Thoughts on the End of a Hell of a Year
The biggest thing to happen to me this year was the birth of my first grandchild, a little girl named Ella. I know this kind of thing happens all the time and frankly I get bored with people who go all gushy about the birth of kids or grandkids.
I’m bringing Ella up not so much because she’s special -- of course she is -- but because she was born right in the middle of the worst economic downturn in my lifetime and probably yours, and maybe even hers. Ella came with a crash.
Like almost everyone else, I’ve lost a big chunk of my savings this year. And the house I bought here in Berkeley at the very top of the housing boom is probably worth a lot less than I paid for it. I’m not too worried about my job because I have tenure here at the University of California, although maybe I should worry because the state is technically bankrupt. Still, I'm one of the lucky ones.
Yet all of this seems somehow beside the point, relative to Ella.
Having kids or grandkids expands your focus and also your time horizon. You pay a bit less attention to what the Dow is likely to do over the next quarter and more to the underlying wealth of the nation. By that I don't mean just its gross domestic product but also its gross domestic decency, if there were such a measure: The quality of our public schools and of our atmosphere, the extent of our openness and generosity toward one another, our national promise of opportunity to all. You find yourself less interested in the gossip surrounding Bernie Madoff or Rod Blagojevich than in the larger questions they raise about private greed and public morality.
Alright, maybe I am going all gushy. The point is, it's the Ellas of the world we're fighting for. This Mini-Depression is causing a lot of pain, to be sure, but it will be over in a year or three. Yet what kind of economy will we have on the other side? Will we have a more just society?
Which brings me to the end of the year. I wish you not just a happy and prosperous new year. On that score, 2009 may be something of a bummer. I wish you and your kids and grandkids, and Ella, something more -- a decent, generous, and humane future.
I’m bringing Ella up not so much because she’s special -- of course she is -- but because she was born right in the middle of the worst economic downturn in my lifetime and probably yours, and maybe even hers. Ella came with a crash.
Like almost everyone else, I’ve lost a big chunk of my savings this year. And the house I bought here in Berkeley at the very top of the housing boom is probably worth a lot less than I paid for it. I’m not too worried about my job because I have tenure here at the University of California, although maybe I should worry because the state is technically bankrupt. Still, I'm one of the lucky ones.
Yet all of this seems somehow beside the point, relative to Ella.
Having kids or grandkids expands your focus and also your time horizon. You pay a bit less attention to what the Dow is likely to do over the next quarter and more to the underlying wealth of the nation. By that I don't mean just its gross domestic product but also its gross domestic decency, if there were such a measure: The quality of our public schools and of our atmosphere, the extent of our openness and generosity toward one another, our national promise of opportunity to all. You find yourself less interested in the gossip surrounding Bernie Madoff or Rod Blagojevich than in the larger questions they raise about private greed and public morality.
Alright, maybe I am going all gushy. The point is, it's the Ellas of the world we're fighting for. This Mini-Depression is causing a lot of pain, to be sure, but it will be over in a year or three. Yet what kind of economy will we have on the other side? Will we have a more just society?
Which brings me to the end of the year. I wish you not just a happy and prosperous new year. On that score, 2009 may be something of a bummer. I wish you and your kids and grandkids, and Ella, something more -- a decent, generous, and humane future.
posted by Robert Reich | 6:04 PM
281 Comments:
She's going to grow up in an incredibly information-rich world. She's going to grow up in a world in which the 'net is not as importantly intermediation as it is simple mediation - a much more social world. On of my mentors (a semi-famous Internet-guy) once told me that in his view the entire point of the net was communication - to bring us closer to one another. I think her generation has pretty good prospects but I think her lifestyle is going to wind up looking pretty different from ours -- it'll look like a lateral, slightly regressive shift from today's metrics but will in fact be qualitatively better and richer. Or so I'd bet or at least like to believe.
Anyway, someone should get around to updating wikipedia to record the now objective fact that Dr. Reich has officially achieved the status of Sweetly Sentimental Gushy Old Fart. Congratulations. That's worth more than tenure by 10-fold, at least.
-t
Dr. Reich, I would like to hear your thoughts on our risk for hyper-inflation and its potential range of impacts. I always look to your blog for thoughtful comments.
Thanks, and happy new year.
Mark
And a very happy,decent, kind and generous year to you Mr.Reich. I look forward to more of your posts. They make my world and my daughter's world a lot better.
Thanks Robert for helping bring me around to what matters again. I will continue fighting for better gross domestic decency for Ella and all our future generations
Congradulations on Ella.
I know it's not your specialty, but if the planet is an environmental disaster area by the time Ella or her children are grownups, having fixed the economy and public civility now will hardly matter.
This Mini-Depression is causing a lot of pain, to be sure, but it will be over in a year or three.
Perhaps in three years our leaders will have figured out that the problem is not that asset prices need to be propped up. The problem is that we need to rebuild the economy based around a sustainable balance of trade with high levels of employment.
If you are rich and spend your time talking to CEOs and industry lobbyists the value of the S&P 500 and the rate of default on consumer loans might look like the biggest issues. If you are living in the real world, then you know it's all about jobs.
Congratulations!!!! Best Wishes to All.......
Please go to YouTube> UCtelevision, The Coming Collapse of The Middle Class by Elizabeth Warren of Harvard. Some terrific data and this was presented Jan, 2008. Worth Watching this one.
It's funny (encouraging? discouraging?) how many people teetering on the brink of falling out of the "middle class" are advocating for big lifestyle changes rather than just propping up the middle class as it stood a few years back. ("encouraging", I think.)
-t
Congratulations on Ella and a very happy new year to you and your family.
Keep the good posts coming.
"a decent, generous, and humane future"? That sounds like you're in favor of limiting immigration, unless your vision of a humane future includes Ella raising your great-grandkids in a United States with a population of 450 million.
Thanks for your blog and for the good work you do. You are a credit to the "left" when even conservatives like you!
Happy New Year
And a very happy New Year to you and yours.
Keep blogging. Yours is one of the few I check daily.
Congratulations on your Grampy status, Dr. Reich!
Your "gross domestic decency" concept seems to closely map characteristics that are most prevalent in more egalitarian societies. In order for the Ellas of the world to enjoy the kind of social existence that you are roughly outlining here, it only makes sense that step 1 on the national to-do list is to reduce income and wealth disparities. Progressive taxation is necessary, but it's not enough. Wages need to increase, and excessive compensation needs to go the way of all things - whether it be by capping excessive income, passing the Income Equity Act, having unions advocate wage ratios in their collective bargaining agreements, linking the top marginal tax rate to a wage ratio, or some other means of reform.
In Supercapitalism, you say that our GDP tripled between 1973-2006 (p. 97). I suppose that should strike us as an American achievement on some level, though one of the questions we should be asking ourselves is: At what cost? When such economic growth is possible only because of the social failures that it leaves in its wake, it's not something to celebrate. While I feel bad for those who have lost their savings in the markets, I don't care to see the DOW hit 14000 or our GDP reach $15 trillion again any time soon. Those numbers didn't work out so well for us - nor for those few at the top who are deluded enough to think that their lives aren't connected to ours. I don't know of one single indicator of national health/wellness that improved due to or in conjunction with the record-high DOW or the GDP. Does anyone else?
It will be interesting to watch the corporate media and the powers that be try to persuade the sheeple that 1) nothing at all needs to change beyond the Obama administration performing mouth-to-snout resuscitation on the supercapitalist pig, and that 2) getting back to "normal" - DOW: 14000; GDP: $15 trillion - is in all of our best interests.
The economy can only end up more just with the passage of new laws and regulations that are geared toward meeting the social needs of the public. There are many things I'd like to bring up from Supercapitalism here because it's all so relevant. (A handful of ideas/themes either struck me as problematic or raised some logistical questions. In all, however, I've found it to be a very engaging and extremely well-researched piece of work.) Since I've already written so much and need to sleep, that'll have to wait. One critical deregulation that I haven't seen a reference to yet was the FTC's (1978) deregulation of retail, which stripped manufacturers of the power of price fixing and gave the power to retailers. I wonder if it is possible to restore that power to manufacturers? That would be one way to curb the price-cutting wars between retailers that ultimately lead to wage and benefit suppression amongst other things.
Happy New Year to you and yours, Dr. Reich, and Happy New Year to all.
The same to you, Robert. Thanks for your honest and human opinions on this blog.
Well Dr. Reich,
Rather than a helluva year, i would suggest that for you and your family it's certainly been on Ella'va year!
Congratulations on seeing things through to the next generation!
I know that it wasn't until I had children myself that I felt I was really a stakeholder in society. The whole feeling went from being the work and malfeasance of "those people" to being our problems and our responsibility.
I can only imagine what it feels like once there are grandchildren involved!
Happy new year, and thanks for a year of helpful information, clarifying explanations and great ideas.
Dr. Reich, Congratulations and Happy New Year! A Hell of 8 years as well. One day I will have a grandchild too, I hope. I will share my experiences of the G.W.B. era, or more correctly error. I will use GW's agility to duck and escape the size 10 shoe as the metaphor for my story. Can't wait!
Dr. Reich, Happy New Year! Thank you for your writing and the education you have given me and the readers of your blog this year.
Well Done!
Fortunately, Ella was born into an upper-middle class family in America and will have a better opportunity then most children in coming into this world, nowadays.
I often wonder how parents reconcile their decision to have children given the outlook for a smoky and crowded planet with limited resources and uncontrolled religious extremism. I see more wars and many more struggles for today’s children. I am always amazed of parents in poor African nations that have children and then watch them starve to death. It doesn’t seem right.
My reflections on the last day of 2008 are pretty much in line with yours, Dr. Reich, and comes from have my sixth grandchild born earlier this year. I'm wondering what kind of world she will inherit, and whether we, as a society, have learned our lessons from the events of this year.
I'm concerned that the powers-that-be don't really understand the root cause of the current economic turmoil in the U.S. In the pursuit of not just making some profit, but of constantly increasing profits, companies continue to move jobs to foreign countries. In doing so, they remove money from the U.S. economy which has a domino effect which began rippling through our economy with the financial industry collapse that began in late summer. This collapse then contributed to the crisis in the auto industry, which has such wide-ranging impact that we don't know what the final picture will look like.
Until regular sustainable employment opportunities become available in this country, we are not going to see any kind of real improvement in the economy. Just creating public works projects will not address the root cause of the economic crisis. Thus any recovery will be short term.
America is broken. The planned 2 trillion dollar infrastructure stimulus program is reminiscent of the ancient Egyptian Pharos organizing their society into building pyramids. This kept order in the land and refocused to poor from killing the rich.
Our other option is to use war, as Bush did to stimulate spending.
Anonymous DWP
Happy New Year to you.
When I evaluate leaders, one of the first things I look at is how they treat children, especially THEIR children.
I knew Reagan was a pimp because his kids hated him.
How does a leader act toward other people's children?
If you don't care about kids, then you probably don't care about other people (example, see Sarah Palin).
Most of the tens of millions of criminals who created and benefited from this epic, criminal Ponzi scheme, don't care about their own kids OR you're grandchild.
Please, in the new Obama administration, can we start indicting scores of these criminals? Can we make wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud a crime again?
How should our economy look on the other side? May I suggest A Civilization of Love rather than the Culture of Debt and Death that we've become used to?
Tell me, by which metric are the current conditions worse than the recession of 1982? Or, are you too young to have experienced the recession of 1982?
Well, let's take a look at your values: Your 1982 unemployment number is U6, not U3 (a change made soon after in the Reagan Administration was to report U3 to make it look like unemployment was getting better)- and sure enough when we compare apples to apples, unemployment hit 1982 levels back in November and is still climbing, we haven't seen peak unemployment yet.
And while you're right that this contraction is only ".5%" annually, that's only because we had credit fueled growth earlier in the year- it's MUCH worse than 1982 if you look at only Q4 numbers.
So I guess, the problem with statistics is you can cherry pick the numbers that fit YOUR personal beliefs way too easily.
Congratulations on your role in aiding the perpetuation of the species.
I've often said that the reason I'm involved in politics is that I want to make sure humanity survives long enough to make it into the science-fictional future. Even if I'm not around, that kind of humane, decent world -- where wealth is abundant and nobody discriminates you because of the color of your skin (or even whether your skin is feathered, scaly, or furry) -- is what I want for posterity.
Let's cut gov't spending and pay off our crazy national deficit so Ella isn't left holding the bag of our debts.
Congratulations’ Dr. Reich.
Sure if you put Milton Friedman and Robert Reich together in an Economics debate they’ll be a few differences. After all, the sun shines more often in Berkeley CA. than Chicago IL.
But put the two Economists together in a room with their grandkids and the only difference between them is a beard. (Milton probably had a subconscious fear of the Karl Marx look)
Image Ella in 2032 having her own cable TV show (like CNBC Larry Kudlow) dedicated to World Economics topics. She invites her famous grandfather on her show to recall The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 and replay the Kudlow-Reich debates.
