for a time of global instability not seen since WWII
toast:
Your post can't be considered brilliant since you don't have any links in it. The pretty blue lines are synonymous with intellect. It's a net thing.
It was however magnificent!
Art A Layman 12:50
Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that my technique in quoting Ms. McDonald’s remarks was unclear.
You eloquently dismissed most of Ms. McDonald’s points. Do you also dismiss the 250 economists who sent to Congress their concerns about the proposed windfall profits tax in 2005 as “naïve fools”?
You claim that the fact that government is an inefficient spender is not pertinent to the discussion, and even “illogical”. Do you not yourself consider the likely return on a given investment, before you make the investment? Why should not tax payers have the same attitude when handing over revenue to the government? The return achieved on tax payer money should be of paramount concern, because the citizenry is the benefactor to that return.
Re: anthropogenic global warming
What we know for sure is that the field is highly politicized. It lacks rigor and fails in many ways as a truly scientific endeavor. The science is very unsettled. Far more work needs to be done preferably by pure scientists within the objective physical sciences. The advent of “environmental science” has only muddied the waters with too many with political axes to grind and weak science.
Freeman Dyson, Princeton physics professor says: “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
notsofast said
"
What we know for sure is that the field is highly politicized. It lacks rigor and fails in many ways as a truly scientific endeavor. The science is very unsettled. Far more work needs to be done preferably by pure scientists within the objective physical sciences. The advent of “environmental science” has only muddied the waters with too many with political axes to grind and weak science."
Once again, we have conservative deception! In this propagandistic approach, we try to portray that there is confusion, indecision, a lack of data, among the scientists by quoting the <1% who disagree with the overwhelming data and the 99% of the reasonable scientists who follow the data. They also try to adopt the terminology of the science in order to portray that they have some understanding of the scientific method(this comes from the play book of the scientific creationists). There is NO disagreement among the super majority of scientists in the field!
The only confusion or indecisiveness is in the minds of those deceptive conservatives who have been proven wrong, over and over again.
"The advent of “environmental science” has only muddied the waters..." What kind of an absurd ridiculous statement is this?!
Yep! the science of physics sure has muddied the water on gravity, the science of astronomy sure has muddied the water on stars.
Conservatives have only opinions! Opinions which are usually based on misinformation, or no information at all.
I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed articles, in legitimate publications, that conclude man made global warming is false!
anonymous:
Being somewhat of a "pompous ass", I have no problem disparaging the claims of 250 economists. I would be less inclined to refer to them as "naive fools", there are limits to my pomposity, few, but some.
Economists tend to be from various economic schools of thought. Many of those schools of economic thought abhor any kind of government intervention with the "free market" and thus they would be opposed to any type of "windfall profits" tax. I'm sure, in some instances, they are also concerned that if a "windfall profits" tax is not configured properly it could have serious economic detriments. The latter is a very serious concern, especially since the oil companies are far more interested in profits than in the welfare of our country. Most of the big players are foreign owned and the profits are going out of our country anyway.
There are many, I don't know the number, economists who hold solidly to the view that a "windfall profits" tax is called for. Are they less correct than your vaunted 250?
We are faced with a situation where, agree or not, the major oil companies have secured record profits by taking advantage of the market pricing for oil, a pricing that it is little influenced, in the short term, by supply and demand. If we were talking about a Plasma TV company taking similar actions there would be little concern because the market would correct for the pricing fiasco by a strong reduction in demand. Oil and gasoline are so vital to our entire economy and demand is very price inelastic. The steps necessary to decrease individual demand are difficult for most individual consumers.
Since the oil and gas producing/delivering industry is the only major energy sector where prices are unregulated, there should be an assumed responsibility on their part for appreciating the economic impact of their pricing decisions. Phenominal profit increases, predicated primarily on rising prices, should be a secondary consideration. Alas, not the capitalistic way.
The profit benefits of the oil companies are going to a very limited segment of the world's population at the expense of a very large segment of that population. Equity should be made of sterner stuff.
Even at that, one can seriously question management's use of those profits. As I have pointed out profits in 2007 versus 1999 were up 413% yet total dividends only increased by 30% for that same period. It has been stated that Exxon has spent $31 billion in stock repurchases in the past few years. Not exactly the way to assist the world in weaning off reliance on oil, nor for rewarding shareholders.
You claim that the fact that government is an inefficient spender is not pertinent to the discussion, and even “illogical”. Do you not yourself consider the likely return on a given investment, before you make the investment? Why should not tax payers have the same attitude when handing over revenue to the government? The return achieved on tax payer money should be of paramount concern, because the citizenry is the benefactor to that return.
My reference to "illogical" is that the argument about government spending inefficiencies is a diversion from the subject, away from whether "windfall profits" are called for or not. It is an attempt to inject a different area of discussion and does nothing to address the original premise. That by definition is "illogical" argument.
Since taxes are not generally optional they cannot be truly considered investment. You do not look at personal rates of returns in deciding whether to pay your taxes. All tax revenue collected by the government is disbursed back into the economy, in one way or another, benefitting our economy and society as a whole. You, yourself, may not recieve specific benefits from some of that spending but you enjoy the overall economic growth and benefits from the aggregate. Perhaps you can calculate for me the rate of return from improved national security. Notwithstanding foreign aid, we, in this country, receive returns from government spending, whether spent efficiently, wastefully or not.
If it is decided that a "windfall profits" tax is appropriate then making payments to the government is far and away the most efficient method to accomplish that. What the government does with those funds, how they choose to spend them, is certainly debatable but it is an entirely different debate and has nothing to do with the issue of whether "windfall profits" are an appropriate action.
Toast,
An honest broker would have examined my post in its entirety and commented on the overall thrust.
Instead, out of the 7 examples of peer reviewed science which I directly quote and cite (along with numerous other extremely credible sources), you selected only one (Schwartz, 2007).
But, even there, you did not comment on the science (demonstrating that we are unlikely to see much more than 0.4C of additional anthropogenic warming in the next 100 years). Instead, you merely note that the author has indicated he is worried about future warming.
Worries are for psychologists to address. His own published science, along with many others, objectively tells me the worries are unfounded.
I would also note that scientists more easily get grant money for the next research project by expressing worries about the issue which they propose to study. If word gets out that ANY case for climate alarm is rapidly disintegrating (as it clearly is), the taxpayer funding for future studies starts to dry up. For more on this topic, listen to what the IPCC scientists have to say in the videos.
Among those commenting on Schwartz, 2007, the last time I checked, PhD Physicist Luboš Motl was not employed by Fox News. Nor, for that matter, were any of the “400 Prominent Scientists” described here employed by Fox News.
As for the rest of your ignorant rant, it is only further evidence that you either cannot or did not read what I said.
I would encourage everybody to read the news, examine the facts and then sign the petition.
sbvor:
An honest broker would have examined my post in its entirety and commented on the overall thrust.
As for the rest of your ignorant rant, it is only further evidence that you either cannot or did not read what I said.
Not my fight but a couple observations. One would think that an "honest broker", especially a self proclaimed scientist, could present argument or disagreement without drifting to name calling and scurrilous insults.
As I pointed out in my response on your blog, you are quite full of yourself. You seem to feel that certain aspects of your digestive process don't stink.
It is the nature of the blogosphere that all have a voice, even those who could never have a face to face disagreement because no one would take the time to talk to them. If you have something to say, to sell, then do it and you will gain much more credibility if you can do it without name calling and vitriol.
The fact that you accept the viewpoints of "experts" which you deem as the final word does not negate nor destroy the many other viewpoints of similarly qualified "experts".
It is usually a good sign of the frailty of argument when one must remand all contrarians to some grand conspiracy theory. Even if you and your "experts" are more correct than others, the issue remains unsettled science at best and further study and funding should be made available.
Art A Layman 10:33
What is the point of a windfall profits tax, if the revenue spent does not yield any return? It may be that our disagreement arises from my misunderstanding of what it is you believe is the purpose of a windfall profits tax. What exactly, in your opinion, is a windfall profits tax supposed to accomplish? I have had the understanding that one of the major reasons for such a tax is the claim that big oil has not invested enough in alternative energy sources, and the government would use the revenue from the tax to invest in alternative energy. Dr. Reich has claimed this as a central reason for the tax. Essentially, Dr. Reich is to big oil: “hand over part of your profits to government, and government will invest that money more prudently in alternative energy sources.” Thus the premise that this tax money is not to be used as investment, and should not be measured by its likely returns, is erroneous, in my opinion. Surely, if you knew that the government would simply spend it on some crazy pork barrel project somewhere with little or no return, you would not approve.
By definition, we receive zero return from money wasted by government. Just because tax revenue gets disbursed back into the economy does not mean that it benefits the economy & society as a whole. Take for example the recent investments in ethanol production by our government. The move has contributed to food inflation and food shortages, and has allocated resources into a fuel source which requires greater input of energy than it outputs. (Sure, some people like farmers benefited, but for a rational calculation of total net benefit, you must look at the full picture, and measure total benefit vs. total cost.)
One must estimate the costs & returns of any investment to make a rational decision as to whether or not that investment makes sense. My point is that, if the tax revenue is wasted or yields little return, what is the point? What exactly do you think the windfall profits tax will accomplish? What do you foresee as its return?
This post has been removed by the author.
STRRRRRRRIKE THREE! You're outta here SVBOR! Game over! Go back to the duggout!