She’s has only slight interest in the H. Clinton-Reich non-date college summit meeting. She really wants to know if grandfather was at The Great Woodstock Music Concert of 1969.
She closes her show by thanking grandfather Robert Reich –then looks at the camera and says her favorite book is "Free To Chose" by Milton Friedman. Yep, that’s life.
Thanks for being a great human –willing to talk to the masses.
You and Steve Wozniak are my two favorite people connected to the University of California, Berkeley.
We wish you success and happiness
I've been reading you since my undergrad days, just as Bill Clinton was looking like a viable candidate (and noted a lot of your influence in his speeches).
Congratulations on the new one. We have had our first child (first grandchild on both sides) this year, and to those who question how one could bring a child into today's conditions I counter it with optimism:
Don't worry. He'll fix it.
Ted Seeber:
Good job! You have to forgive Sbvor, he sees charts or statistics and draws immediate conclusions or sometimes he just regurgitates the rantings of his heroes.
Now you really can't expect him to "think" enough to realize that November 1982 was the trough of a recession that began in July 1981. The current trough does not yet appear on the horizon and it makes no difference whether you accept that this recession started in December 2007 or September 2008.
I also marvel at all the experts (am not including Sbvor as an expert) who compare static statistics and attempt to draw parallel conclusions. Admittedly those comparisons can be indicative of relationships but they fall far short of being absolute proof of anything. The assumption would have to be that in order for one period to be judged as bad as another, or as good, there exists a linear proportionality that must remain constant. Why would that be?
The actual number of unemployed in November 1982, again the trough, was 11,938,000. At November 2008, again not the trough as best we know, the actual number is 10,331,000. Meanwhile, during that same time frame, the total civilian workforce has increased from 111,050,000 to 154,616,000. Given the workforce increase we would have to reach 16,621,000 unemployed, entirely possible over the next few months, before one could say that this period is worse. Tell that to the 10+ million currently unemployed.
There are so many other variables to consider as well, that to state specific statistics as determinate or a basis for comparison argument is folly. Now folly is something Sbvor is expert at.
I want to thank you for all you have taught me this year. I discovered this site early in the year and have lurked religiously :-) Time to come out and say Thanks!! Congrats on the first grandchild! And a very Happy New Year to you and your family as well.
This post has been removed by the author.
Were there really Kudlow-Reich debates? I can't imagine. Never been a fan of Kudlow. I remember following him when he was chief economist for Bear Stearns in the 80s until he was fired for being wrong most of the time.
Doc:
Before I get too involved in the many posts, let me say:
Mazel tov!
As when you graduated from all your learning travails and took your first steps on the path of adulthood, so too, with the birth of your first grandchild do you take those first steps into the world of old age. Welcome! Come on in, the water's fine.
Perhaps we shouldn't get to wishful. I'll take getting back to where we were and then working from there to make a better world for all the kids and grandkids of the world.
Decent, generous and humane will depend greatly on our culture and I'm not sure we're quite there yet. Though there are many very gracious and humane posts on your blog, there's an awful lot of "me" posts as well.
Regardless; Happy New Year to you and all of your progeny.
To Ella:
May God grant you always...
A sunbeam to warm you,
A moonbeam to charm you,
A sheltering angel, so nothing can harm you
To all the wonderful posters on your blog (including Sbvor):
May your glass be ever full.
May the roof over your head be always strong.
And may you be in heaven
half an hour before the devil knows you're dead
Sbvor:
I see your getting back to your comic relief practices.
Nor do these numbers account for those who lost a job last week only to find another (better) job the very next week.
Now I'll bet that's just happening all the time.
Love ya guy but you are such a twit.
Dr. R, your Gross Domestic Decency idea sounds to me much like Redefining Progress' GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). If you are not familiar with it, you may find out more at http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
Also, since you live and work in Berkeley, you may visit them at their office in Oakland.
Redefining Progress
1904 Franklin St.,
Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
T: 510.444.3041
F: 510.444.3191
Sbvor:
LOL!
I've found that any job that pays me is "better" than the job I don't have anymore. It's kinda like I used to tell folks: "I get paid time and a half for overtime, it's just that my overtime hourly rate is zero".
Have not run a query on all the states but could it be that the "lefty" states lost more jobs, because they had more jobs to begin with?
NC is hurting bad and, notwithstanding the presidential election results, we are far from a "lefty" state.
Thank you Dr. Reich.
Let's also all put our priorities in place. The things that really... really... matter are the "Ella's" in our world. For those of us fortunate enough to have wives, husbands, kids, or anything/anyone else that really matters to us... that is what is most important. Most of us will survive this downturn; it is who we have and what we cherish that will carry us through this period in our lives.
Bob, thank you for your never-ending great perspective on our economy... it means a lot to me.
Peter Esterquest, Vermont
SBVOR:
"Generally pretty accurate" and "while he did not fully anticipate the slide in the bond market..." are not descriptions of someone I would bet my money on as an economic forecaster.
OK, SBVOR, Art, Others...tonite no one has to make excuses for drinking, after all it is New Year's Eve. And the end of a wild car ride with the driver totally out of control...I can confidently say "the end" because we have a very optimistic Inauguration to look forward to.
Not that anything earthshaking will happen to change the direction of the winds of social and economic change, but that at least we face the future with clearer minds, freed of the some of the misconceptions that got us to the 21st century. It should be a very interesting time..who knows what will happen?
No one really knows...I take the liberty of quoting from John Michael Greer:
"If we could know where history is headed and what influence our actions could have on it, making firm plans for the future would be a safe bet. Equally, if it’s impossible for us to know anything at all about the future, then all bets are off, no course of action is more likely to succeed than any other, and the only option left would be moment-by-moment improvisation."
We must keep our minds open, our reflexes ready, and our wits about us in the coming years...and remember never to take ourselves or life too seriously. Change, plagues, and revolutions have beset all human societies before us, and will beset societies to come. These events give us a more active role to play, an opportunity to cast ourselves as true human actors, and to test our minds and our creativity in meeting new challenges.
How boring life would be if it were more predictable!!!
Dr. Bob:
Who says good things don't come in small packages:)? You and your grandchild!!
Reading "My Life" and enjoying the many references Bill made to you in his tome. You must have made quite the pair.
Also, just heard your New Years piece on NPR. In the words of Sarah Palin, "Right back at'cha".
Finally, looking forward to seeing you back on the Federal payroll with the Obama Admisistration. National treasures like you are too valuable to leave in "Calyforneya" :).
There are still 20 days to go before Bush is gone. Frighteningly, the final chapter of this American tragedy is not completely written. There may be more mayhem yet to share with your granddaughter (when she's old enough for such scary tales). On the bright side, perhaps Bush has done us all a great favor...exposing just how dangerous economic, scientific and ethical ignorance can be. It will be your granddaughter's generation that saves America. This generation blew it.
Thank you for all your good thoughts, Dr Reich. I look forward to seeing your testimony next week.
Kudlow is a hopeless RepubliKKKan shill, and as such, his economic advice is as sage as Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. I don't care what his bio or the New York Times says he is delusional and absolutely useless as a reliable source of information.
Dr. Reich and friends:
This blog has been a great service to all who would try to create a better society for our children and grandchildren. I have greatly enjoyed Dr. Reich's writing as well as the comments by others who have written here.
Congratulations on your granddaughter, Ella. It makes the whole economic situation more personal when there are children and grandchildren at stake.
I too had a grandson, Isaiah, born this year August 1. My grandchildren are the reason I'd like to leave this world a better place than when I found it. I have been able to directly help them after they lost their house to foreclosure. Blogging is a way to make a small contributioon to the world in general, I hope.
Happy New Year to all and you can see a picture of Isaiah on my blog: Will Blog For Food
SBVOR,
It's quite a remarkable claim to make that it's "predictable" that the states that are worse off are the most left states. It's even more remarkable to attempt to back that claim up with such flimsy logic.
You claim that The Presidential results are the worst possible measure of how Lefty a state is and imply that in your estimation, the best measure of a state's "leftiness" or lack thereof is the partisan make-up of state senates. Really?! Because if that is the definition of "lefty" that you are choosing to back up your argument, you should probably at least carry that logic out to see if it supports your claims.
The 15 states that have the highest (U3) unemployment rates are: Michigan, Rhode Island, California, South Carolina, Oregon, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana, and Kentucky.
The partisan composition of the state senates looks like this:
Michigan:
Republicans: 21; Democrats 17
Unemployment rate: 9.6
Rhode Island:
Republicans: 6; Democrats 32
Unemployment rate: 9.3
California:
Republicans: 15; Democrats: 24
Unemployment rate: 8.4
South Carolina:
Republicans: 27; Democrats: 19
Unemployment rate: 8.4
Oregon:
Republicans: 11; Democrats: 19
Unemployment rate: 8.1
Nevada:
Republicans: 9; Democrats: 12
Unemployment rate: 8
North Carolina:
Republicans: 19; Democrats: 31 (You counted two deceased Democrats and one retired Republican -- therefore counting their districts twice. I'd call you a liar or a brainless being all in caps for your mistake, but that just wouldn't satisfy me.)
Unemployment rate: 7.9
Georgia:
Republicans: 34; Democrats: 22
Unemployment rate: 7.5
Alaska:
Republicans: 10; Democrats: 10
Unemployment rate: 7.3
Florida:
Republicans: 26; Democrats: 14
Unemployment rate: 7.3
Illinois:
Republicans: 23; Democrats: 38
Unemployment rate: 7.3
Ohio:
Republicans: 21; Democrats: 12
Unemployment rate: 7.3
Mississippi:
Republicans: 25; Democrats: 27
Unemployment rate: 7.2
Indiana:
Republicans: 33; Democrats: 17
Unemployment rate: 7.1
Kentucky:
Republicans: 22; Democrats: 14
Unemployment rate: 7
A quick inspection of the numbers should reveal to you that your argument is incredibly weak. You say: The highest unemployment levels are found in Michigan and California. Any question as to how Lefty those two states are? Well, according to your operational definition of "lefty," Michigan is less lefty than it is righty. California is 9 points more "lefty" than righty, but its unemployment rate is the same as South Carolina's where there is an 8-point-lefty deficit. Looking at the data from the rest of the states, it should be evident that any such claim of causation between "leftiness" and the reported U3 measures of unemployment is completely baseless on its face.
For someone who so aggressively calls for substantiated evidence of assertions, that should give you pause.
You might also take Art's advice and actually do some research in order to understand what is driving the unemployment rates of states. (That is, if you care to know as opposed to only caring to know what the rates are so that you can use them to push partisan arguments.) For instance, you could take a look at the list of state unemployment rates and compare them to the list of state non-farm employment growth. Or, you might take a look at individual states and read up on such things as how many jobs have been lost since 2000. Manufacturing has lost over 3 million jobs since 2000 and Michigan, California, and Ohio have been hit the hardest by those losses; Michigan share of the losses was equal to 10.5% of its work force.
Some research on California would also reveal that they have been hit by heavy losses in both manufacturing and construction.
There is plenty of information to be found if you choose to seek it (e.g. you could stand to brush up on how the labor force has been restructured since 1982 -- especially where nonstandard workers are concerned). But it makes no sense to bully folks for their views while offering such superficial and ridiculously ill-conceived arguments of your own. "Lefty" state senators don't have the power to influence rising unemployment rates like we're seeing right now any more than "incompetent workers" who lose their jobs do.
Friendly advice: you might try in the future to humble yourself some. Nobody likes mean partisan blowhards . . . especially when they have offer a series of unsound claims while being mean-spirited and blowhardish.
Kudlow sees everything thru an ideological lens, so therefore is completely unreliable. I learned long ago to click to another channel whenever he is on TV. Dr Reich, however, causes me to watch intently when ever I see him on TV.
I laugh when I read Sbvor's comments. People like him (blind partisans of the worst extreme) are the reason why the American people finally are turning away from voodoo economics. He comes here with an armful of misleading factoids yet can't even see that people are hurting today worse than at anytime for decades. I have a nephew that has recently lost his job, his health insurance, his car, and his house. Job prospects of everyone I know are limited and on shaky ground. I would wager almost everyone here has lost significant drops in their retirement nest eggs. My community is riddled with foreclosed and abandoned homes and few people have equity in the ones they still "own". The US automakers are bankrupt. Many states and localities are nearly bankrupt too. Our manufacturing base has all but disappeared. Poor people across the country are losing access to basic health care and food stamps. Our national agencies and institutions (e.g the SEC, FERC, FEMA, DOD) have been converted by the greedy wealthy into serving their needs and profit margins above all others. Sbvor will now call me a lying leftist,or similar, but this former Republican (me) is proud to be the target of his misguided and ideologically induced wrath. Sbvor is an appeaser of failed political philosophies. He would rather have all of us homeless and hungry than have his beloved party lose political power or have to admit that his party (primarily) has wrought utter economic devestation upon us all. Sbvor, stop talking, and start listening.
Happy New Year Professor Reich ...
You are a Patriot and quite frankly, a public treasure.
I've checked your blog every day throughout this crisis as I know many others have.
Keep up the good work.
RS
Sbvor:
Whew! You've stepped in it now. Seems we have a new group of bloggers that can give you what for even better than us older guys.
Let me go on record right now:
Should I ever say anything that upsets Angry Citizen, I sincerely apologize and I take it back! ;)
Angry Citizen, Art, Karen, Lauren, thank you for defending us and this blog. When I see someone start raving like a lunatic there's no point in arguing. The problem is usually more deep seated and has nothing to do with truth or facts but everything to do with some sort of mental impairment, either temporary or permanent.
And...it being New Year's Eve, I just assumed that this was something of a more temporary nature, at least I hope so!
Oh well, it was a helluva year, and a helluva party...but today is a new year.
Welcome to 2009!
REST, rest, SBVOR, rest is what we need!!!
Now please go take an aspirin or whatever other medication you're on and lie down. You need to find a different blog.
You may feel pretty lucky to have Ella, but she's also as lucky to have a Grandpa like you! They do have a way of putting things in perspective.
My granddaughter, Nora, 18 months has also been a bright spot while we've ridden the [un]employment roller coaster in such a tumultuous year. I count my blessings every day that so far, we are okay. But it's really not so much "what about me?" as it is "what about her?" (and all of her generation).
"Happy" New Year might be a bit overstated for 2009. I'd be good with an "Okay New Year".
Maybe I'll just hope for a peaceful new year. Will we ever state that enough?
Retraction of an error found in this comment:
The source cited by Angry Citizen (properly) used “seasonally adjusted” unemployment numbers from the BLS.
When I found discrepancies, it was because I was looking at “not seasonally adjusted” numbers.
Still, for clarity, the source should have noted they were citing “seasonally adjusted” numbers.
Having proven that Democrats oversee the highest unemployment rates, we now examine the states with the lowest unemployment rates.
The five lowest unemployment rates for November, 2008 (per the BLS):
Wyoming - 3.2%
Republican Party 23
Democratic Party 7
North Dakota - 3.3%
Republican 26
Democratic-NPL 21
South Dakota - 3.4%
Republican Party 20
Democratic Party 15
Nebraska (Unicameral Legislature) - 3.7%
Republican Party 31
Democratic Party 15
Utah - 3.7%
Republican Party 21
Democratic Party 8
So, if you like being unemployed, VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!
Sbvor:
One could only wish that you have rested your case, once and for all.
One would think that someone with such outstanding(?) research skills would review "facts" more thoroughly before suggesting that someone esle got them wrong, to wit:
From the BLS; In November, Michigan and Rhode Island reported the highest jobless
rates, 9.6 and 9.3 percent, respectively.
Now again, anyone who reviews the BLS as closely as you do would surely realize that there are often discrepancies from one report to another. Generally these are not significant differences but there are differences. If your condemnations or your rebuttals were truly intellectually based, as opposed to politically biased based, you would look beyond the end of your nose before you engage your mouth. I would have said brain but I don't know that I have ever experienced your brain being enagaged.
Ah! Meanwhile, as i'm putting together my scathing reply to you, I see you have corrected your error. Contrition should be made of sterner stuff, however.
The source cited by Angry Citizen (properly) used “seasonally adjusted” unemployment numbers from the BLS.
You and I have been down this road before and yes, seasonally adjusted numbers are always preferable. One could presume that most positing numbers, especially when they reference a BLS as a source, would be using seasonally adjusted numbers. It could be a wrong presumption but chances are. On the other hand, one could assume that someone looking to counter, and of course condemn and ridicule, the messenger of such numbers, would, upon finding a difference, double check his findings before exclaiming to the world that someone is the purveyor of false information.
As usual, those caught with their pants down always blame it on the zipper: Still, for clarity, the source should have noted they were citing “seasonally adjusted” numbers.
And they could have noted the date on which the numbers were extracted; what kind of computer they were using, its memory capacities; whether their hair was dry or wet, and any of a grand universe of disclaimers to satisfy the rest of us that their numbers were valid.
In our culture the onus for disproving assertions (guilt) lies on the shoulders of the questioner.
You can't seem to shake this eternal problem you have with "cause and effect". Simplistically, to say nothing of inanely, you suggest that, be it unemployment or the general financial status of a state, the fault lies in the party in charge of the state legislature. That naivete eliminates so many other significant factors as to border on absurdity. I can guarantee you that the state of NC has, primarily, a Republican, conservative voting populace, much to my dismay.
Enough with the Social Democracy, New Keynesian, Wage and Benefit Fixing, Obama is going to Save Us All Themes. He's NOT the Messiah. Quit drooling. It doesn't matter if McCain was elected either. WASHINGTON won't save you. We have to start at the bottom. That would be us. 7 or 8 Trillion in Bailouts ? Lawrence Summers was in the Cabinet before. New economic policies will have to deal with a large amount of electronic money, there has been a tremendous amount of talk about autos, and bailouts; while the new, real, economic leadership has been hopefully planning a reasonable response to some true idiocy on the part of Pres Bush and Paulson, Pelosi, Reid, Bernanke, and Frank, and on and on. My US Senators, one voted against the original bailout, and one voted for with a strong protest. Sen Coburn, a Medical Doctor, who does not take Senate money. Do you see that on CNN, or FOX ? Do you know that in Cali, or NY ? But everyone knows how many times a Kennedy has been in NY. Gimme a break. Give me some real people.
All I see on here, is alot of people talking about change, and I really believe you want someone else to do it. Come to the middle of the country and get busy. Cause we don't care who the new President is, we do it ourselves, always have. Or you can sit on your hands wherever, and wait for your bailout. Maybe Barry will send you a house payment.....
Art,
Your perception of what you regard as the Conservative nature of your fellow North Carolinians is, no doubt, colored by the fact that very, very few Americans are to your Left.
The quantitative FACT is that your state Senate is controlled by Democrats!
I rest my case (for this case and for now).
I'd rather be an unemployed hi-tech worker in California than an employed burger flipper in South Dakota. Voodoo economic policies are the real reason why liberal states have suffered recently. The first to benefit are the first to suffer in any downturn. Also, Republicans have targeted their economic wrath against liberal states in recent years. Reagan's attack on the airline controllers is an example of a GOP attack trend against organized labor. Also, as you all recall, Bush's FERC appointee in 2001 helped oversee a massive transfer of wealth from California to Texas during the fake "rolling blackout" energy crisis. California's AG has won court cases proving that to be the case. Tens of billions (if not 100s) were stolen from California during that fake crisis engineered by greedy energy companies and GOP politicians. Oddly, the current CA governor was a great friend of Ken Lay, the man who appointed the FERC Chair after Bush got elected. Tom Daschle was defeated in large part by Republicans who promised to close down military bases in SD unless his opponent won. My boyfriend is from South Dakota. I listen to his children almost NIGHTLY calling from South Dakota and bemoaning their limited job possibilities and impoverished standard of living. They either have to enlist in the Army to find good paying jobs or depend on state welfare programs to get assistance to pay rent, put the kids in daycare, etc.. They all want to move elsewhere, but they do not earn enough to move out of state to better themselves. Let's be real sbvor, you are just using temporary and meaningless statistical anomolies to somehow pretend that the South Dakotas of the country are somehow managed better because they are controlled by Republicans. Well, don't miss the forest through the trees, because that's what you are doing. The ENTIRE country has suffered because of these sad Republican philosophies. Year after year, the least wealthy states have been controlled by Republicans. Look at how the Republicans are trying to kill the UAW, and now we see yet another stark example how Republicans try to hurt liberal states in favor of southern states. Look at their response to Katrina and compare how the GOP acted towards New Orleans and MS and FL. Poorer communities receives less aide from the GOP gvmt. Out of work Californians have substantial savings and are not jumping to burger flipping jobs as are South Dakotans and others in poorer states. A lost engineering job in California is not equivalent to a lost burger flipping job in South Dakota. You'll never understand that because you are an ideologue. You're probably one of those who used to run around claiming Reagan was responsible for the 1990s boom, then when it went bust, you changed your argument to "Clinton cooked the books". You're all smoke and mirrors.
Hoss,
Right you are!
FYI, I strongly opposed all this bailout BS from the beginning.
Later, I offered the quantitative proof that the allegations used to rationalize the $700 billion bailout were PURE BS!
Mr. Reich offers lots of rhetoric, but NEVER substantiates ANYTHING he says. If anybody wants a healthy antidote to this blog, Dr. Perry at Carpe Diem ALWAYS substantiates EVERYTHING!
Lauren,
You should have left it at:
“I'd rather be… unemployed”
That much, I would believe.
Hoss and sbvor, your rhetoric sounds like sour grapes. Your intent is to destroy, not to build or unify. Don't pretend everyone else cant see that. I don't know if Obama will do a good job. But anyone who immediately pronounces he is not the "Messiah" tells me a great deal about the ideological intentions of the speaker more than their grasp on what's going on. You two no doubted voted for Bush twice (and Reagan, and BushSr, and Dole, etc). Each time you both were eager loyalists to the cause, and now you are PO'd that your entire philosophy is in pieces on the ground. Your probably HOPING Obama won't do a good job just so your precious party will have another chance at power. I know you both very well. I've encountered your sorts on other blogs. You probably sent UNSUBSTANTIATED emails around about Obama the Muslim, or Obama the Magic negro. Then you have the gall to come around places like this with your sour grapes and imaginary ethos. You're not fooling anyone with your factoids either.
sbvor, I am unemployed. Voluntarily. :-) If someone told you that Bush recently said our economy was fundamentally sound, I suspect you wouldn't believe that either. You CHOOSE to believe what fits with your ideology rather than what fits with reality. You cite factoids and coincidental trends and pretend that is critical thinking. Critical thinking is in part the art of discarding meaningless factoids and trends in favor of meaningful ones--something you have shown an inability to do. You have basically announced that a) we are not suffering a major economic crisis right now and b) Republicans manage things better than everyone else. This is despite the fact that Bush and McCain recently said the economy was in good shape, and then weeks later called for, or voted for a historic bailout. 80% of Americans voted for change in the November election, and this was because Republicans were widely seen as ruining things. You neo-cons have had over 25 years to practice your voodooism, now step aside and let a real leader show you how its done.
Sbvor,
I neglected to include links to state senate data because I wrote all of the numbers out by hand when preparing a response to you, and frankly didn't feel like going back to the Web pages to refer back to. Some Web pages were user-friendly and plainly listed the partisan breakdown, others had Ds and Rs listed by the names of senators and I had to count those, and still others required that one clicks on the names of senators to see their party affiliation. But I am glad that you brought it up, because I was just able to find this really cool site where all of the info. is easily accessible. If you check the numbers I listed, you'll see that a few of the states (Rhode Island, Oregon, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky) were off by a senator on each side at the most. The discrepancies are due to some state sites updating to reflect post-election results quicker than others, and counting error on my part for states that didn't plainly list political affiliation.
As for the unemployment data, the same numbers can be found here.
I'm seeing that as I type this, you're attempting to claim that you've PROVEN that: that Democrats oversee the highest unemployment rates and Republicans oversee the states with the lowest unemployment rates.
So I see that you've learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your erroneous logic and are all too happy to foist more of it on us. To that I can only say that I am sincerely embarrassed for you and wish not to engage anymore with someone who is so at odds with reality.
Angry Citizen,
Review your own comment and find that:
“your own [previously] unsubstantiated data indicate that 5 of the 7 worst states are controlled by Democrats and a sixth (Michigan) is just a puppet for the UAW”
My substantiated data prove that the five states with the lowest unemployment rates are ALL controlled by Republicans.
Now, tell me again who “is so at odds with reality”!
Lauren,
I think I love you and I'm not even gay!
The issue of which states receive the most federal money came up during the election in some circles. Interestingly enough, it turns out that the anti-government crew (which ironically screams the loudest about pork and government handouts) nestled largely in red states are most often the recipients of government money.
The state of Alaska receives more federal money per capita than any other state. The people also receive alot of state monies. Yet listen to Sarah Palin and other GOP's. It is outrageous to get all of the federal assistance that they receive, it is nothing more than greed. Other states don't receive that kind of money.
Lauren,
I am not a Republican and never have been. I am the original GDI. I am also a Conservative who is particularly unhappy that President Bush signed into law the largest expansion in entitlements since LBJ and advocated for the largest set of bailouts in the history of the nation.
But, I will take most any Republican over most any Democrat on most any day. And, I give President Bush credit for lowering taxes and taking the fight to the Islamo-Fascists.