This time, I randomly decided to go from the bottom up, and took a look at your "400 prominent Scientists" who deny global warming claim.
The link takes you to a minority senate report with a title of
"The Inhofe EPW Press Blog". This is your evidence?!
Again, this report is all over the conservative blogs. Do conservatives ever have individual thoughts or do they just copy each others web sites?
Further investigation shows that this report was produced by Republican communications Director Marc Morano. Who's Marc Morano you ask? Marc Morano is a previous journalist at the Right wing Cybercast News Service. Mr. Morano and CNS were the people who provided the bogus claims of the "Swift boat Veterans for Truth". He was also the TV producer for Rush Limbaugh's TV show.
About the 400 Scientists: There are people like "Dr. Richard Courtney, a British coal journal editor whose PhD is rumoured to have issued from a Crackerjack box. There's the climate quibbler's latest star, "Dr. John Mclean," apparently another amateur who has neither a PhD nor any specific training in climate science. Then there are legitimate scientists who actually disagree with this bogus report but are simply quoted out of context.
http://www.desmogblog.com/
400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk"
There you have it folks, just as predicted. False conservative statements proven wrong again. Will they stop? Nope! They'll come back and say, but what about this? And when you prove that wrong, they'll just keep coming back with more and more phony information, just wasting your time.
Game over, Reason 3, Conservatives 0.
Art,
One of my pet peeves is so-called “Liberals” who regard any criticism, no matter how legitimate, as “name calling”.
Even worse are those hypocrites, such as yourself, who engage in exactly the same practice which they criticize in the very post where they criticize it.
When I observe what is, by any objective assessment, an “ignorant rant”, I will accurately describe it as an “ignorant rant”.
Get used to it.
Toasty,
You never address the science.
All you do (as is typical of all alarmists) is make pathetic attempts at slandering the sources.
That is a certain sign that the science is not on your side.
sbvor:
Between this site and your own you have shown little desire to avoid words like moron and Dims and deluded and ignorant and hysterical. Not exactly ready words for one who proclaims a higher education.
That I am guilty of being hypocritical I cannot deny. I'm still working on the "physician heal thyself" part. It usually has to do with my adversary and is often after numerous tete-a-tetes where the arguments descend into ludicrousy.
I do not take offense at disagreement and in your case I am not talking about your disagreement but about your explicit "name calling" often not associated with a specific disagreement.
My various posts on Dr. Reich's blog would reflect numerous instances of my downhill drift to vitriol. I have been especially kind to you both here and on your blog. Believe me, I can wallow in the mud with the best of them.
sbvor:
Surely you are aware that if the sources are questionable then their conclusions are questionable as well. If your sources have no credibility why would anyone waste time referring to their musings?
Is interesting that you aren't firing back supporting your sources but rather shifting the argument.
It's becoming apparent that you are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Art,
My respect must be earned. Otherwise, it would have no value.
I do not believe that the ideology of the Democratic Party is worthy of my respect.
Where do you draw the line in showing respect for objectively destructive ideologies? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Bin Laden? Where?
I will substantiate my arguments with objective, quantitative facts and peer reviewed science. But, if you are looking for a commentator who is willing to show respect for the Democratic Party, you will be sorely disappointed with me.
Art,
1) When have you ever seen any of the slander from the alarmists substantiated in any way?
2) When considering peer reviewed science from slandered sources, you would have to assume, without evidence, that all who participated in the peer review were equally compromised.
3) If money corrupts science, what about the the estimated $50,000,000,000 from government funding?
Art,
Honest brokers, who had the science on their side, would address the quality of the science rather than attack (without evidence) the integrity of the scientist.
svbor:
It is of absolutely no interest to me whether you respect me or not. There are those whose respect I can appreciate. There are very few whose respect I seek.
I cannot emphasize enough that the above goes double, maybe triple, maybe tenfold, about whether you respect the Democratic ideology.
If you want to talk about "objectively destructive ideologies" let's talk "free market capitalism". Its taken awhile but we are headed down the road to perdition by forever chasing the almighty dollar and all the "stuff" it can buy.
Those with an ounce of sense can see that you, with your extreme, inane opinions, would not make a good Democrat anyway.
Disappointment implies an assumption of a hopefully better result. After a number of years on this earth you will learn that there are those for whom there is no hope and therefore they can never be a disappointment. The only emotion stirred by those of that ilk is one of contemptuous pity. Followed by a complete void of emotion, known as apathy.
Art,
Who said anything about respecting or disrespecting you as an individual?
I don’t know you. The only thing I know about you is what little I have read of what you post on the internet. What reasonable person would suggest that anybody is so one dimensional that their entire persona could be determined from what they post on the net?
Another pet peeve of mine is Democrats who do not understand the difference between lack of respect for an ideology and lack of respect for an individual who adheres to that ideology. In that regard, you’re now two for two.
I have a great many close friends who are misguided Democrats. Many of them are particularly rabid Democrats suffering from acutely extreme cases of “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. Each of them has redeeming value. And, we share mutual respect for one another while sharing mutual disdain for the ideology of the other. It is the American way.
Yo! Mr. Reich!
Care to substantiate your enormously hypocritical implied allegation (over here)?
Steam is rising from my collar!
Practical measure: if India and China follow the United States in oil use, we will find out sooner rather than later if global warming really exists. India and China will pump horrendous amounts of waste into the atmosphere.
On the positive side, there is no reason for India and China to replicate the United States dependence on oil. Each country could conceivably maintain status quo then go straight to green, sustainable technology. In fact, I've seen that recommended in print. In India, Tata Motor Company has already developed an inexpensive car, which most likely will not be imported into the US. We'll see.
One of the benefits of globalization is that India and China may have their own scientists working out their own thoughts of global warming. India excels in math and was predicted to be a power house in software development many years ago. India has always excelled in astronomy, not because they have the lens grinding optics capability for making telescopes, but because they have superior arithmetic modeling that allows them to track the stars and planets. Neither country will have to rely on American cant to tell them anything about their planet.
Their will do their own research into global warming.
A couple of weeks ago, I skimmed through Ron Paul's The Revolution . He stated what's presented to American via the American controlled media usually is non-issues trumped up to look important. The real issues important to middle class Americans seldom make print or web sites. You can read for yourself.
I have left a not-so-subtle lead in for someone to say ... yes, India and China have both done their own research into global warming, and they both have signed the Kyoto agreement, which George W Bush states doesn't have enough hard science behind it for the US to sign.
kayxyz,
1) Kyoto is a really unfunny, really expensive joke which has accomplished absolutely nothing at an expense of $0.5 TRILLION.
2) China and India are among the 137 signatories to Kyoto which “have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions”.
3) That was the main reason why John Kerry and Robert Byrd joined 93 other Senators in sending a 95 to 0 shot across the bow of the Clinton Administration warning him not to even think about sending Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. Clinton took the warning and never sent the treaty to the Senate.
4) Even Al Gore, in 1997, spoke out against signing onto Kyoto.
5) You really should watch these videos as the first step in educating yourself on this issue (if you like to think of yourself as an informed voter).
P.S.) According to some, China has already become the #1 CO2 emitter.
And yet, Kyoto still demands absolutely nothing from China beyond “monitoring and reporting emissions”.
In the recent Bali Boondoggle for Bureaucrats, China continued to demonstrate that they have no intention of engaging in the economic suicide demanded by Eco-Nuts.
India? Same story.
Bali? Where do I sign up to be a corrupt, money grubbing Bureaucrat?
P.P.S.) Here is a cartoon version of a quick 2 minute intro into the absurdity that is Kyoto.
anonymous:
Sorry for the delay, I got engrossed in disputes with a veritable idiot and wasted a lot of time.
What is the purpose of a "windfall profits" tax? Admittedly it is mostly punitive. In essence it is saying that the gains were ill-gotten or more kindly that the gains were secured by taking advantage of an pricing anomaly without any attendent risks.
As I stated before, the term "price gouging" has been avoided, in my mind, because it raises the level of the dialogue to a dangerous point. I believe it has been precisely "price gouging".
The argument that the oil companies have not invested sufficiently in alternative fuel sources research is valid and there is little wrong with the idea that if not them, then who? The only viable who is the government. Would it be acceptable to you if we told the oil companies that they had to turn the "windfall profits" over to ABC Hydrogen Wizardry, Inc.?
Essentially, Dr. Reich is to big oil: “hand over part of your profits to government, and government will invest that money more prudently in alternative energy sources.”
Dr. Reich has not suggested "more prudently" just merely that the government would or should invest the money in those endeavors. When the logical entities for investment in alternatives is doing little or nothing then someone has to take action and encourage the activity. That someone can only be you and I, via the government.
No one suggested that the money was not to be used in investment. The view that government spending can be viewed as investment with a measurable rate of return is pure absurdity.
By definition, we receive zero return from money wasted by government. Just because tax revenue gets disbursed back into the economy does not mean that it benefits the economy & society as a whole.
I'm not sure where you got your economics education but I would ask for a refund.
It would be preferrable that any "windfall profits" tax revenue be targeted for alternative fuel research. There are problems with that approach, however. Not knowing what those receipts will be in the future, how does the government establish a budget for the research. Would you suggest that any program begun should be started and stopped all predicated on each years receipts?