My hope is that the Republican Party will now move back towards the Conservative principles which served them so well under Reagan. My fear is that Obama and crew will render it impossible to ever again revisit the prosperity which Reagan provided.
Good day folks,
Just checkin here to try out my new avatar. Just loaded it.
Don't know what you guys have been doing but I've been getting some food put away, planning a garden, and analyzing our energy consumption. Turns out that our heat bill is a lot less than most round here because (1) we have a front south exposure with and lots and lots of windows, and (2) we heat via natural gas.
Now I did some research on natural gas and discovered that we are in no danger of running out any time soon, because there's a lot more of it in the ground than there is oil. Whew!! But then I read that the price of natural gas can vary quite wildly and independently of supply. Wonder why? There's plenty in the ground where I live. Anyway, been turnin this over in my mind thinking, oh we're decades away from any worries about natural gas and then I se todays headline:
RUSSIA CUTS GAS TO UKRAINE!!!
GEEEZZZUSSS!!!...this is getting downright spooky, don't like it at all!!
I hope those folks over in the Ukraine have fireplaces and stoves that burn wood and plenty of it!!!
Maybe we should invite the Ukrainians over here...where there's PLENTY OF HOT AIR!!! ;)
Magdalena (formerly Linda)
Angry Citizen points us to this link.
But, within that link, the second link in the first sentence points us to this page which simply says:
“We Can't Find That.”
Bottom line, the source which allegedly substantiates this allegation DOES NOT EXIST! But, every true to their terminally naïve nature, the suckers on this blog fell for it anyway!
But, even if it did turn out to be true, the next question would be where was the money spent? Was it spent on interstate highways (which Blue States need if they want to take delivery of the gasoline refined by Texas and Louisiana)?
sbvor, you lament that the GOP has not been more like Reagan, and that they have not followed his principles, which you claim have brought us wealth. Yet, the two Bushes have done EXACTLY that--they have pursued his policies faithfully. The bailout was an inevitable RESULT of Reagan's unwise voodoo economics. His mantra has been to cut taxes, cur gvmt regulators, enact CAFTA, NAFTA, and free-trade in general. Conservatives like Clinton, Phil Graham, and the Bushes have worked HARD to make Reagan's visions a reality. And the reality is that Reagan's vision has been a dismal failure. My niece thinks she is rich because she has a credit card. You Reagan worshippers likewise think you are rich because you have a credit card. The $700 billion bailout DID NOT cause the recent economic crisis--it was a REACTION to the current crisis. Reagan's policies, relentlessly pursued by the Bushes and Clinton instead did that. The true path to wealth in this nation is more appropriately credited to people like FDR and Alexander Hamilton. Reagan cut tarriffs even as other countries liek Japan and China and SK reinforced them. Alexander Hamilton long ago warned about cutting taffiffs. He said it is tantamount to economic suicide. Reagan is the architecht of our current economic malaise, and Bush Jr is his most faithful disciple. Had Reagan been in office this last year, he too would have finally recognized the need to ACT, as Bush did. He may or may not have chosen to push the same bailout that Bush pushed, but the bad economy would have forced Reagan to admit something was wrong and that something needed to be done. I voted for Reagan twice, but in the early 90s I finally started seeing through the GOP myths and the BS and checking the facts. Reagan even raised taxes late in his term because he knew he had gone too far with his borrow and spend policies--this alone is proof that the mighty Reagan was not absolutely confident that things were on the right track. McCain claims he is the last of the Reagan emulators, yet he too voted for the bailout. The treasury today claims the bailout has saved us from a financial collapse. I don't know if it did, but all these people who say so are reagan worshippers. Face the facts: Reagan is the one who got us into the mess and the bailout is not the CAUSE of it, but a reaction to it. The only people who became wealthy because of Reagan are the wall-streeters and the Chinese.
sbvor, guess which Republican governors (among others) have opposed drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas? Answer: Jeb Bush and Arnold S'. Now explain again why it's all the Democrats fault that oil has not been drilled off of the coasts of FL and CA.
Also, to get at all the oil you claim we have, we'd have to tear down all the mountains and forests. T Boone Pickens (Republican) claims we only have 3% of the world's oil reserves, though we consume only 25% of the world's output. It is utter nonsense for you to claim the US can as easily as Saudi Arabia drill oil.
Pop quiz:
- Which two countries are the US's top oil providers? Answer: Canada and Mexico.
- How many oil refineries existed in 1982 and in 2008, and why were so many of them closed down after Reagan took office? Answer: About 300 in 1982 and about 150 in 2008. They were closed down mostly in the 80s because it was deemed that profitibility would increase as inefficient refineries were closed down.
REP. WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality —
MR. GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.
REP. WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right. It was not working.
MR. GREENSPAN: Precisely. That’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
At least Greenspan lived long enough to see his mistake. I still can't believe he admitted the mistake. Reagan would not do the same.
Drilling pitfalls
Sbvor:
Forever you drift from the ridiculous to the fatuous.
First of all, let me chastise you for not qualifying that all your unemployment statistics are from the preliminary report, they are not final yet. Be careful about what you demand of others.
Now your listing of those Valhallic states where the Republican legislatures have done such a magnificent job? In aggregate their total civilian labor force would not get them among the top 15 individual states.
Your problem has never been in posting "facts", it has always been in the inferences you draw from those "facts". You find "fact A" and then you find "fact B" and then you assume some kind of correlation between the two. Your correlation generally supposes that "fact A" must be the cause of "fact B". Seldom, if ever, are you correct.
Now I'm aware that you are much less interested in the real meaning and analysis of data than you are of just stirring the pot. Your sole purpose is to rant and call names attempting to infuriate those you see as the enemy. Though you often are successful, thus feeding some Freudian, perverted pleasure, you fail to understand that many who respond to you are feeding similar desires, including me.
Once in a while you get a newby who is unfamiliar with your perversions and attempts to take you on logically. They soon learn that you do not deal in logic. Reason to you is a "liberal" phenomena to be disdained.
"Quantitive facts" are just that, "facts", and nothing else. "Quantitative facts" do not, in and of themselves, infer or prove anything, they are what they are. Only imbeciles attempt to marry, in a cause and effect manner, a "fact" from column A with a "fact" from column B, and then suggest that one causes the other without doing much further analysis.
As a gatherer of "facts", you ain't bad. As an analyzer of "facts" and a correlater, most eighth graders would do better.
In the interim, as I have often mentioned, you provide comic relief to a fairly serious blog and there is some merit in that. Court Jester is an old and honored profession.
BTW: Reagan was a very nice old man who didn't have a clue.
Lauren:
Reagan raised taxes in 1982, during a recession, on the heels of his tax decrease in 1981. He did, also, raise them later in his tenure as well.
Art
I don't know why sbvor keeps up his futile effort at debating you and the others. Keep up the good work.
You too "angry". Well said about the gvmt handouts. And about the love, well, my right-wing boyfriend and I already are in love. LOL
sbvor
Let me know if there is a specific assertion I am supposed to substantiate. Since I talk mostly in general terms, I am surprised you would demand I substantiate anything.
Regarding Islamo-terrorism, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't 99% of Americans support the Afghan invasion? And didn't almost all Senators and Reps do so as well?
And considering Islamo-terrorism was not evident in Iraq before we invaded it, but now it is, doesn't that mean that objective people should give greater creedence to those who foresaw that Iraq was going to be a mistake?
You do think Iraq was a mistake, don't you? I mean, even if Saddam was a problem, there were better ways of handling that problem than by ruining our own economy and causing the deaths of over 4000 US soldiers (not to mention 100,000s of innocent Iraqi lives)? Right?
svbor said: "3) Yes, several Republicans have, in the past, caved to the eco-nutjobs."
Those "Republicans" were GOVERNORS.
Republican areas of Florida and California (Sarasota, Naples, Monterey) have all fought long and hard to ban offshore drilling.
Yet you earlier blamed only Democrats for being the ones for refusing to devastate our environment in an insane rush to consume oil at low prices.
If as you say we have gobs and gobs of oil, even more than the Arabs, then that means the environmentalists were proved right all along to save our natural wonderlands. After all, we can get all that oil anytime we need to (after it becomes $10 per gallon). Until then, I prefer we keep our environment clean.
I hate to inform you, but the environmentalist movement includes people from all politicial persuasions. There are indeed leftwing eco-nuts, but there are also the right-wing opposites (people like you, who want to "drill baby drill" instead of coming up with a more sustainable energy policy that is conducive to our long-term national security needs).
sbvor said: Ever notice how the so-called “environmentalists” NEVER focus on the question of “how can we do this with minimal environmental damage” and always focus on “how can we prevent this country from developing ANY energy resources”?
Lauren says: As I earlier opined, there are indeed different types of environmentalists. I try to ignore the whackos at both extremes. You, sbvor, seem to focus on only the leftwing whackos. Well, hate to say it, but Bush and Cheney are energy profiteers. And McCain was a right-wing drill baby drill whacko.
This country was truly a dirty place to live when I was young. I remember how dirty the air and rivers were. Well, because of ordinary centrist environmentalist (not Greenpeace, not the oil companies, not the CEOs) but people in every community in the country who elected moderate officials to clean things up, we in fact did clean things up. Europeans watched their forests dying until they adopted US auto emission standards. US dumps now are strictly designed and controlled to ensure the environment is safe. And on and on. Every person you see with a recycle bin is an environmentalist. I live in a Republican retirement enclave, yet almost all of them recycle.
Don't focus on the extremists on the left without realizing you helped elect right-wing extremists in Bush and Cheney. Profiteers like them weaken the collective efforts of everyone else, all us normal people who have striven succesfully these decades to clean things up.
sbvor, I for one always believed Iraq had WMD.
But I have come to learn, despite the misleading media, that WMD in fact did not not exist in Iraq and Bush knew it all along.
Rove has long ago admitted the WMD story was a lie told to get everyone behind them. The claims of imminent Iraqi nuclear capabilities were also known lies. The Oak Ridge lab TOLD the Bush admin Iraq probably was non-nuclear. The CIA pros TOLD the Bush admin Iraq probably was non-nuclear. Bush ignored them and told the people, the UN, the Congress the opposite anyway.
Of course Iraq was a mistake.
Vietnam was a mistake too.
Bush was a mistake as well.
There were no Islamo-terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. Saddam was a friend of the GOP's until he threatened Saudi oil. Because of Bush and his blunder, Iran and Islamo-terrorism is now stronger than ever before.
Lauren,
The quantitative FACT is that the Iraq war was NOT responsible for “ruining our economy” (not that Dims EVER care about FACTS).
1) Contrary to the utterly unsubstantiated hyperbole from Mr. Reich and the rest of the Dim hysteria mongers, our economy is NOT ruined. The forecasts do NOT expect this recession to even be equivalent to the 1982 recession.
2) Dims treating housing beyond ones means as the next frontier in their ever expanding “vision” of entitlements is what created the current economic conditions. If you don’t care enough to examine the MASSIVE amounts of evidence in this post, at LEAST examine this link and this link.
3) Entitlements are what is killing us. And more entitlements will kill us that much faster.
Lauren, et al:
I know for a fact that not a one of you has bothered to examine any of the evidence I have offered you (at least not any of the evidence offered on my blog).
But, like I said, Dims do not care about evidence, they ONLY care about rhetoric, dogma and media invented memes.
So, I’m off to more productive endeavors for the day.
Any who cares to examine the evidence can do so. The rest can continue on in their insular little Leftist bubble of fiction.
Sbvor:
I know it's been a long time, but when you first showed up here, I, and others, countered all your ridiculous tripe with substantiation. You failed to disprove the substantiation, or to win the arguments, but rather, intensified your humorous name calling.
From that point on, with rare exception, none of us were inclined to research data, merely to prove that you were a flaming idiot, albeit a hilarious one. Once the proof of a premise has been established as fact, ain't a whole lot of sense in proving it over and over again. Especially when the object of that premise does such a good job of it himself.
Lauren,
Okay, I forgot that I had one more thing to say.
The Interior Department has already drawn up the guidelines for ensuring environmental safety in developing Oil Shale in the United States.
So, when other countries have been developing their Oil Shale resources since at LEAST 1924, what excuse do you have left for why it should be ILLEGAL, in this country, to even ATTEMPT to meet enormously higher environmental standards than ANY other country has EVER imposed for the development of Oil Shale?
Remember, as a MEAN ESTIMATE (800 BILLION BARRELS), we have, in ONE Oil Shale deposit alone, THREE TIMES as much oil as Saudi Arabia has in total proven reserves!
But, even that 800 BILLION BARRELS is LESS THAN HALF of our total resources (and I have only documented the largest sources).
The REAL crime is keeping these TREMENDOUS resources off limits and keeping Americans UNEMPLOYED! SHAME ON YOU!
Magdalena
RUSSIA CUTS GAS TO UKRAINE – no need to worry it’s an old dispute. Ukraine already owes Russia money for past gas delivered and wanted to dicker the price down more when Russia said “pay up or shut up”. No need to worry they need each other so the boys will work it out. But yes, Hard to understand those damn Communist turned Capitalist Pigs.
“But then I read that the price of natural gas can vary quite wildly and independently of supply. Wonder why?”
I’m familiar with Oil and Gas prices and the key components impacting price.
I’m not sure what information you’ve read but the general rule is supply and demand is still the key components moving prices. Oil prices are a function of World supply and demand but NG prices will be a function of domestic supply and demand. Which is why even when demand is high and supply is low or temporary restricted (after Katrina) the price of NG has only gone from about $5.50 to $14.50 while we’ve seen Oil go from $20 to $145 –over the last 10 years. Prices started collapsing in May/June as it became clearer we were headed for a world recession.
It’s also true that the amount of Speculator/Investor money flowing in and out of the futures market can push prices up and down faster than 10-15 years ago when oil was around $15 a barrel and few Speculator/Investors were interested in Oil and NG markets.
You would think NG prices would be simple to understand but like most things in life it’s far more complex. Here are two government websites if you wish to learn more.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/rngp/index.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp
Okay, SVOR, this will be my last response to you.
You demand citations since one link on a site I linked to was broken and you couldn't bother to look for the information yourself, so here are all of the relevant Tax Foundation studies (mixed with some commentary).
Some that clearly show red states feasting off of blue states and living high off the federal hog can be found here, here, and here.
It's interesting that you say if the claims are true then we should ask questions about how that money was spent. Interesting because people such as yourself that I know never have any follow-up questions that they believe should be asked and answered when they perceive that the initial facts support their ideology and could weaken the "opposition" in some way. Indeed, you still see no reason to so much as question what is driving statewide unemployment rates.
If you actually believe the things that you write, I think that you are a very badly damaged person. People are fucking suffering and there you are trying to "prove" that their realities do not exist. Why? It would appear to be purely because of your political ideology. People of all political stripes are suffering--losing their homes, jobs, savings, dignity, hope for their children's social mobility, health care, etc. and you want to deny the severity of the state of the economy, want to deny their struggles, and even label and blame those who can't quickly pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps as being "incompetents." Entire families are living in their goddamned cars in the middle of winter. Does that please you? Jibe with your conservative "family values"? I really hope that you're just a typical liberal-hater and that you really don't believe what you say. If you do believe it, that makes you a pathetic human being who has some pretty serious emotional and mental problems.
Art,
No worries. In order to upset me enough to evoke the kind of response I've given Sbvor, you'd have to show a pattern of being an oppressive, ignorant, emotionally handicapped, ideological blowhard.
With that, I hereby pledge to completely ignore Svbor and hope that others will join me.
sbvor
We already have let out numerous leases for offshore drilling. I wonder why the oil companies that hold those leases don't use them? Could it be they are too costly to exploit? Could it be there is a lesson to learn there that you should apply to your oil shale mantra?
Having reserves of something does not mean it is economically or environmentally feasible to extract them. I'm not familiar with the actual numbers regarding US oil shale reserves, but I do know that extracting oil shale reserves has a significant environmental and economic impact. Only recently has it been economically feasible to exploit oil shale reserves, hence, don't try to make the case that Democrats have blocked this resource all these years.
But since you are concerned about reserves, let's extend your argument to sunlight. I've heard that enough sunlight falls on the Earth each hour to supply enough energy for all human needs for many years to come.
No matter which way you look at it, solar energy is more abundant than oil shale reserves, it is easier and less costly to extract, and it produces more energy. Why tear up our lands to extract oil and coal when solar energy is better and cleaner and limitless?
RR, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE..
Baiting [defined] is similar to trolling, baiters try to elicit a response from other users. ...Baiters do not need to make sense, and is often simply written to baffle the baitee, and to produce an interesting result. Baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate.
On Internet forums, baiting is sometimes used in attempts to empty forums or reduce a forum's usage. This type of baiting is usually done to make the atmosphere of a forum appear unpleasant or to make forum owners, moderators and long-time users look foolish. A person using this kind of baiting may post comments to elicit rude responses from prominent members of a forum, thus making the responding member or members appear as trolls or flamers to bystanders. As a result, forum users in general may become disgusted and leave the forum.
In the meantime, Angry Citizen, Art, Lauren, Magdalena, BMW, the gang...
STOP TAKING THE BAIT!
Angry Old Blowhard,
What a typical Dim you are! You expect me to do your work for you. No surprise there!
Magdalena,
1) “LNG is globally fungible” and will become even more so in the future.
2) I would certainly welcome more development of our domestic NG resources.
3) So long as it is done through the private sector with NO government subsidies, I would welcome more vehicles running on NG.
4) But, before you buy into the Pickens Plan to bilk you into subsidizing his NG fantasies, you had better check into how your electricity is produced. NG is already many times more expensive than coal. As demand for NG soars, so will your electric bill (if you get it from NG).
Angry Old Blowhard,
Okay, you’ve finally offered some substantiation of your assertion. And, generally speaking, I respect your source. But, in this case, my brief survey of your links indicates they have only skimmed the surface and have not asked the question which I want answered - where does the money go?
This is my guess:
1) The “giver” states are those with higher population densities containing the urban centers which, being more corrupt, vote for Dims.
2) The “taker” states are those with lower population densities which vote for Republicans.
These lower population density states tend to have a much higher ratio of interstate highway miles per capita. Therefore, they probably get more federal highway funding per capita. But, as I suggested before, New York would be in one heck of a bind if Texas did not have a suitable interstate highway system on which to delivery refined gasoline to New York.
So, IF interstate highway funding is the central aspect of this “giver” and “taker” imbalance, it is both understandable and reasonable (except for the fact that all roads should be privately owned toll roads using toll tag technology to ensure each user pays their fair share).
But, until your source digs a little deeper, speculation is all we’ve got to go on.
Robert, you worry about Ella...I worry about my 3 year old (almost) Tabitha...nice way to end the year. Being a grandfather is the second best thing ever to happen to me. Good luck testifyig on the recovery package...give em hell!CONGRATS on Grandfatherhood!
sbvor your last post has convinced me you are indeed a lunatic or a shameless troll. I have a feeling you have come here to sabotage this blog and as such RR is going to have to implement some mechanism to protect the rest of us from your rants. It's a good thing US elections worked in November to rid us all of your heroes. Bye bye.
Liberal Fascist quote of the day:
“RR is going to have to implement some mechanism to protect the rest of us from your rants”
Well, my dear, there is plenty of that going on in the so-called “Mainstream Media” (and they don’t even pretend to hide it).
And, we all know this is necessary, because…
So-called “Liberalism” can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum!
Dr Reich:
I wish all citizens had the opportunity to attend college as a benefit for serving their country. The military offers this through the GI Bill, if a person serves in the armed forces.
Another option would be to allow citizens to go to college and have their tuition refunded, if they serve in government or teaching for a 4 year period.
I would like to return to college for a graduate degree and change professions since my current occupation (computer programmer) has been outsourced.
I went to 2 year of vocational school in programming, 2 year in Junior college, and 3 years in state college of a bachelor’s degree. I paid for this myself without any help and then America allowed corporations to outsource without any consideration to America's work force.
I have 8 years of education and no job.
Why can't I work in America? I can't afford graduate school and I'm 58 years old.
I hope Ella has a better future.
BMW, I want to thank you for your helpful post. Your links were very informative. Among other things I found out that my state (MI) is one that has offered consumers a Natural Gas Residential Choice program. There are four suppliers in my area... I think you just may have reduced my heating bill!!!
On a completely different topic...has anybody seen or heard from Jordan?! What became of him?
Thanks for putting our citizens' goal into perspective.
And congrats on the granddaughter.
Mr. Reich
I always enjoy your comments and this one especially.
My grandsons also put this year in perspective for my wife and I. Because of family problems they have lived with us for the last two months and during those two months I have spent a lot less time worrying about our investments and a lot more time thinking about how to help them have a good future. Part of that future is very dependent on the future direction of our country and I hope that starting January 20th that direction will be significantly different.
BMW,
Click here for a multitude of proofs that “speculators” always serve to contain price volatility. Anytime speculation is forbidden by law, price volatility always explodes.
Click here for the proof of what drove oil prices above $150 last summer (and may well do so again this coming summer). In fact, unless the USA gets going on domestic production ASAP, the world may well see these wild price fluctuations for the next 60 years or more until we finally reach global “Peak Oil” (at which point the prices will remain high and climb ever higher).
BMW,
P.S.)
1) Oil prices did not fall in response to “world recession”, they fell, as I predicted they would and when I predicted they would, as a direct result of global supply finally exceeding global demand. The data prove that global demand dropped very little as a result of global financial conditions. The rebalancing of global supply and demand was more a function of seasonal demand reduction coupled with increased supply.
2) Per this source from this page (“Download Series History”) - Globally, spot prices peaked during the week of July 4th. Domestically, spot prices peaked during the week of July 18th (not May/June, as you alleged).
I'm not sure why Prof. Reich (or any Prof) deserves tenure.
Why do you think you have a gold plated ass? And why aren't we having a discussion about cutting off all the fat cats like Reich.
-A guy like Reich should make no more than 75-100K, and his performance should be evaluated yearly. No school which accepts government grants should be allowed to give faculty a free pass.
The sons and daughter of these tenured professors hand out tenure to other sons and daughters of the rich and connected.
Tenure promotes a corrupt and stagnant thought process.
Anonymous,
Anonymous said, “I have 8 years of education and no job....Why can't I work in America?....I can't afford graduate school and I'm 58 years old. I would like to return to college for a graduate degree and change professions since my current occupation (computer programmer) has been outsourced.
I went to 2 year of vocational school in programming, 2 year in Junior college, and 3 years in state college of a bachelor’s degree. I paid for this myself without any help and then America allowed corporations to outsource without any consideration to America's work force.”
Yes, these videos tell the story of America’s lost decade of IT professionals.
http://windowtowallstreet.com/workerguestvisas.aspx
I’ve heard this story a thousand times. And know a Man with two degrees in different IT specialties. He starts his career in the industry with IBM before anyone even knew they had computers in India. By 2002 he had been downsized twice and at 55 was unable to get hired back into the industry (at any level) when the boom returned. And I’m afraid I know one Chemical and two Mechanical engineers whose careers were ended prematurely around age 55 with similar stories. They now work when they can for less than what a fresh college graduate would expect to earn.
I know another America born IT professional with multiple job related degrees who is fortunate to have his 5th job with and American India owned company. He makes an excellent front man and his company qualifies as minority owned.
Bill Clinton was good at saying "I feel your pain"...I suggest Obama become good at saying, "I see your pain".
Economist and Educators get paid to say, “You need a higher education to get a higher paying job” or “You need to get a degree in a technical field like IT and Engineering to insure your future”. And yes in the 50’s-60’s a general liberal Arts degree was the starting ticket to success in corporate American. But after the 70’s every fortune 100 company I worked for expected job specific degrees if you wanted your beginning ticket to a secure and high paying job. But by the 90’s downsizing, outsourcing, and importing employees was common business practice and related to the global market philosophy.
Labor will always be cheaper some where in the world relative to America. But most people myself included never though any government policies would have an adverse long-term impact on American white-collar professions. Well, every American born degreed IT professional can see the job losses.
I can assure you if America out-sourced and in-sourced Washington D.C. Government Jobs, Military Jobs, University Economist and Educators Jobs to foreign countries the way America has done to the American IT professionals the H-B1 program and outsourcing would have been reduced not expanded.
No one means to harm America with any policy but most the Economist and Educators affecting America policy and selling higher education are tenure professors (no disrespect intended).
My business education and work has kept me in close contact with the American IT industry. The devastating trends concern me more than most because I have seen the world’s leader in producing IT professional jobs –decimated in just the last 15 years.
And if your over 50 good luck, even if you get another degree, you’ll find a little thing called age discrimination as a high hurtle to jump.
Good Luck To All In This Sinking Titanic Economy
You express so well what many of us are feeling at the beginning of this new year -- especially those of us with grandchildren. Thank you for your blog and your podcasts. You identify a major failing in our society: If we don't break our habit of short-term thinking, there won't be a long term.
BMW,
Okay, you lament the outsourcing of IT jobs. What is your proposed “solution”?
BMW,
According to this source, an AVERAGE Sr. Software Engineer makes more than a lawyer.
It appears to me that the IT outsourcing story is a little overblown.
Stop Taking the BAIT !!!!!!
No More Responses to SBVOR !!!!!!
It's OVER !!!!!! We all AGREE !
-SBVOR
I have a soft spot in my heart for any “underdog”.
And I admire your endurance and skills in rapid fire link generation.