You have lots of objections but no better solutions. Even if some of the money got spent on "earmarks", abhorrent I know, but those "earmarks" are not all frivilous, even those that are benefit the economy as a whole, in varying degrees. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" would have provided direct jobs in construction. The materials purchased would have secured or increased jobs at suppliers. The local businesses would see increased profits. All those jobs and profits would increase GDP as well as tax revenues. The multiplier effect is ever present.
Our government, much as our business community, is guilty of practicing crisis management. Actions are not taken in a long term plan but rather solutions are cobbled together in the heat of emergency. This often leads to poor decisions with a plethora of unintended consequences. The ethanol faisco is a case in point. That unintended consequences arise is less problematic than doing nothing and awaiting known consequences to occur. Increased food prices, as impactive as they have been on the American public, have lead to increased exports which has aided our economy, so far, to skirt a serious recession.
I have a long history in financial management and likely do not need lessons from you on costs and benefits, nor rate of return calculations. It is folly to think we can compartmentalize the various functions of government to calculate or control rates of returns on spending. Governments don't always control their destinies. The current flooding in the midwest is going to cost all the governments involved billions. Should we calculate the rate of returns on that spending before we commence to help out our fellow citizens?
You cannot run government like a business enterprise, they are not comparable. And if you think that all the spending and decisions made by the business community are bastions of wise financial management it is another flaw in your education.
A "windfall profits" tax will, if nothing else, put oil companies, or any other vital supplier to our national welfare, on notice that taking advantage will incur costs. That they will not go quietly into that goodnight, fat, dumb and happy. If the receipts can be targeted to further research and that research should be fruitful, the benefits are, at this time, incalculable. To be free of fossil fuels, or even significantly less dependent, will be a gift that keeps on giving for generations. Will there be wasteful spending during the process? Is the NC sky blue? Will there be fits and starts and misdirections and unintended consequences? Is Dr. Reich a liberal?
Any CEO will tell you that you do not succeed and reach new levels without taking risks and making mistakes. It is the nature of dealing with the unknown. Those risks and mistakes, in the short term, may create serious wasteful and unproductive spending. If the expected payoff, even if not given to monetarization currently, is significant enough, few CEOs would shy away from the endeavor. We should expect no less from our government.
The advantage the government brings is that any wasteful or unproductive spending will still feed the trough of GDP.
Believe me, neither you nor I nor all the quan methods guys on Wall Street have enough of a database of formulas to calculate the true costs and benefits of alternative fuels research. Your suggestion of micromanaging government spending and selecting options based on rates of return only leads to chaos. In business, rates of return are used as selection criteria among competing proposals that are optional. Actions which must of necessity be taken are not viewed through the prism of financial analysis.
Methinks this post has been the enactment of "beating a dead horse".
To all the bloggers here, save one who knows who he is:
I stand before you a beaten man. An ashamed, and sorry excuse for a blogger.
I always enjoy blogging and have visited many "conservative" blog sites, engaging in the back and forth of, usually, meaningless diatribe. I thoroughly enjoy the barbs, giving and taking, and take great pleasure in making valid points and sometimes winning arguments. My adversaries have usually been gracious, in a sort of blogging way, and we have had fun even while dodging the slings and arrows.
Alas, I have been de-kneed. I have received the ultimate disgrace. I have been remanded to the pile of ignorant, stupid, inane, fatuous bloggers, by none other than the champion of that group.
SBVOR has kicked me off his blog site!
Oh God the shame! My keyboard is sparking from the teardrops. I can only hope there will be a brighter day.
To review how Art came to be “no longer welcome” at my blog, click here.
I tolerate any and all differing opinions.
But, repeatedly and unrepentantly posting obviously, objectively, quantitatively false information is not tolerated at my blog.
Folks:
But, repeatedly and unrepentantly posting obviously, objectively, quantitatively false information is not tolerated at my blog.
sbvor wouldn't know obviously, objectively, quantitatively false information if he were hit over the head with it.
What is missing from his ridiculous contention is, "in my opinion".
I won't bore you with a long dissertation of the events. The crux is that sbvor requires, from his "liberal" posters, sites, charts, specific quotes or any other specific reference to substantiate a statement. His "conservative" visitors are not held to the same standard. An example of the disagreement that lead to my untimely demise:
Again, I assume Mr. Bowyer, in quoting “well over 600,000”, was citing numbers which were not seasonally adjusted. He may have even been citing the total labor force, not just the “civilian labor force”.(emphasis added)
This after this:
Art,
If you care to at least attempt to substantiate your assertions, you are more than welcome to try again. If you make assertions of quantitative fact, I will expect to see quantitative data.
Now aside from our knowledge about "assuming", do not those two statements from svbor seem just slightly incongruous?
The man is certifiable.
Folks:
The lesson to be learned here?
Pay attention to what "toast" tells you.
Art (Feeding The Troll),
Wrong again.
I request that commentators substantiate their information. Although GRASSROOTS AMERICAN VALUES, did not substantiate his/her assertion, I was able to locate the source of his/her information (before I commented on it).
Although I have not been able to fully substantiate the 600,000 number, neither you nor I have been able to refute it. I would like to have seen you make a legitimate attempt to refute that number. Instead, you chose to reiterate what any sensible person can easily see is obviously an utterly false assertion.
Hence, your status with me as a Troll who is “no longer welcome” at my blog.
All of which leaves me wondering if you and “Toast” are one and the same.
Blogger SBVOR said...
" But, repeatedly and unrepentantly posting obviously, objectively, quantitatively false information is not tolerated at my blog."
AHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
After you quote Rush Limbaughs TV producer, the source for the "swift boat for truth" ads as a legitimate source of information, and you quote data from a scientific study that the author recognizes as outlier data and states it needs more study, You've got the guts to even comment about the quality of someone else's information?!! You're joking right?! You didn't really mean this right?!
AHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA !
Thanks for making my day. You "tolerant" conservatives amuse the heck out of me.
svbor:
Is not your possessing traits such as, imbecilic, arcane, absurd, stupid, not enough?
You want to add paranoid to the mix?
svbor:
You know you're not like any scientist I ever knew.
Although I have not been able to fully substantiate the 600,000 number, neither you nor I have been able to refute it. I would like to have seen you make a legitimate attempt to refute that number. Instead, you chose to reiterate what any sensible person can easily see is obviously an utterly false assertion.
How in the hell do you refute a number when you don't know where it came from or what it represents?
Have you thought about comedy as a profession?
I know this is all ridiculous but here is the original post that caused the problem.
GRASSROOTS AMERICAN VALUES said...
A friend of mine sent me this and I thought all of you should read.
“It wasn’t Bush, it wasn’t greedy corporations, or free trade, or history’s most over-predicted recession. It was not the oil companies, income inequality, or the excesses of cowboy capitalism. None of these things caused the unemployment rate to jump a half a percentage point in one month. Ask yourself a few questions: Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low? More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate lay-offs? The answer to all of these questions is same: because very few people lost jobs last month. This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy—hundreds of thousands of them. In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May. And who starts looking for work at the end of Spring? That’s right—students. Hundreds of thousands of students are looking for work right now, and they’re not finding it. Congress is to blame. Last year Congressional Democrats (along with some Stockholm-Syndromed Republicans) passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Free market economists warned them that this would increase unemployment—that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teens and minorities the hardest. But the class-warriors are running the people’s house now, and they would hear none of that, so they took to the floor, let loose the dogs of demagoguery, and saddled America’s pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses and lawn mowing services with a huge cost increase. Now, we see the perfectly logical outcome of wage controls—rising unemployment among the most economically vulnerable.” — Jerry Bowyer
Note there are no cites, or sites, or references of any kind, nothing to "substantiate" the palaver. His numbers were bad enough, his rambling about the minimum wage is pure malarkey (better known as conservative speak).
Svbor, I would surely hope that in your scientific experiments you have a better grasp of cause and effect.
I'd bore you with my responses but svbor deleted them. You can always escape justice when you destroy the evidence.
1) Art sez:
“How in the **** do you refute a number when you don't know where it came from or what it represents?”
You find:
A) The BLS numbers which are not seasonally adjusted.
I’ve seen them before. But I cannot recall where to find them.
B) The BLS numbers, if they exist, which are not limited to the “civilian labor force”.
That, I have never seen.
2) I would prefer that Mr. Bowyer had substantiated his number. But, that is not yet the norm among commentators.
In the meantime, I would hope that Townhall.com vetted the number before publishing it. If they did not, it will be a strike against them in my book. Unless the number can be refuted, I will give Townhall.com the benefit of the doubt (while openly and honestly noting that I cannot, as yet, verify the number).
That said, replace his “well over 600,000” with the “577,000” “seasonally adjusted” increase in the “civilian labor force” which I can readily verify from the first line item in Table A and the analysis stands.
I guess in the interest of full disclosure I should paste svbor's response, praising the unsubstantiated information.
SBVOR said...
GRASSROOTS AMERICAN VALUES,
Thank you for rescuing this thread from the sandbox!
The analysis you provided is, objectively speaking, absolutely correct. (emphasis added)
When unemployment jumped from 5.0% to 5.5%, I heard the same analysis (even from the MSM). That is why, rather than comment on the jump in the main body of this post, I made a note to myself to watch for any reaction which would suggest that it turned out to be an event which would warrant any note at all.
Thus far, your analysis seems to have carried the day. And, all evidence suggests the number will drop next month.