But, why my son, would you want to attack the only person who has not complained about you and might even agree with one or two things you say?
L.O.L. You need help. Ok, here you go. Read the Articles and Video News reports –before your next 30 second rapid fire post to links of no relevance to what I said.
http://windowtowallstreet.com/workerguestvisas.aspx
Or just click on BMW
-------------------------
On the Subject of IT:
1) You have no experience with the IT profession and Industry.
2) Get educated -read the many articles and news story video’s and facts provide at the web page I provide you –that you will never bother to read. I at least read your stuff
3) You spent 30 seconds time (not research) generating links and short responses showing average salary information which has nothing to do with what I said. Did you hear me say salaries were low for IT/Engineers? Listen first –then research-then respond.
4) You provided no facts on jobs lost to China or India. You have no facts on the major India outsourcing companies and how many American IT workers they’ve replace. Do you know what an H-B1 visa is and how it’s replacing American IT workers with foreign works right in America? Get educated listen to the videos. And then give me all the rapid fire links to news videos with facts countering those facts.
5) Age discrimination –what would you know? You provide no links to research to the contrary?
Ok, so you’re a little lacking in IT industry experience –no big deal.
Reading your BLOG I do see you been involved with Oil and Gas information so I’m more comfortable the knowledge you may have here since you clearly have no IT background. And you should be delight I support the “Drill Here Drill Now” cause.
But after reading your comments on T Boone Pickens a man with 50 years experience in the Oil and Gas industry and seeing how you just could leave untouched my information to MAGDALENA and your LNG comment when MAGDALENA and I were clearly talking about NG –not LNG caused me to think maybe you just fell a need to have people view you as an expert. Hay, I’m no physiologist, so what would I know.
Then you say, “Oil prices did not fall in response to “world recession”, they fell, as I predicted they would and when I predicted they would” hummm….that sounds….well like I said I’m no physiologist.
Well here is another “expert” but he totally disagrees with you:
This expert says: “The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How? “
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878
When I have more time I’ll be happy to educate you on OIL SHALE BUSINESS and why Exxon got out of oil shale in 1982. I know you believe in “Free-Markets” so you maybe interested in learning why free-market private business never developed Oil Shale after the 70’s oil embargo.
BMW,
1) Are you so insecure as to regard all challenges to your assertions as personal attacks? I see you as one of the more educated and reasonable commentators in this blog. That does not mean you are incapable of error.
2) Regarding your link, Lou Dobbs has become one of the worst class warfare demagogues on the planet. He gets rich, you get stupid. If you wish to become educated, you will have to learn to look WAY beyond what so-called “journalists” force feed you (especially Lou Dobbs).
The FACT is that there is a global shortage of decent software engineers and the data I provided proves it. Not even your foreign programmer “boogie man” can change that basic fact. It can, however, generate a boat load of counterproductive, irrational xenophobia.
If we do not bust up the government monopoly on the delivery of publicly funded education in this country, we can expect more and more Americans to fail to compete effectively in an increasingly and inexorably globalized economy (especially in all areas of engineering).
3) It was mid October when I last examined the IEA data in detail. A brief glance at the demand data contained in the December report suggests we may not revisit in 2009 the supply/demand imbalance we saw through Q4 of 2007. Thus, we may not revisit the price spikes of last summer. But, we will have to wait for the supply side data for Q4 of 2008 in order to get a clear picture.
4) If Oil Shale is not feasible…
A) How have other countries been producing oil from it since 1924?
B) Given that we already have guidelines for environmental protection, why do Dims STILL find it necessary to make it illegal to even attempt to produce oil from oil shale?
BMW said: "...and might even agree with one or two things you say"
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
BMW...shame on you continuing this inflammatory dialog...SBVOR, you may have a few things to contribute in that angry hot head of yours but we don't like your style. This is a forum for give and take, listening, and polite discussion.
I've enjoyed this blog and there are a lot of thoughtful contributors here, but for the past 48 hours this blog has been dominated by one determined demagogue who won't shut up.
You've ruined it for everybody else. Was that your plan?
If you want to continue, the two of you, find a chat room. Better yet, get on the phone and yell at each other! In private!!!!!
Anon said:You've ruined it for everybody else. Was that your plan?
Undoubtedly.
It's how ideologues operate. They attempt to stomp out opposing POVs by whatever means are available.
Anyway, a report today was released saying that US manufacturing is the lowest its been for 28 years. Let's see, who was elected about 28 years ago and then imposed on us an economic philosophy that has dominated since then? Oh yes! Ronald Reagan! A man I unfortunately voted twice for.
What absurdities!
Those who cannot refute the facts always stoop to attacking the messenger.
SBVOR, up until now I've been biting my tongue but I, for one, am getting sick of this. You've obviously got a few facts in your head, but what idiot would be willing to breathe the smoke and fire that goes with a dialog with you?!!! Not me.
You have been rude, insulting, and you speak like a mad man...I can't get past your rudeness so I haven't bothered to even read any of your posts, and I am not going to until your lower your tone of voice and stop the personal insults.
I don't know what kind of impression you want to make here but all you've convinced me of is that you are going through some sort of psychotic episode. Get back on your medication.
Goodbye gang, I'm not coming back to this blog until it goes back to being respectful. I've noticed we've already lost a number of our more knowledgeable and thoughtful contributors.
Magdalena,
No, you refuse to examine my evidence because it does not comport with your ideology.
And, you stoop to personal attacks because you cannot refute the facts.
It’s typical.
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
I'm sorry I'll eliminate my response to "SBVOR" in the future.
But anyone concerned about America status in the World and Trends impacting jobs should review these video reports and research reports which relate directly to topics in this blog and discussions by the majority on this blog.
http://windowtowallstreet.com/workerguestvisas.aspx
It would be helpful if you have and research or facts and points of view you can add to this blog.
And keep in mind Dr. Reich did some excellent YouTube Videos -but no one came to view them or discuss anything or the 1-2 years he tried YouTube.
So the more indepth responses to SBVOR by many on this blog I find of great interest -I even learn things even when I do not agree with everthing. And the volume of discussion doubles calling even more attention to Dr. Reich Blog and the issues concerning Dr. Reich and others on this BLOG.
I've even got one of my young Medical Doctors in Ohio now reading this BlOG and talking to me about the Economy.
So I hope indepth response rather than the "YouTube" type responses continue.
----------------------
WARNING: Do Not Read These Words Below Unless You Have An Interest In My Response To Sbvor
Sbvor,
{ I have removed my response to Sbvor at the request of a one Mr./Ms. Anonymous post - I will only responed to Sbvor if requested by other bloggers }
BMW,
Geez! You’re starting to remind me of the Borg.
You have been assimilated into the hive!
Where is your independence?
The more I think about it, the more I realize why the commentators in this blog would love Lou Dobbs. After all, class warfare is the overriding theme in this blog. Sad…
BMW,
Thanx for your post....and your point about the intelligence of the responses...
Perhaps I was wrong...keep up the dialogue..
SBVOR, I don't know whether or not what you say agrees or disagrees with what I think because as I've explained, I haven't read your posts. Generally when I observe anybody being as provocative and rude as you have been, I don't waste any energy arguing because it is entirely pointless.
Sorry if I offended anybody *other* than SBVOR...
This post has been removed by the author.
Magdalena,
You argue plenty. But, you choose to argue, not about issues of substance, but merely about which personal insult best suits me.
I’ve seen it all before. It derives from a “totalitarian political religion” based entirely on a mythology which, as the overlords at Columbia Journalism Review freely admit, must be protected, at all costs, from any opposing evidence.
So-called American “Liberalism”, like all other forms of totalitarianism, can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum! (And, the overlords at CJR know it!)
P.S.) Click here and here for further proof of the religious component of this “totalitarian political religion”.
I hope people don't leave because of one loud mouth.
If you do, then you are succumbing to his purpose.
Simply ignore those who offend, and continue on with those who actually are here trying to learn something.
Perhaps Dr Reich's blog team will soon implement an ignore function so we can individually silence those who we personally choose.
Quick question: How many people here have read Dr. Reich's latest book?
First congrats to RR on Ella and keeping crithical thinkers and tinkerers awake.
ART you warned me about SBVOR and you did great, I stoped to argue with him endlesly, because he barely reads other people's posts. There is no use to argue with him.
I would like to attempt to explain ideological blindness.
When asked what brought this credit freeze, A. Greenspan said it was 'the Real Estate contraction' that devalued assets under investments. How he came to that conclusion and why he stoped there? Why he didnt ask why there was RE contraction and how it came about? To come to the bottom line you have to ask further questions, not stop in the middle of analytic deduction. R. Reich keeps answering those questions, why, what, when, who.
Ideologicaly blind are afraid of further answers, becouse they are afraid that they might be to blame for causing this credit freeze. They, such as SBVOR and republicans, stoped in the middle of reasoning beacuse it fits their previous thinking and understanding of economic principles, and specialy their education and knowlege levels.
How could they even imagine that contraction can come from something that was stretched too far(bubble). They cant, because they did the stretching.
How the bubble came to be? Investors were fighting to invest in RE and many invested in bad investments. Why were they fighting? Cause they had too much kapital waiting to be invested. Why there was too much kapital? Cause wealthy got biggest tax cut which gave them extra money which they would not spend for their everyday needs, so they could save it and invest it. More Investments is supply side economics.
Another question branches from contraction: why there are bad investments? Because the buyers did not have enough money to buy products of their investments, and they went bad. Why buyers did not have enough money to keep buying products (assets)? Answer is that a lot of americans live and work in half-slave conditions, which is different then what was like before Reagan became president. Ideologicaly blind wanna believe that nothing changed since 70s, since they brought that change. They live in past, do not wanna new facts, they wanna conserve their old facts, not to conserve good times. Conservatives changed their agenda, from preserving economic situation to preserving power holding, and thats why they are loosing it. They helped their supply side ideology too much and trew the economy out of balance. It is time to help demand side in order to restore balance. It is about yin and yang, pendulum swings and leads to prosperity together. Off course, blame game is a way to stop change. Let's mugg down in problems to preserve power share is their agenda now.
Just read 'Supercapitalisam' and i see that RR has it all right(almost). RR is standing on top of the mountain and watching the mudd slinging, with clarity (all but one thing). You do not need statistics to see the whole picture here, if you live life and see what friends and famillies are going trough.
Hey Jordan,
Glad to see you back. We had wondered what happened to you.
This blog has suffered for lack of your mediating influence...
I've started posting as Magdalena because another Linda started posting here.
Glad you enjoyed Supercapitalism & Wallerstein...I suggest you also put James Kunstler and The ArchDruid Report on your list.
Magdalena (aka Linda)
the IGNORE button is at your fingertips !
Healthy Peaceful Safe New Year ......
Jordan,
Sorry old chap, but even this journalist (and self-described Democrat) knows you are wrong (about the cause of the housing debacle).
Click here and review, in point #2, the real cause of the housing debacle.
P.S.) Anonymous - You are hilarious!
BMW
Regarding your posts about how oil prices are controlled by just a few people, I have some questions for you....
Should the US and other gvmts attempt to intervene in this price-setting scheme?
Is it possible for the US and other gvmts wrest control of oil prices away from these few people?
What changes should be made?
Good GOD Lauren - It is, demonstrably, supply and demand, plain pure and simple!
Stop looking for any pathetic excuse for MORE harmful government intervention!
Google "Bill Lockyer enron" and you will find abundant information how the California AG proved in court than Enron and other energy companies were complicit in widespread energy price manipulation during 2000 and 2001. In case you didn't know, price fixing is not normally a characteristic of supply and demand. However, modern day Republicans apparently would disagree with that. After all, according to them anything goes in a Laissez-faire economy.
Pop quiz: What event in 2001 suddenly and surprisingly caused the rolling blackouts in California and other western states to suddenly decrease to normal levels, though people had been warned in the days prior to that event to expect significant waves of rolling blackouts for years to come? Answer: Jim Jeffords switched parties and became a Democrat, thereby giving the Democrats temporary control of the Senate The day he switched parties, the Democrats threatened to investigate the blackouts, and the blackouts abruptly ceased. Google "Jim Jeffords rolling blackouts" to begin your personal investigation into how US energy companies stole $10s if not $100s billions from western states in 2000 and 2001, and how Bush allowed Ken Lay to appoint an energy man to become the chair of FERC during this crisis. This man then sabotaged all efforts by career pros at FERC to mitigate the energy crisis in question. Had it not been for Jim Jeffords switching parties, this theft might have gone on for years thereafter.
Moral of the story? The above is proof of energy price fixing. Don't believe anyone who tells you gas prices are fixed by a halthy supply and demand environment. Supply and demand is just ONE variable in gas prices. Corruption, greed and monopoly are three other variables.
Look Lauren, a California jury could be convinced that the moon is made of green cheese. Even IF true, it proves NOTHING!
I told you about some aspects of the fake energy crisis in 2000-2001.
I told you about Ken Lay's involvement in appointing an energy insider to become the chair of FERC, a US agency designed to PROTECT, not EXPLOIT, states from greedy energy companies.
Now google "Ken Lay Arnold Schwarzenegger" and discover how the citizens of California are now being led by a man who was involved with Ken Lay and who opposed efforts by California to stop being a victim of the enrons and Ken Lays. Ask yourself, how did California, a victim of Enron and other energy companies, come to be led by someone who was sympathetic with those theives?
If this doesn't make you scratch your head, then your not paying attention.
As the recession deepens with no end in sight, one thing is clear. Private corporations are not creating jobs. Things were already bad with all the outsourcing of jobs into China and India, with corporations searching the world to find the cheapest sources of labor, with the importation of foreign workers with HB-1 visas, with illegals flooding across the border to take construction and other low paying jobs. But now with the world wide slowdown in consumption, what few jobs had been left to Americans are now going away. This could be a neverending downward spiral with more people unemployed, more home foreclosures, more layoffs, less consumption. What to do?
With the private economy in shambles, the government needs to be the financial engine of last resort. All indications are that Obama plans to initiate a large scale jobs and infrastructure rebuilding program. It's sort of obvious that this will put money into the hands of worker/consumers, save homes that would otherwise go into foreclosure and prevent increased misery and social unrest. If private enterprise can't solve these problems - and it has been contributing mightily to them by locating cheap labor abroad - who else but government can step into the breech? The jobs created need not be "government jobs." That is the workers need not be government employees. Contracting out work to the private sector will have the same effect and is probably preferable to putting more people on the government payroll. And private corporations love government contracts. They've been sucking off the government teat for years. So what else is new? There will have to be a change in philosophy though as to what type of contracts the government is letting. Obviously, the military-industrial complex, for all its other deleterious effects, has not been able to be the jobs engine to keep the economy purring. A change in philosophy from providing contracts to defense contractors to providing contracts to infrastructure contractors should take place. Building up infrastructure will create the conditions for private enterprise to provide secondary job creation by taking advantage of the profit opportunities the new infrastructure will provide.
Also a longer version posted on Will Blog For Food as Government Needs To Be the Engine of the Economy
This post has been removed by the author.
Lauren,
As I recall, it was idiotic California politicians who passed laws which were an open invitation for Enron to rape Californians.
Guess what? Californians got raped! Sorta reminds you of the current housing debacle, eh?
And yet, you so-called “Liberals” NEVER LEARN! You keep on demanding MORE of the destructive government interventions that keep getting you raped!
IDIOTS!
John Lawrence, it appears the Republicans led by Mitch McConnell are gearing up to defeat or delay any stimulus plan by Obama. I hope it's simply a delay.
For me, 1972 is the date of the last time I saw a piece of reasonably priced real estate.
I reckon home prices have climbed ~6.7% per year (The 37th root of the ratio of a house price then and same house now.)
I think the legacy for your kids and grandchild, and my kids... the outcome of the mortgage meltdown... should be we use public policy to permanently lever real estate prices to "reasonable". Let housing return to being a pure expense.
How about if we cut back mortgage terms to 12 years. Credit card minimum payments to 6 months. Limit the mortgage to the current rebuild price. End the mortgage interest tax deduction. Charge SSI tax on all income without upper limit.
I am thinking of this as what I would like to see as the outcome of the "mortgage meltdown": Deliberately reasonable housing costs for a middle class that does OK on one $15/hr working parent income.
Jordan:
Welcome back! Happy New Year!
Angry:
Am in the process of reading it. Can't seem to tear myself away from this blog.
Sbvor:
Your problem, as if there were only one, is you don't read enough Shakespeare. ...you doth protest too much...
To those aghast at the imbelic interloper:
Though his posts and his interminable links are a pain, you can ignore him by just scrolling past him. Whether he seeks to drive folks away, only he knows, but it seems kinda silly, if you enjoy Doc's blog, to go away because we have one blogger who loves to shout at the rain.
Let me give you a quote from what has been becoming my favortire movie:
I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!
Substitute Sbvor for Bob and you got it in a nutshell. Try as he might with all his links to his site which will then lead you on a neverending quest of further links, he can't figure out how to "sell" it.
Sbvor's not a bad guy, per se, he's just an unintellectual one. His sources contain the "real truth" and all other sources are either liars or manipulators or, Oh my God, "liberals". He hasn't the capacity for dealing with more than one point of view. His is the only way because he can't fathom that there might be holes in his theories or regurgitations or his references.
No doubt he is to be disdained but also to be pitied. Unable to grasp the complexity of issues, he takes the easy way out. "I think this and if I find something or someone that supports that thinking I have been validated."
In your frustration with the content and language of his posts, never forget to enjoy the humor in them. His content is vacuous, but his presentation is hillarious.
Let me also suggest to all of you, Jordan correct me if I'm wrong, that we all get a little carried away with the short version of "supply and demand".
There is a helluva lot more to "supply and demand" theory than, decrease supply with constant demand and prices go up or increase supply with constant demand and prices go down. Granted in net, the short hand version applies, quite often, but like all concepts, if you oversimplify it, you can head down wrong roads.
Just a thought.
Hellouu Magdalena! Thanks for WB compliments, i guess i deserved it. HA HA HA Thank you.
I had some apartment changing problems so i was out of connection for a while, now i am back.
SBVOR your response proves my assesment that you do barely read (but not register) other people blogs. To prove my reasoning (and RRs) to less deductive reasoning person would take much more then hundred pages of a book. Pleas do not ask me to do it here. Just open your mind to possibilities and read 'Supercapitalisam', do not be square. Thanks
Lauren and BMW
Energy price gauging is what Enron and other huge companies have been doing for a long long time now to other smaller countries or you can call them 'Third world countries' The problem is that they run out of countries to play that game. In given time, most of the 3W countries learned what comes with USA companies and WTO and IMF if they let them in. Since they run out of other countries to play with, they turned their practices to their own house (USA). But we caught them, not really on time.
They perfected their neo-colonialisam trough years of practice. Do not blame others, because we enjoyed benefits of doing so, and if you like the republican hawks and what they bring with world control and Iraq oil grab, so that we can live more prosperous life. We wannt to continue that. Only thing is we forgot; Live with sword, die of sword. They turned against their own base.
When the war in my ex country started i heard some people saying: it is american practice ground and they started the war. It seemed totaly improbable, i could not believe that someone can control us in such way to start civil war. As i learned more and more what is happening here in US, and what have been going on i can see a lot of similarities. Not that somebody is doing to us, it is we are doing it to ourselfes.
Cold war paranoia with strategy making people (most influental) is turned inside out after the end of the Cold war. Once healthy paranoia had no enemies, so they paranoid about thier own people, especialy after 9/11. I experienced this process on myself, in my own life.
Even tough proces of this economic collapse started somewhat before end of the cold war, it is a result of not recognising the real enemy by our own control freaks. Of course they are all idealogicaly blind.
Well you can say that it was Bush himself who asked for more direct contribution to help african needy by buying the food in their own country instead of charities buying US food reserves, transporting it to africa, asia and pays salaries of charity directors. He obviously did not understand that charities keep our farmers happy by buying american grown food, but he wanted to do more effective help to poor in other countries. "Compassionate conservativisam" pffffrt, now we need help, and whos going to help those hungry in africa now.
But i would still say and practice: "do unto others as you would like them do unto you" So that Enron and alike do not turn their practices against smaller countries against their own house
FYI:
I just updated this post on World Oil Balance (aka supply and demand) with the most current data from the Paris based IEA.
The numbers don't lie.
Art,
1) Not only do I examine both sides, I scrupulously debunk the side which is clearly incorrect (with, in this case, lots of assistance from Dr. Perry at Carpe Diem).
2) I love it when you vacuous so-called “Liberals” play the bogus, nebulous “complexity” card.
Art,
Thank you for your experienced and kindly descriptions of our more eccentric posters.
Now I realize that I have been missing the opportunity to participate in a reality version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest..
Geez...and I had visions of finding myself, saving the world?!!!
Oh geez, it's only January 2.
;(
Art
thanks and nice to read you all again. Happy New Year to all.
You do not need correcting, especially not from me. RR is here to do that.
About simplification problems of supply and demand rule, i would say that is the only way we can understand what is really going on. Adam Smith set up the principles of free market economy and in given time we complicate things, so Keyeness showed up to give some variations that have a say in the economy. We complicated it even more so Wallerstain showed up to write down his observations. But to understand it fully we have to keep basics in mind, such as Adam Smiths principles and US Constitution principles that we learned to get around with given enough time. It is our own entrepenourship and human nature that learns how to get around the rules.
So i would recomend do go back to basics in order to get everything back in order. It is supply and demand that rules everything, even evolution of the species, it is just a different vocabulary being used.
Sbvor:
Oh yea, let us not forget that bastion of objective thought, Dr. Perry.
Damn! Could you please get your own words instead of mimicking mine? I spend hours looking up those words, do I have to do all your research for you?
LOL, no doubt you are a trip, even though with gossamer wings.
Art,
True, Dr. Perry has a point of view (as does every vacuous Liberal commentator on this blog, including your vapid self).
But, unlike Mr. Reich, Dr. Perry ALWAYS substantiates his points (as do I).
Jordan,
Have you seen James Kunstler's predications for the coming year?
He says
1. Oil prices have overshot their bottom and will start to spike again after the new year.
2. There will be no recoveries of what has been lost in the stock market and real estate, and that the stock market will take a new dive in May and bottom out below 4000.
3. That by the end of the year the value of the USD will be down to 40% of its current value...largely as a result of the gov't's deficit spending on stimulus programs that probably won't work... undermine the US gov't's debt credibility...so much for Keynesian economics in the post-Modern era.
Pretty grim stuff.. I checked all his predictions for 2008 and he was right on the money.
For 2009 see:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/12/forecast-for-2009.html
Congratulations to you and your family on the birth of your first grandchild. We have 13 and are looking forward to #14 this summer. They are all important although there is something very special about the first one.
I find that SBVOR is far too ideologial for his own good. It limits his range of thinking. The ideology of the right is as rank as that of politically correct left.
There are a number of reasons to be opposed to off shore drilling for oil such as pollution of beaches and wildlife areas. If we don't drill for it now it will still be there for our descendants to drill for it later. It isn't going anywhere in the near term (like the next thousand years). In the future it may be necessary to drill for it, but is it really necessary now? It is true that fossil fuels are a finite resource and we will eventually run out of them.
Why is it that so many attacks on the government involve enitlement programs? What are they anyway? Does it include social security but not farm subsidies?
I was in favor of conservation when we were learning about they shelter belt of trees and contour plowing. Those who want me to downsize from my Ford Van don't realize how many children and how much we can put it it. They also must not be very experienced with long distance American travel. In the state I grew up in, Wyoming, we used to joke we had miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
I read "Supercapitalism" learning a great deal about what has occured in the US economy since I voted for Johnson in '64. I also voted for Nixon 3 times. I haven't voted for a single Republican for President since.
I would recommend that you also read Paul Krugman, "The Conscience of a Liberal" and John Dean, "Conservative Without Conscience."
The current administration, run by conservatives has run our economy and the nation into the ground. I can only pray that Obama will be able to lead the nation through this hard time. The economy has far too many parallels with the ll1920-41 Depression.
Magdalena,
OPEC is driving down supply.
But, the IEA data suggest prices will remain relatively low until at least Q3 of 2009.
Demand is expected to reach a near term peak in Q1 of 2009. If demand then exceeds supply (probably for just that one quarter) that imbalance MIGHT be reflected in spot prices 2 quarters down the road (Q3). But, it appears unlikely that any global imbalance in 2009 will last as long as the previous imbalance. Therefore, I think we can expect relatively low prices throughout 2009.
That said, gasoline prices always increase during the summer. But, I am not currently expecting anything like the price spikes witnessed in the summer of 2008. The summer of 2010 could possibly be another bad one. But, it is way too early to call.
Magdalena
I have been thinking about 5000 for Dow for a while now, but that is about the same destruction. Yes, we need grimm realities that wakes us up and prevent from fulfiling it. Just recall nuclear destruction warnings. Those warnings alone prevented any atom bomb use, and if we forget about it it will come.
Yes, we are moving in direction that Kunstler is predicting, but lets hope O. wil change that direction. Kunstler takes short cycle movements and imply that they will stay the course. I would not bet it. Course can change if we give enough effort to aknowledge it and will to change it. Given alternatives we have to change those directions we are going right now.