1) The report was released on 6/6/08.
2) Since 6/6/08, the odds of a 2008 recession, as expressed at Intrade has dropped from 32% to 28%. On the date of the release, the odds remained unchanged at 32%.
3) Since 6/6/08, the professionals at The Conference Board have not adjusted their economic forecast. They continue to predict the unemployment rate for Q2 will average out to 5.0%. This would imply that they expect the unemployment rate to drop a full percentage point in June (down to 4.5%).
So, while some would accuse me of ignoring negative information, the simple truth is that, up until now, I have chosen to ignore inconsequential information. Inconsequential, that is, except for those victims of The Democratic Party who must now settle for government “assistance” rather than gainful employment (bureaucrats always love to expand their empire and the ranks of those who are dependent upon their “generosity”).
Ironically, I have, of late, been doing battle in the blogspot of a certain individual who boasts on his resume of having:
“headed the [Clinton] administration’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage”
Thank you again!
Please comment as often as you like
A compendium of wisdom.
svbor:
Is interesting your feeble backtracking. You can replace his "well over 600,000" with the 577,000 or with the 861,000 which was the new unemployed total, or with whatever other numbers strike your fancy. The fact remains that you don't know what he was referring to. Which appears to violate, svbor's rule #1.
My math might be a tad rusty but last time I looked 577,000 did not equate to "well over 600,000".
Art,
I was careful to praise the “analysis” while deliberately not commenting on the accuracy, inaccuracy or indeterminate status of the 600,000 number.
I knew, from years of researching this issue, that the analysis was extremely well documented.
At the time that I commented, I had verified the source of the commentary, but had made no attempt to fact check the 600,000 number.
That said, you are truly playing a child’s game here (just as you did at my blog). At some point, I will just leave you to play all by yourself in your sad little sandbox.
svbor:
Your "extremely well documented" which applies to the minimum wage issue is a plethora of articles only from Cato. Not considered by most to be an objective source.
That said, you are truly playing a child’s game here (just as you did at my blog). At some point, I will just leave you to play all by yourself in your sad little sandbox.
Your inferior and incompetent attempts at explanation make this appear much more of a child's game than it is.
Is your latter comment a promise or a threat? Begone! Out, out damned spot! I did not ask for your two cents and based on the inadequacy of it, two cents would seem extremely inflationary.
This post has been removed by the author.
Art,
You’ve hit upon my third pet peeve (in the course of our sandbox activities).
That particular peeve is the tendency of so-called “Liberals” to reject, without investigation, anything that is not taken from one of their approved sources.
It is akin to expecting your debate opponent to extol the virtues of Capitalism while insisting that they source their material exclusively from the archives of Pravda.
In this very thread, you have rejected, a priori, material sourced from Fox Business.
It may surprise you, but an academic study found, in an objective and quantitative analysis, that:
“Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet”
So, ignore the facts and deride my sources all you like. It is a certain sign that the facts (as always) are not on your side.
Your entire ideology is pure mythology and can never stand up to any rigorous investigation.
SBVOR said...
“Kyoto is a really unfunny, really expensive joke which has accomplished absolutely nothing at an expense of $0.5 TRILLION“.
I suppose it had some symbolic effect but hasn’t done anything to curb emissions that’s for sure. It’s contributing to a significant delay in developing viable alternatives. The money could have been and still should be spent on developing substitutes. Market schemes like Kyoto won’t provide solutions to global warming and a compromised environment.
NotSoFast,
I think we are in complete agreement up until your last sentence.
My review of the peer reviewed science (along with the video interviews of the foremost skeptics) tells me that Man Made Global Warming is not now and never will be anything to be even remotely concerned with.
That said, there are countless other reasons why the world must transition to the next generation of energy sources.
That said, there is absolutely, positively no crisis, of any sort, compelling us to do that immediately (or to tax ourselves to death in the worst possible way to imagine getting ‘er done).
There are, however, clear national security and economic security issues (one and the same) compelling us to “Drill Here & Drill Now” (thereby providing us with the essential petroleum buffer we need in order to):
1) Continue to create the capital required to allow the private sector, without meddling from the public sector, to find the next VIABLE generation of energy sources (we ain’t even close as yet).
2) Continue to provide for our national and economic security (one and the same).
God help us all if the Eco-Nuts at the IEA have their way!
Just saying: students who enter the job market cannot file for unemployment benefits. They must work for a time (usually 26 weeks, varies by state) before they can enter the ranks of the 'unemployed'.
I'll read Art A Layman's intelligent remarks. The other guy, not so much.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
sbvor,
Swiftboatvet did indeed lie, as factcheck lays out:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Your UCLA study, funded by 3 top conservative think tank, showing Fox news to be "centrist" is laughable. The study's methodology is severely flawed. It simply counted the number of times politicians cited certain think tanks or organizations, and then assigned those think tanks and organizations a liberal-conservative rating based on the politician's political leaning. So a Democrat cites the NRA, the NRA gets a liberal point. Conservative cites the ACLU, ACLU is conservative.
Result? Fox news is "unbiased", drudge report is slightly left, Wall Street Journal is the most liberal news outlet of any, ACLU was slightly conservative, NRA barely conservative, Council on Foreign relations (non-partisan resource for information with members from both parties) is apparently liberal, Center for Responsive Politics (simply maintains databases on political contributions) is very liberal, and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, chaired by a former democrat, is apparently more conservative than the AEI and the National Taxpayers Union.
That seem logical to you, oh fair and objective one?
The only thing it's likely to indicate is that Democrats and the media are more likely to cite non-partisan data than Republicans.
See what Dow Jones had to say:
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808
So I'm sure you'll admit your mistake and apologize, being the truth-seeker you are.
Anonymous ignorantly regurgitates one of the more popular myths among so-called “Liberals” (the myth that only those drawing unemployment “benefits” are counted by the BLS Household Survey of unemployment).
Quoting the BLS definition:
“Unemployed persons: All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4 week-period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.”
Kindly notice that there is no mention of drawing unemployment “benefits”.
Whether his/her other unsubstantiated assertion regarding who qualifies for unemployment “benefits” is equally fallacious, I will leave to some other myth buster.
T-Bone,
Are you kidding me? It just amazes me how gullible you so-called “Liberals” are!
The best your cited summary can muster is one man’s word against the word of all those veterans featured in this clip.
If I ever stop laughing, I might consider reading the rest of it. Oh wait, the very next argument was the usual slander suggesting that decorated war veterans were tainted by money. Pravda would be soooo proud, comrade!
Readers can compare your source to mine and judge for themselves which one has more credibility.
Equally amusing (in a REALLY sad way) is your link alleging to bust the quantitative measure of media bias.
First, I notice you pointed me to an internet “journalist” forum where some internet poster threw something up allegedly from some unnamed “spokesman for Dow Jones and Co.”. There’s belly laugh number one!
After reaching the following sentence, I could not force myself to read any further:
“By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views”
The academic paper can be found here.
The “50 MOST-CITED THINK TANKS AND POLICY GROUPS BY THE MEDIA IN OUR SAMPLE” is found on page 11 (as Adobe Acrobat sees it). Oddly enough, I do not see “al Qaeda” anywhere in the list.
If I frequently cite Heritage.org, will you judge me to be right of center?
If I frequently cite MoveOn.org, will you make some other judgment?
Why would the same impression not apply to “news” organizations?
Geez! At least the Old York Times has the stones to admit their bias!
sbvor:
"thereby providing us with the essential petroleum buffer we need in order to"
Explain to me why we need an essential petroleum buffer? We had an essential petroleum buffer for 35 years. It brought us SUVs, McMansions and a bunch of other nonsense. Drilling in ANWR or of the coast will only delay the inevitable by a few more years. What we really need is $10/gal gas, rationing and shortages so that we finally wake up and get serious about alternatives. The hydro-carbon era is drawing to a close, like it or not. It's not the end of the world IF we choose to address the problem ...like yesterday. Instead we invade other countries, blow housing bubbles, worry about gay marriages and get excited about American Idol and Brittany. Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.
YoSki,
Even Matthew Wald of The Old York Times, speaking on NPR, recently admitted that the best alternative to hydrocarbons currently available is something he called WT. He tells us (at the end of the audio interview) that WT stands for “Wishful Thinking”. It will take time to facilitate a smooth transition from hydrocarbons to whatever. The economic suicide you advocate will ensure we never get there!
This is the issue that will (mercifully) defeat Obama come November (and McCain has finally understood that). But, Dims have always been self-destructive.
Explain to me how record prices for crude incentivize energy companies to work harder to develop alternative energy sources. The only entity which is not harmed by your “solution” is “Big Oil”.
But, everybody benefits from my solution, even “Big Oil”. Whatever profit “Big Oil” would lose from lower prices for crude would be more than recouped in larger volume.
Do you really believe we face some environmental catastrophe if we don’t stop burning hydrocarbons? Not even the grossly exaggerated and deeply flawed IPCC data (7”-23” of sea level rise in the next 100 years) support that conclusion. See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link.
If you really believe we invaded Iraq for the oil, but do not favor developing mean estimates of domestic reserves which total well over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, then one could only conclude that you prefer invading and conquering the Middle East over using the most environmentally friendly technology in the world to develop our own domestic energy sources.
Perhaps your “solution” is a windfall profit tax funding a committee of ignorant, incompetent, corrupt and lazy government bureaucrats to direct us to the next solution. Are you serious? Tell me how well the ethanol debacle has worked? If you think switch grass will work any better, you must be smoking something.
The prediction that India would be a powerhouse in software development was made by Peter Schwartz in his book The Art of the Long View, the same source for the blurb about India excelling in astronomy.
So much for international cadre of scientists. In your highest intellectual capacity, what would it take to convince any Republican of your choice that global warming is a threat?
*George W Bush is the only Republican left standing and he decamps to Paraguay to live on his new property, with its own fresh water aquifer and its proximity to a military base.
*Insurance companies, who face huge losses if they have to pay out for the ravages of global warming, hold a summit and adopt the business model of all credit card companies and banks: always charge loanshark fees, give back very little money to customers, make customers this they are getting a deal, but just continually take, take, take from American families, with no payouts.
*The United States grows a gigantic lake in the middle of the North American Continent, names it Lake Mississippi (or other cool lake names Lake Limbaugh, Lake Bush, Lake Exxon), and two landmasses flank to the right and left.
*Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Monsanto go bankrupt through massive crop failures brought on by floods or drought. Russia learns to farm its vast land by buying "walls of water," the plastic teepees that insulate tomato plants.
kayxyz,
You remind me of the old saying:
“To the person with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
You see Man Made Global Warming everywhere you look.
But, sadly, you lack eyes to see.
All you have is a hammer striking about blind as can be.
Yes, who should we believe? FactCheck, a site dedicated to checking facts without opinion, or the target of the factcheck, the swiftboat site...
Really? That's the defense your going with? That and screaming childish insults? What are you, twelve? I almost expect "I know you are but what am I" next. And just after claiming some high ground of being the one who addresses the arguments rather than the source, you do show us it was a nice sounding act. So much for that high horse.
We're supposed to believe you're laughing? Do you always laugh at being shown to be a fool? Yeah, laughing. With a beet red face of embarrassment, while fuming at being exposed at a hypocrite (though probably occurs on a regular basis if your current behavior is any indication).
And your theory about conservatives using conservative sources while liberals using liberal sources is nice... in theory. Except it unfortunately doesn't work that way, as the results show. But ignoring inconvenient realities doesn't exactly paint you as the logical truth-seeker you wish were, and apparently love to tell everyone you are. Simply asserting what you wish were true does not make it true, your Holiness Sir Wannabe.
Maybe you have some entertaining theory also about that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal, or that proudly conservative ACLU, or all those liberal data collection groups.
BTW, the source I provided as a supplement provides simple logic, which you apparently have a hard time grasping. Perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking as well, as you seemed to think the source was suggesting Al-Qaeda was used in the study. No, it was a hypothetical example of a flaw of the methodology, as my business associate's 14 year old daughter likely could explain to you.
But no hard feelings. We thank you for the laughs anyway. We admire (pity, actually) your perseverance of self-delusion in the face of such clear truths. We only wish your efforts were aimed at some fruitful endeavor.
Now laugh incredulously, call me some names, argue something that fails to address the points, and claim that it's obviously not worth your time to respond the unaddressed points.
T-Bone,
I am quite happy to rest my case in both trials.
There is nothing I could do to better illustrate the weakness of your case that you didn’t just do.
Thanks,
SBVOR
T-Bone,
Okay, I cannot resist busting you one step further…
This “hypothetical example of a flaw of the methodology [involving al Qaeda as a proxy for a think tank citation]” is even more laughable than the rest of your arguments.
“News” sources purport to the public that they turn to think tanks for alleged objective “expert opinion”. What they really do is turn to a preferred think tank for an “expert opinion” that very quantifiably reinforces their political ideology. Of course, the study quantitatively demonstrates that some are considerably more ideological than others in this regard.
Now, if, by way of “hypothetical example”, a “news” source turned to al Qaeda for an “expert opinion”, I would be concerned about WAY more than the political bias of that “news” source (not that we’ve ever known “news” sources to stoop that low).
And then there's this: Deregulation of the futures market.
And this: Mergers of refineries allowed by antitrust types.
Some of this goes back to ENRON and, of course, THIS administration.
tt
TipToe,
This one is just for you.
Be sure to read the three part series from Thomas Sowell at the bottom of the post.
sbvor:
"domestic reserves which total well over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia"
Get over your oil shale will you? The EROEI is close to 1, similarly to the misguided Ethanol effort. The oil shale reserves might as well be on the moon, they're useless. If you can't convert reserves into production flows you got nothing.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions to what I believe. First of all our biggest energy resource is our wastefulness. We can cut consumption by 50% and still do just fine. ...and no, we won't be driving SUVs or heating/cooling McMansion anymore. We will still survive somehow, imagine that.
We need to switch most of our transportation system over to electric (trains) 'cos electricity is much easier to produce than liquid fuels.
How do we produce electricity?
Wind, Solar, Waves, Geothermal, Nuclear and maybe even 2nd generation Ethanol. The Southwest has great potential for solar. We need infrastructure to transport the electricity to where it is needed. 1 million Volt DC power line will do. Nuclear will help as well. Pebble bed reactors as very save. You can get Uranium for sew water @ about $500/lbs. The supply is essentially unlimited.
We can build small cars that get 50+ mpg, build geo-sourced heating/cooling systems that run on 1/3 of the power conventional systems use (I got one, so I know first hand). Better insulation in homes. Only sell compact fluorescent light bulbs. Fine businesses that burn light 24/7. Tax breaks/penalties to make people work from home instead of commuting. More bike lanes to make it possible for poeple to use their bike. Public transportation.
Solar roofing tiles. Plus a thousand other ways to either save or generate energy.
Unfortunately our politicians are utterly incompetent. The only way for this to really get their attention is a total core meltdown. For 35+ years "we" have known that energy will eventually be a problem. We had plenty of energy all those years. We choose to squander it on useless toys. We have done absolutely nothing to prepare. Maybe we will change our tune once a real crisis hits.
Using oil shale will just be another fiasco, like Ethanol....low/no EROEI, not gonna work.
SBVOR said...
“God help us all if the Eco-Nuts at the IEA have their way!”
Although relatively young with many methodological flaws, we can pretty safely say that climate change science is beyond the hypothesis stage and has demonstrated a connection between human activity and global warming. The timing, extent and consequences of this warming, however, are unsettled as predictions are all over the map. In the meantime, near hysteria grips those in their enthusiasm to do something and it takes its place front and center in the world’s dialogue capturing our attention.
What this does, however, is marginalize something that is better understood with 30-40 years of strong science behind it and which has more ominous implications for the globe; namely the biodiversity crisis. The unraveling of our biodiversity has been going on for decades if not centuries and will not reverse course with a technological solution to the global warming problem.
Go ahead and tinker around the edges with some technological gadget that reduces global warming. Completely eliminate it. We’re still left with a world that promotes an orgy of environmental degradation, reckless industrialization and dangerous consumption binging.
svbor:
Ah, the day begins again. At my age that's a good thing.
Now, svbor, please accept my humblest apologies for tweaking all your pet peeves. If I were your mother I would kiss them and make them better.
If you were a little older, and therefore wiser, you would understand that most of the bloggers here are pretty bright people. True, most are of the liberal persuasion, a fact that just feeds your need for validation, but being bright they are usually well aware of the arguments posed by conservatives on most issues that they weigh in on. This premise is not an absolute, across the board fact, but having read many posting here for the last year or so, I have been duly impressed with many of them.
For those who have a reasonable knowledge of conservative views on a subject, further investigation would seem a waste of time. Would you as a scientist spend your time substantiating that water is H2O? Reading more conservative garbage is not going to bring on a sudden epiphany altering one's viewpoint.
One would think that a scientist, concerned more with truth than political ideology, would have a lot more links to liberal views as well about any particular subject.
The crux of the problem lies in your egocentric opinion that only you and your sources hold the real truth and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or incapable of reasoned thought.
To wit:
Anonymous ignorantly regurgitates one of the more popular myths among so-called “Liberals” (the myth that only those drawing unemployment “benefits” are counted by the BLS Household Survey of unemployment). (emphasis added)
While you are correct about the methodology employed by the BLS, those who are not in the habit of reading the actual report and the definitions would easily assume that the numbers reflect those actually drawing unemployment checks. You could have presented your point without vitriol by merely suggesting a correction.
To continue beating that dead horse, poor animal, I am familiar with the BLS report. Upon seeing the 600,000 figure I went to the site and read the report and viewed many of the tables. I could not find the figure either. I saw the 577,000 number but being a numbers man with a fetish for specificity I wasn't going to assume that he was referring to it. I found data both non-seasonally adjusted and the seasonally adjusted (which by the way for trend analysis are the better numbers).
Not finding his number and grasping his overall implication that the 600,000 represented "new" entrants and his further implication that the "new" entrants were predominantly students, I chose to point out that fallacy.
If he were, indeed, referring, with an incorrect number, to the addition to the "civilian labor force" of what statistical relevance or argumentative relevance, except to obscure and confuse and add emphasis to his larger argument, would that statement make?
The minimum wage issue, as with most complex economic/political/social issues, is not a black and white issue. There will be some job losses because of it; it certainly will impact small businesses unequally; it will cause some price increases; it will not apply to many in menial jobs since they already make more than the new max rate. At the same time, we live in a democracy. A democracy demands fairness, equity and the general welfare. This means trade offs. It means that in order to maintain fairness to all our citizens we must take actions beneficial to some and detrimental to others. In your blind allegiance to capitalism you should have learned that the market usually sorts these things out without extreme hardship to any of the players.
We made massive changes to "welfare" in the 90s. We imposed limits that forced the, "queens and their Cadillacs" to go to work. Most were only qualified, if at all, for minimum wage jobs. Ten or twelve years later to expect those, mostly single moms, to try and exist on $5.15/hr is absurd.
If we could assume that all minimum wage workers were teenagers, living at home, a viable argument can be made for leaving the minimum wage where it was. There was even debate for establishing a separate wage rate for teens. That idea strikes at the very heart of the employee/employer model. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work has always been the foundation of our economic labor model (although it took government and labor unions to get businesses up to speed). To begin to segment varying wages for varying demographics is more than folly. It is unfortunate that on the other end of the spectrum corporate execs are employing that new model.
The fact is that there are many working for minimum wage, or thereabouts, who are not teens. Most of them work in part-time jobs because their employers don't want to have to provide them benefits. They are all people too, just trying to do their best to get by, raise families, tithe at church, pay for educations, etc. They deserve help and since the business community doesn't seem inclined then the government must step in.
In net, the point being is that we liberals are not the blind followers of an ideology with no idea what lies on the other side of the wall. We may not be steeped in conservative dogma but that is merely due to our not accepting some of the basic premises, therefore, generally, we care little about the details. Anyone with an interest in politics and economics and social issues is fairly well acquainted with arguments on both sides. When an extremist ideologue comes along proffering link after link after link to more dogma it reinforces the liberal concept of "much ado about nothing", time seems better spent.
As to your "academic study", nowhere in there did I see Fox Business. In fact your list is explicit programs and not a network listing. Notwithstanding specific programs we all know that Fox has a conservative bent. That does not imply that everything that appears on Fox is conservative view and that nothing is ever nonpartisan, it is merely an assertion of their underpinnings.
I don't watch Fox Business - CNBC is much better - but I did read Ms. MacDonald's article, which only confirmed the premise that, at least she, is a purveyor of conservative BS. Writing as a reporter for Fox Business one can only presume that she is spouting the party line. In my feeble attempt I think I tore her article apart pretty well and rendered it clear that it was just conservative speak, essentially vacuous.
Very little of conservative dogma is about "facts". It is generally sound bite, cute little catch phrases, that appeal to emotions and not logic.
If you read the tea leaves you will find that the vast majority of Americans are moving back to the liberal ideology and away from the conservative mythology.
Sorry folks for boring you with my personal communication with svbor (could that be an acronym for "so very boring"), but he has banned me from communicating on his blog site, or if I do I get:
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
YoSki,
Your unsubstantiated propaganda regarding Oil Shale feasibility is well refuted by Chapter Three of the study conducted by the Rand Corporation.
There are challenges associated with developing that resource. But, the only real road block is blind, destructive political ideology (yours).
notsofast said ...
"Although relatively young with many methodological flaws, we can pretty safely say that climate change science is beyond the hypothesis stage and has demonstrated a connection between human activity and global warming. The timing, extent and consequences of this warming, however, are unsettled as predictions are all over the map. In the meantime, near hysteria grips those in their enthusiasm to do something and it takes its place front and center in the world’s dialogue capturing our attention."
You're second attempt to portray the science as confused and "all over the map" is as misguided as your first attempt. But at least you are polite in your statement.
The science is actually coming together very nicely in it's predictive capabilities. There have been recent confirmations in model predictions that were made several years ago and there have been some recent corrections to the models. It appears the models were far to conservative in the timing of the predictions. Events which were projected to occur decades from now are now predicted to occur a few years from now.
Example: Glacial retreat in Antarctica:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/
0421glaciers.shtml
Another example would be summer Sea ice extent at the north pole.
Dr. Mark Serreze who once predicted the north pole would be free of summer sea ice by mid century is now predicting it could happen within 25 years, others are saying within 10 years.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/
0404-sea_ice.html
You express a concern about biodiversity, if you are truly concerned about this, you would recognize global warming and its impact on ecosystems and the human migrations that will be inevitable, as the greatest threat to biodiversity since the end of the Cretaceous period.
Recent listing of the Polar Bear as threatened due to the collapse of the sea ice ecosystem, and the prediction of total collapse of the Colorado/southern wyoming forest ecosystems due to pine beetles which no longer are winter killed because it doesn't get cold enough anymore in the winter, are but a couple of examples of the global warming disaster that is not just at our door steps, it's happening now.
NotSoFast,
Where is the evidence to substantiate your “biodiversity crisis”?
Extinction is as natural as life and death.
Isn’t this just another example of knee-jerk Liberals getting hysterical over anything that represents (wait for it…) change?
Isn’t this just another example of scientists pimping for research money?
This post has been removed by the author.
Toasty,
The latest Bark Beetle cycle is yet another example of Environmental Extremists exploiting perfectly natural cycles to whip up hysteria among the scientifically illiterate (such as yourself).
Quoting this abstract:
“These new tree-ring records, along with previously published records, indicate that severe and widespread canopy disturbances, probably spruce beetle outbreaks, affected northwestern Colorado in 1716-1750, 1827-1845, 1860-1870, and 1940-1960. These results support earlier findings that large-scale outbreaks of spruce beetle have long been an important component of the dynamics of subalpine forests in Colorado.”
NPR has been particularly ignorant and alarmist in their “reporting” on this issue.
Folks:
Don't know about you but I'm beginning to look favorably on thsoe scientists that "pimp for research money" as opposed to those who pimp their moronic viewpoints, hopefully you all know the subject of that suggestion.
Interesting, I listened to Dumbya this morning explaining about oil shale recovery. He explained thoroughly that previously the price of oil did not support the enormous cost involved in recovering oil from shale and the research necessary to perfect the process. He went on to explain that at the current price the investment is well worth it. What he failed to mention is that if oil shale exploration is conducted by the private sector, the only sector which would place emphasis on the cost/benefits equation, then what happens if research is commenced and the price of oil declines significantly?
It should be apparent to anyone with half a brain, no offense svbor, that capitalism is not the savior here. If there are not profits to be gleaned, fairly quickly, private enterprise is little interested in investment. So what the benefits will pay off in the long run? So what that the increase in oil supply will drive prices down, assumedly? If we are talking about survival, economic as well as existence, does it not make sense to do the job?
When profits usurp quality of life or survival as the tantamount goal, capitalism has failed.
P.S.)
Here is some more history on Bark Beetle cycles, including documentation of “7 outbreaks back to 1837”
My gracious, I'm far from a scientist but a layman would think that a reference to the history of a problem would be more than just a list of questions.
History being a wonderful thing but there is a tendency to explain away everything with, "well it happened before and we lived through it".
As a layman I guess I would ask, what is the likelihood of a different, more serious result, when we take into consideration, the decline in rain forests, in temperature changes, rainfall disparities, increased population, and many other variables than I would have no idea about?
Seems like history does not always repeat itself, at least not with the same results.
Art,
The last time Oil Shale was economically viable (1970’s & 1980’s), the price of oil (adjusted for inflation) was in the $40-$70 range.
Private enterprise assesses risk/reward and then takes on the risk. If oil drops to $50 per barrel (about 1/3 the current price), we all win. If it drops to $25, we win and “Big Oil” relies more on the OCS than on Oil Shale.
Since SBVR has been severely discredited with his laughable information sources (conservative blogs, switboaters for truth...) and his out of context quotes of legitimate science, and
since he has his own blog, and since he is changing the character of this blog, may I suggest that those who wish to continue his style of discussion, or those who find entertainment in the back and forth, or those that wish to respond to postings here, that they register or reregister at;
http://sbvr.blogspot.com
and carry on discussions with him there.
Then maybe this blog can return to the more reasoned style of discussion that it is used to.
Do you think Dr. Reich, author of;
Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America (available at your local bookstore :))
would appreciate the level that this thread has fallen to?
SBVOR said...
NotSoFast,
"Where is the evidence to substantiate your “biodiversity crisis”?"
E.O. Wilson is one of the better scientists to articulate this view. He explains the science and shows its development in many of his writings. Several of these are free in various places on the WWW.
NotSoFast,
Well, even as a scientist, I tend to take the George Carlin view on this.
CAUTION: This is comedy and, these days, that means it is loaded with obscenity. So, if that offends your sensibilities, don’t click the link.
haha he is funny...i think adam sandler did a routine on this that's hilarious also.
toast:
Valid point, although I would be deleted again. Would suggest that since Dr. Reich is overdue for a new post, blogging on this one may not be that much of an interference unless it segues to his next entry.
Somehow, though likely getting bored, I can see Dr. Reich laughing hysterically at some of the absurdities posted here. He might even be considering a "pay for education" website.
svbor:
Would that all issues could be satisfied with a simple risk/reward analysis. Unfortunately, other factors enter into the equation, such as, opportunity costs, in the form of lost profits.
Ironically, while the current price of oil should support oil shale exploration, at the same time it deters it. Why invest millions, billions in producing oil from shale when they can keep selling it from foreign suppliers at current prices? Like all human nature, desires and expectations change once drinking the wine. Having tasted Valhallic profits there is a tendency to avoid returning to mundane profits. The comparative bases for new profits get measured against a new standard.
The only real delimiter that will flip the switch will be a serious decline in available oil supplies around the world. Right now we have many countries exploring and finding new oil supplies. Exxon management predicts that global demand will only increase at 1.3% a year through 2030. If supply can be expected to keep up there is little impetus for oil companies to seek alternatives. In economic theory increased production expense is only warranted to meet increased demand. If demand is relatively stable or only marginal growth is anticipated, then there is little incentive for the expansion of supply. To lower prices and profits?
They might be likely to explore OCS sources because that is a technology familiar to them. They have a much better handle on those risk/rewards. Of course, they will hold out, as they did with Gulf of Mexico drilling, for the government to get everyone to waive royalties.
Risk/reward analysis yields results based on profit expectations and as I stated that is at the heart of the problem. To the nation, the American public, this is not a question of profits but as life as we know it.
To keep this somewhat on focus with the original subject and to appease my friend toast, do you not find it strange that while oil companies shudder at the thought of a "windfall profits" tax, they have no problem at all requesting "incentives" to do what benefits us all?
The larger question is why invest limited and valuable resources in more oil production, if in the long run it is a finite supply? The better investment, albeit with greater unknowns, is to seek alternative sources that can replace oil and provide a long run future with, hopefully, much better stability.
Anybody who thinks we can lower oil prices through domestic conservation should examine this chart (which I created by downloading the data source described in the title).
Price is what varies in order to keep demand in balance with supply. We, in the United States, do NOT have the ability to constrain world demand. We do, however, have the ability to very significantly expand world supply.
Let me reiterate, we have, right here in the United States, as a MEAN estimate, about 3.4 TIMES as much oil as all of the proven reserves in all of Saudi Arabia!
It is HIGH TIME we slayed the Environmental Extremist BEAST which is slowing our economic growth and thereby IMPEDING the development of the capital needed to get us to the next generation of energy sources.
We are DECADES away from having ANY viable alternatives to hydrocarbons! We NEED an energy bridge to smooth the world transition from hydrocarbons to whatever is it that the future will hold.
But, don’t believe me, believe Matthew Wald of The New York Times, speaking on NPR, acknowledging that the best alternative to hydrocarbons currently available is something he called WT. He tells us (at the end of the audio interview) that WT stands for “Wishful Thinking”.
Wake up! Stop living in DREAM WORLD! FACE REALITY!
Sign the petition!
P.S.) Here is an updated version of the chart I previously linked to.
There is no mystery as to why gasoline prices have spiked in the last year.
As Thomas Sowell told you, it’s really, really simple.
This chart tells the entire story (okay, the very, very large majority of the story).
World demand for oil now exceeds world supply.
We can thank our domestic Eco-Nuts for that.
As long as demand exceeds supply, prices will continue to soar ever skyward.
The only real solution is to increase world supply.
Brazil is doing their part.
Canada is doing their part by developing their giant Oil Sands reserves. Canadian oil companies, exporting to the United States, are laughing all the way to the bank. Canadian consumers are angry at us for not doing our part to increase world supply.
The rest of the world is mystified as to why we continue to allow our domestic Eco-Nuts to drag down the entire world economy. They’re not just mystified, they’re angry! Me too!
Please sign the petition!
Expanding on my previous comment…
Compare this chart to this chart and tell me what caused the price of gasoline & diesel to spike.
Please sign the petition!
Expanding on my previous two comments…
Even our host agrees with me on this one. Mr. Reich (he holds a JD, but not a PhD) cites as the number one reason for the price spike:
“(1) growing demand from developing nations, especially China and India. This is the main reason for the price rise over the last six years.”
Help get world demand back in balance with world supply! Otherwise, prices WILL continue to soar ever skyward!
Please sign the petition!
Agree that E.O. Wilson is one of the best authors writing on biodiversity. An acquaintance who is an MD/PhD pointed him out.
Here is Wired.com's online article about Alberta, Canada, and their "Trillion Dollar Oil Pit." You can go to Wired.com and search on "oil sands."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html?pg=1&topic=oil&topic_set=
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This chart shows what the mean estimates indicate we could achieve by opening the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and/or 1/100th of 1% of the flat, barren, tundra of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
Alaskans, by the way, overwhelmingly favor opening ANWR (75% to 25%).
Modern technology to be used in ANWR will have a minimal impact on the tiny portion which is developed.
These days, offshore rigs AND pipelines contribute orders of magnitude LESS petroleum to the world oceans than Mother Nature does.
This chart shows what the mean estimates indicate we could achieve by developing our Oil Shale resources and/or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and/or 1/100th of 1% of the flat, barren, tundra of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
Both charts include as the “proven reserves” which they are, the vast resources of the Canadian Oil Sands. The Canadian oil companies, exporting to the United States, are laughing all the way to the bank. Canadian consumers are angry at us for not doing our part to increase world supply.
But, even WITH the vast resources of the Canadian Oil Sands, we are STILL in a situation where World Demand exceeds World Supply. As long as that is the case, prices will continue to soar.
Anybody who thinks we can lower oil prices through domestic conservation should examine this chart
Price is what varies in order to keep demand in balance with supply. We, in the United States, do NOT have the ability to constrain world demand. We do, however, have the ability to very significantly expand world supply.
Please sign the petition!
This post has been removed by the author.
SBVOR, thank you.
KO got to this (hooray!) before I could blog it. But I did post it here. (ENRON loophole and Farm Bill is what it boils down to)
See my previous post and watch KO.
"McCain, gas prices and the Enron loophole" ENROn
And the Celtics won because of PB&J at half-time IMHO.
tt
SBVOR and just how long will it take if and when more drilling is done?
I'd like to see you advocate for, hummm, solar energy here in Texas. It's sunny, very sunny hundreds of days a year, and still most house and apartment roofs are black or dark brown. I've seen maybe 2 solar panels on houses.
Why might this be? Oh, it's an oil & gas state and as confused as the President who emanated from here.
Texas deregulated electricity and the place is in chaos. For $100,000 dollars, you too can be a power company.
SBVOR Amalgamated Electric Company. But then you need yet another company to deliver said energy so you can charge for that.
SBVOR Electric Delivery Company.
Get a petition going posthaste please as time is of the essence.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
tt
TipToe asks:
“how long will it take if and when more drilling is done?”
More oil would begin to come online in about 5 years.
However, the (extremely beneficial) futures markets would drop (significantly) the very moment the announcement was made that the bans were lifted.
For some time now, world demand has exceeded world supply. And, with no prospect for more oil to come online, the futures traders will keep bidding it higher.
Eliminate or over regulate futures trading and airlines, who depend on the hedging that futures markets afford them, will go out of business. And, that’s just one of many, MANY examples of how things would go wrong.
If you love regulation (or not), you owe it to yourself to watch, via the internet, the PBS program “Commanding Heights”. You should also find a friend in New York or California and compare electric rates. You have NO IDEA how good you’ve got it!
Find more answers in my latest post.
P.S.) Save your mind! If you insist on watching Keith Olberman, at least get some balance. Watch Brit Hume’s Special Report on Fox News and Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
P.P.S.) Did you ever dance with the Dallas Ballet (back when they had one)?
Sometimes you enjoy a blog, and there's a disruption caused by a subgenius/flamer/radical/neo-anything.
In reality, it's just some highly intelligent Wall Street trader/analyst/attorney/judge/geek
svbor delurks on Sunday and by Wednesday there's a "let's take the discussion to another blog." LOL svbor looks like the word "bored" to me.
kayxyz said...
Sometimes you enjoy a blog, and there's a disruption caused by a subgenius/flamer/radical/neo-anything.
In reality, it's just some highly intelligent Wall Street trader/analyst/attorney/judge/geek"
"highly intelligent"?! It doesn't take brains to be a spammer.
Your 1st comment is correct.
"a disruption caused by a subgenius/flamer/radical/neo-anything"
"
It will inevitably draw an unpleasant reaction from the webmaster, as it should.
svbor:
It is becoming more and more clear that you are not a scientist; hack appears a better descriptor. Scientists are usually quite familiar with protocals.
It is entirely appropriate to address one holding a JD as Dr.
Art,
Quoting this source (not necessarily the be all and end all):
“In the English language, a holder of the J.D. will generally not use the title ‘Dr.,’ although it is permissible for them to do so.”
Yes, J.D. stands for “Juris Doctor”. But, I’ve never seen a lawyer addressed as Dr.
If you want to do so, be my guest. It’s okay by me. I was just curious (as ever).
I´m baffled at the omission of the main reason for why gas costs this much now. We use 1/4 of the oil produced in the world yet account for 5% of the global population. We're burning through oil as fast as possible for sprawl. It's impossible to talk about the rising cost of gasoline without talking about sprawl and the general publics acquiescence of it.
For the luxury of not having to walk anywhere, but having to drive everywhere we have made the majority of this country inaccessible to any other mode of transportation except cars. That and the fact that in our cities we've replaced intracity rail which promoted walkable/bikeable/mass transit-friendly development with highways which promoted car-dependent sprawl which eats up lots of valuable farmland. We also replaced much of our freight rail for trucking, whose industry receives $300 billion in subsidies annually.
svbor:
Thanks for the reference but I had already researched the issue because it had come up before.
Granted it is not customary for a "lawyer" to be addressed as Dr., there are many more apt terms that offer better descriptions of "lawyers".
Dr. Reich, however, is a college professor, who to my knowledge does not even practice law. It is out of deference to his current profession that I choose to address him as Dr.
Just as I prefer to address you, out of deference, as a--hole.
Columbusite,
And, your solution is???
Art:
I've been doing some research and have concluded that SBVOR may not be a real person at all. There are postings on hundreds and maybe thousands of web sites through-out the internet, and especially on sites at blogger.com, that are nearly identical to what we see here by a user SBVOR.
My guess is that this user is actually several people using the same account, with the intention of disrupting left-leaning opinions on blogs. There's a lot of cutting and pasting of canned responses with links back to their right_wing blog, with some customized comments tossed in to make it look real. There may also be some programmatic processes used for automated login and posting.
If this is one individual, you're dealing with a real sick person with a lot of time on their hands.
Either way, user SBVOR has been banned or threatened to be banned from hundreds of sites on the internet and their postings can be found in several other countries.
To the narrator of Dr. Reich's blog: The posting of thousands of similar posts is what is commonly referred to as spamming, which is a violation of the content rules of blogger.com.
I would suggest contacting blogger.com and having them search the weblogs to find out how many IP addresses are associated with postings by user SBVOR. Either way the disruption of at least dozens of blogger.com websites (I lost count) should constitute reason enough for closing the account.
Here are some other websites where their postings are found:
www.steamboatpilot.com
usapartisan.blogspot.com
androcass.blogspot.com
financetrends.blogspot.com
www.juiceandgin.com
mjperry.blogspot.com
newsco.andanh.com
es.technorati.com
www.go-abortion.com
bouphonia.blogspot.com
jews4huckabee.blogspot.com
And the list goes on and on and on, just like SBVOR.
This post has been removed by the author.
toast:
Great research!!! And here I thought he was just a hack who had learned how to post links.
BTW, another Chinese recall incident today has lead me to an epiphany. Forget oil, forget ethanol, forget hydrogen, figure out how to run cars on "lead" then we can melt down all our Chinese imports and have a neverending supply.
Oh, I know there are those environmental issues but svbor has thoroughly convinced us that those are nonsense.
Toasty,
Thanks for the laugh, albeit a really, really dark one.
Yeah, contact USA Partisan and ask the owner how I managed to do my Vulcan Mind Meld and thereby get him/her to create a blog entry linking to my page.
ROTFLMFAO!
Lefties have banned me from precisely two sites:
1) Our own local version of Pravda, SteamboatPilot.com
2) Bouphonia.blogspot.com
In the case of SteamboatPilot.com, virtually every Conservative poster has been banned from that site at least once. Most just create a new ID and rise from the ashes. After they conducted (without warning and for no stated reason) the virtual world equivalent of a wholesale book burning of quite a library I had developed there, I decided I would no longer donate free content to their site. Therefore, I no longer post there (for now).
At bouphonia.blogspot.com, the owner, frustrated by objective evidence contrary to his/her dogma, asked me to stop posting on his/her blog and I readily complied.
I always respect the wishes of blog owners. If Mr. Reich does not want me posting here, he need only ask.
As for your trollish and/or childish behavior, you and Art (be you one or two persons) are the reason I have implemented Comment Moderation at my site. When mature adults wish to engage in reasoned dialog, that can, regrettably, become necessary.
Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I have no desire to ban you from Blogger.com. I respect your right to spew your nonsense anywhere but my own personal page. Even there, if you offer anything even remotely reasonable, I’ll publish it.
As for my posting at a number of other blogs, I simply use Google to search Blogger pages discussing issues of interest to me. In order to offer my two cents, I tend to post links back to what I have already said (in a far more robust format) rather than reinvent the wheel at every location.
Spamming is done for commercial purposes. What I engage in is called “National/International Dialog”, try it sometime (when you grow up)!
toast:
Sometimes the truth is presented inadvertently.
Read this carefully:
I have implemented Comment Moderation at my site. When mature adults wish to engage in reasoned dialog, that can, regrettably, become necessary.
Speaks volumes.
Art,
I think Bernie Goldberg (yet another self-described “Liberal” who is highly critical of today’s Dems) said it most succinctly with the title and sub-title of his book.
It can be difficult (well, okay, impossible) to have a reasoned dialog with a bunch of “crazies”. But, just like Bernie, I’m not exactly thrilled with Republicans either. But, I am unhappy with Republicans for entirely different reasons than you are. We can start with the single biggest expansion of Federal Entitlements since LBJ.
Columbusite,
Examine this chart, created using data from this spreadsheet downloaded from this page.
[The first time I published this, the previous two links were incorrect.]
That chart informs us that we could drop our domestic oil consumption to zero and it would not even offset the growth in world demand for oil over the last 25 years.
Catch a clue from the host of this page when he accurately notes the number one reason for the price spike:
“(1) growing demand from developing nations, especially China and India. This is the main reason for the price rise over the last six years.”
The solution is Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. That should be a slam dunk bi-partisan goal. Unfortunately, it is not.
Opt for a full or hybrid electric car. A plug-in hybrid electric car can give 60-100 miles a gallon, and an electric car can do 20 miles for 40 cents of electric charge. It amounts to paying 40 cents for a gallon of gas. It is time to save ourselves from escalating cost of gas. Join us today, We shall help you and serve you to cut down on your gas cost. Our advice and your decision: Set up plug-in electric stations, we are there to help you.
40 cents a gallon charge or $ 5 a gallon gas. To know, visit housedna(dot)com
sbvor, in a strange, very strange, way I'm liking you.
*pirouette poof*
tt
in my country gas is expensive for the people, because of higher price that can make people doing demonstation, build crimes.
What do gas prices look like in your hometown? Snap a photo of the prices at your local gas station and tell us how rising costs are affecting your daily commute, summer travel plans and lifestyle. We want to see the prices our viewers are experiencing across the country. Your photos and comments may be used on "World News With Charles Gibson." Get your videos or pictures in asap and they may be used on ABC News!
http://ugv.abcnews.go.com/player.aspx?id=4199016&tb=1
Since it's the Dems that want sky high energy prices, there is sweet irony in that Democrat voters suffer the most.
Let justice be served. Give us $10 gasoline today.
Art A Layman:
I had stopped monitoring for your postings after a while. Thanks for answering my questions.
I believe I understand. You want to punish the oil industry for making too much profit, by “taking advantage” of a pricing anomaly regarding a commodity over which price the oil companies have no influence. How you define this as price gouging, I have no idea.
I assume that you have in mind an outcome of the punishment, and I will tell you that the outcome will not be greater or cheaper energy supplies, oil or alternative. Naturally, the outcome of punishing companies for making too much profit will be for those companies to discontinue making too much profit. This will be done in a variety of ways, none of which will contribute to cheaper energy. I believe that you have forgotten the primary reason for the debate in the first place: to “decrease the pain at the pump” as you once put it.
Regarding your interpretation of Dr. Reich:
Dr. Reich said, “That's why it's time for a windfall profits tax on oil companies to finance our way to sensible and sustainable sources of energy”. I do not believe he meant for that policy to be enacted, unless it accomplishes better results than would otherwise be gained. His entire thesis was that since oil companies are not investing in alternative energy, and this in turn has led to few alternatives and high oil prices, then government should seize some additional oil company resources, and invest in such a way that will lead to alternative sources and lower energy costs. Your suggestion that it is really not important whether government succeeds in this mission totally ignores the central basis for the policy.
Given that oil companies already pay income taxes as a percentage of their revenue (in effect a windfall profits tax), and if one really believes that government could suddenly be successful in its allocation of those resources into the development of economically viable alternative energy sources, then it reasons that one should be in favor of oil companies making more profit, not less. (But I understand you just want to punish companies for making too much profit.)
You said, “The view that government spending can be viewed as investment with a measurable rate of return is pure absurdity.”
I believe that is the attitude that has led us to have a national debt of $9.4 TRILLION.
By the way, I do not appreciate your belittling my education. A good debater debates the issues, and has no need resort to such debasing remarks.
Thank you very much for this information.
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek
Robert: Pretty interesting. Another thing to consider....why is it that all Citgo stations (who are supplied by Hugo Chavez) raise their prices in concert with all other service stations affected by hurricane Ike, when in fact, Chavez isn't initially affected? Food-for-thought. Also, for anyone wanting to obtain the current price of a gallon of gas in their local area, type in your zip code to get a list of results in your local area by visiting this site:
CHECK YOUR LOCAL GAS PRICES
well.. this up & down really killing my pocket :(
Gas Saving Devices
If this isn't allowed I'm sorry. Feel free to delete.
I just wanted to spread the word that www.adzforgas.com is a new company that is connecting companies with drivers and paying you to drive with their advertising on your car. NO COST AT ALL! 50+ per week!
It can't hurt to read the info...
This post has been removed by the author.
Why? Why? Why? The gas is drop down now... You do not have to arguing about high price of gas any more... The question now is: Who have the benefit of this big difference in gas prices??????? On 11 July, 2008 the average price in US was $4.11 p/g now six months later we get the gallon for only $1.43 p/g. Is this a huge promotion or somebody just make couple Bil's? Some of the prognoses says that in 2009 Gas price will hit the bottom of near $1 p/g.
Oil Discussion
Gas Discussion
Fuel Discussion
BlogSpot Oil Discussion
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold
Post a Comment
<< Home