Again i am saying that oil price fluctuations are result of speculations, call it oil price bubble, because it is caused by same processes as any other bubble. Too much kapital moves suddenly from failing sector to another. After investments started abandoning mortgage backed securities (credit freeze), they jumped into oil, gold and other comodities as more secure investments. T-bills are paying almost 0% which is sign that people do not expect anything else to pay off. They all jumped into oil and caused it to pay off just by doing that. 'Self fulfilling prophecy'. So more people jumped into it with their investments. Demand for oil futures raised oil prices to $150, nothing else. Initialy it was moved there by voices of diminishing supply=higher price of oil. It happened same way with .com bubble, RE bubble and now with oil bubble. It is a bubble.
Only reason it did hapen with agricultural products was because congress banned speculators from entering wheat market in march of 2007. They knew it is going to come and make many people in US die of hunger caused by too high prices of food. It would have caused nation wide riots, so they had to stop it.
The cause is, simply put, too much free capital. And it will keep destroying, one by one, sectors of economy. But who has the will to establish 80% tax rate for those that hold power, those that make more then $1 million a yeear, even just temporarilly and solve most of the problems. They will rather wait and let the time destroy all the investments (asset based debt) so that nobody could be blamed for action against destroyers.
Most of the problems (not all)could be solved by nationalising all debt and then forgiven. We could do it all over again or base economy only on account receivables (income) permanently with new laws.
In old time when companies could not get credit they discovered bonds (IOU). After some time they needed more money so they discovered stocks. After they needed more money again, they discovered securities. Now they discovered CDOs on top of everything else. Futures are also a way to borrow more money. It became a game of borrow, hide debt, borrow more. Can the destruction be delayed by more borrowing?
Sure, let our kids solve the problem. Some countries forgive all debt trough war. They try first to manipulate all out debt trough inflation, but after a while it becomes impossible. Some countries get rid of all debt (individual, corporate and federal)by nationalising.
We have to pick which way we will do it. Better we decide then let problems catch up with us. I would prefer nationalisation of all debt. It is easy, all debt is securitised anyway on a pieces of paper. Then forgive all internal debt and pay international debt. We can start again with pay as you go. Establish livable minimum wage and use account receivables only. And stop paying executives with stock options, they are meant to expand the business not to pay outrageous bonuses to succesfull networkers, because that is all they are. CEOs are peple with wast network of people. They do not make any executive decisions, because that is too risky.
I'm aware of nature's pollution but most of it is biodegradable. I grew up in the oil patch and know that usually on land the pollution is not too severe. Many times I've seen antelope grazing right up next to a pumping well. However, we have a great deal of evidence of how much harm oil pollution does to wildlife and to beaches. My daughter-in-law is from Texas and says that many Texas beaches are polluted and dirty.
Oldhistorian69,
Just like Santa Barbara, the overwhelming majority of the tar balls found on Texas beaches come from natural seepage (aka Mother Nature).
Academic studies PROVE that more drilling = fewer tar balls.
So, I guess you and yours just love those tar balls. Right?
As for your fantasy that natural seepage is more “biodegradable” than man made spills. That sounds like another Liberal religion to me. Let’s call it Pagan Nature Worship.
OldHistorian, you are right. Cleanup operations are usually not ordered when mother nature is the cause of messes. Only when man-made spills, like the one off Santa Barbara in 1969, or the one caused by the Exxon-Valdes, are cleanup operations usually needed. Recent hurricanes have also caused spills in the Mississippi and other areas which needed to be cleaned up.
SBVOR and I were talking past each other. Natural seepage of petroleum is no more biodegradable than is that pumped out. In '55 I cleaned up a road oil spill at the Texaco Refinery in Casper where a tank ran over. At the start of the work day when it was cool it picked up easily. However, is was such I could do as much in the first 2 or 3 hours as could be done the rest of the day. It leaves a stain that doesn't come out of clothes.
The study on seepage seems to be discussing gas seepage more than liquid. As the pressure on the underground oil is released it stands to reason that the amount of seepage would be reduced.
None of this addresses the issue of whether or not there in an increased level of beach pollution on the beaches close to drilling and pumping sites.
My first reaction over your rant about liberals would have been rather out of bounds. Your rant is inexcusable and entirely inappropriate for a mature adult (although we may all do it at times0). You owe all of the readers and apology.
Dale Carnegy declared that people do something for a reason. It is immaterial whether the reason is good and bad. That much must be respected.
Your rant about liberals is one that has become entirely too common from the radical right. I will bet that the writers are all intelligent and have some experience and education. I admire Dr. Reich and his work. However, I have a conservative friend who has a doctorate in Economics also (he and Phil Gramm were classmates at that time). He gives me a hard time from time to time about one issue or another. Another very brilliant friend is much more liberal and teaches political science at the same school. They are very good friends and keep tabs on each other and their families.
I'm saying this to speak that all to often people become involved in ideological thinking and are dumbed down to the idiot level in their thinking. You need to expand to left. You may even find that they do know something about the world you don't know. You can't go any further right.
This post has been removed by the author.
Lauren, the typical so-called “Liberal”:
I bet you fear nuclear power too. Right?
How many people have EVER been injured or killed from nuclear power in the United States? Answer: NONE!
But, about 40,000 Americans die on the nations highways EVERY YEAR! Did 40,000 people die at the one time event called Chernobyl? Care to compare the injuries and unproven potential health risks from Chernobyl to the undeniable annual injuries on our highways?
Now, let’s compare, again, the damage done by Mother Nature to the damage done by offshore drilling.
Are there ANY rational so-called “Liberals” out there? Or, are they all walking zombies regurgitating the utterly irrational mantra of “Nuclear is evil” “Oil is evil” “anything but my Green Fantasy is evil”?
Well, if all that is so evil, what about the dang highway system? Isn’t THAT orders of magnitude MORE evil?
We do NOT live in a risk free world! Never have, never will!
Oldhistorian69 inaccurately claims,
“None of this addresses the issue of whether or not there in an increased level of beach pollution on the beaches close to drilling and pumping sites.”
I’m sorry, but you CLEARLY did not read the opening sentences from this article describing TWO bits of peer reviewed science, published in TWO peer reviewed science journals. I quote:
“Next time you step on a glob of tar on a beach in Santa Barbara County, you can thank the oil companies that it isn't a bigger glob.
The same is true around the world, on other beaches where off-shore oil drilling occurs, say scientists, although Santa Barbara's oil seeps are thought to be among the leakiest.”
P.S.) Do NOT expect any apologies from me. However, I would graciously accept any and all apologies offered by any and all insufferably arrogant, ignorant and astonishingly destructive American Leftists.
SBVOR says:
P.S.) Do NOT expect any apologies from me. However, I would graciously accept any and all apologies offered by any and all insufferably arrogant, ignorant and astonishingly destructive American Leftists.
This comment and rudeness would send you to the principals office with a referal and in college you would be asked to leave the class until you apoligized to the class. Your behavior is unacceptable in rational company and you fail to show respect for people who are not in line with your opinion. You seem to think that God has given you insight into everything and that you are so superior to any of the rest of us and above us. Straighten up and fly right.
SBVOR says:
P.S.) Do NOT expect any apologies from me. However, I would graciously accept any and all apologies offered by any and all insufferably arrogant, ignorant and astonishingly destructive American Leftists.
This comment and rudeness would send you to the principals office with a referal and in college you would be asked to leave the class until you apoligized to the class. Your behavior is unacceptable in rational company and you fail to show respect for people who are not in line with your opinion. You seem to think that God has given you insight into everything and that you are so superior to any of the rest of us and above us. Straighten up and fly right.
Poor SBVOR.
What are you going to do now that Liberalism has won the day in America?
The most liberal President in decades, along with a Liberal Congress, and the universal discrediting of Conservative " supply side" economics that led to the current financial disaster, hurried along by incompentent executives paid excessive compensation for exercising poor judgement and having no talent and being praised by Conservatives who want to give them more money in the form of bigger tax cuts. And do you seriously believe the American middle class will allow any cutting of Social Security or Medicare benefits for their elderly parents ( and themselves) after watching Wall Street trash their 401k retirement accounts?
So here is what you have to look forward to over the next decade.
A universal healthcare system for every citizen, higher Social Security tax on high income earners, progressive tax increases on the rich and super rich, more government subsidies for education , higher gas mileage mandates for all automobiles sold in the US, reduction in the burning of fossil fuels, more 'green energy" and more energy conservation, .. to name just a few of the things to come.
So you can scream and call us names and advertize your one sided proofs and bemoan the state of the world, but life will go on, a better life for most folks, and Conservatives will be grouped with other obsolete theories taught in history books.
Poor SBVOR. But you know you are right, just like the folks who said the earth was the center of the universe knew they were right, and the experts who declared the earth was flat knew they were also right, and those who knew that man would never fly, and a black man would never be President. Alas, they all knew they were right.
You truly belong to a very special and unique group, those who always knew they were right even as they whithered away to be swept into the dustbin of history.
Regarding nuclear safety, please google "child leukemia death rates near nuclear plants" to get a better understanding of the truth about whether any US citizen has ever died of nuclear power.
If the US ever does expand nuclear power, let's hope the Republicans will not be the ones who get to define the safety standards or are the ones who man the alarm buttons.
In the same way that the EPA and the TVA are attempting to hide the results of testing after the Tennessee Coal Ash disaster, I guarantee an under regulated nuclear industry will cut safety corners and/or not tell the truth regarding radiation exposure events. Just substitute the words "nuclear meltdown" for "wallstreet collapse" and that's what we will have if the current bunch of Republicans are the ones who define or run any future nuclear industry.
As an example, one safety corner the industry wants to cut is to ship the most newest and deadliest waste from nuclear plants into permanent storage areas such as Yucca mtn rather than the older waste. Some experts say it is immensely safer to store fresh waste onsite for a decade or so whilst the older waste is transported first. However, the industry prefers to save money by first transporting the waste most expensive to store locally (the freshest waste). WIth Republicans in office, the waste that will be transported first will be the most deadly, thereby increasing the risk of a waste release. And if anyone tells you nuclear waste is not deadly, they are lying. There has never been a mass produced product shipped by train or truck that hasn't been spilled into the environment. The waste casks have been proven to be rupturable in any average wreck. It is entirely conceivable an entire city might be forced to be permanently evacuated if a train wreck occurs while carrying nuclear waste.
I believe nuclear power can be safe--just so long as Republicans are not the ones overseeing the program.
Also, do you recall how during 911 the EPA hid air quality data in NYC? Just more proof of how Republicans prefer secrecy.
This link informs a bit how EPA and TVA are hiding coal ash test results.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
dave-cooper/tennessees-toxic-
nightmar_b_154839.html
Chemical plants across the US routinely hide news of inadvertent chemical releases. This is because the US has weakened safety observer presence.
Regarding clean coal and the extraordinary amount of deadly carbon dioxide that will be pumped into the ground for permanent storage, can you imagine what will happen if an earthquake or something else causes said gas to escape? Mass casualties.
Silverfox
Awesome observation on part of the our future, except one thing: just as SBVOR feels his righteousnes, so could we given time and early succes. You give the right view on where wi will bee in the future, but in what time period? There could be resistance. All those failed ones are still full of money (power) and like the Status Quo. Too fast toward better and only sustainable system and it could provoke a reaktion. There will be a reaction, but question is how strong? It depends how fast we move toward change.
The system is such that no change is possible, both parties are locked in lobbying money and Unions do not have such money anymore to present any influence.
On the other hand even Obama is talking about preserving globalisation tendencies, which could be strengten by building NAFTA higway from Mexico to Canada which is in plans already. If he aprooves it under infrastructure bill it would be clear sign that we will miss all added benefits that Universal healthcare could give to profitless companies and curb recovery. Another thing is that it seems Obama will preserve Wall Street at all cost even tough it is imposible to save WS for good.
Any radical change mithg provoke a reaction to 'conservationists' of Status Quo. Or even making it to look like a class warfare, or if all classes loose, after lowest class already lost. He might not stop total loss, but he can do it with our support, not only verbal.
Bah! Every one of you is uneducable!
But, I knew that on the way in.
Lauren,
1) Show me ONE example of peer reviewed science showing ANY correlation between ANY form of leukemia and ANY form of electricity generation OR transmission!
IT DOES NOT EXIST!
If it did, every nuclear power plant in the country would be shut down and every bottom feeding Left Wing lawyer would be a billionaire.
2) CO2 sequestration is a silly waste of billions.
If you do not understand why, start here and here, then proceed to here.
3) Ignoring (as we should) CO2, clean coal is already an ever improving reality. Click here to learn the facts as reported by the EPA.
This Rand report, prepared in 2005 for the US Dept of Energy explains why a "measured pace" towards a future oil shale capabilty is required and has been adopted by US energy companies and more level-headed political leaders.
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/
RAND_MG414.pdf
A careful reading will show that, in 2005, US energy companies viewed oil shale exploitation as economically unviable at that time. You will also see that considerable and real environmental hurdles exist.
In sum, oil shale exploitation may some day (a few decades from now this report suggests) be possible, but it's going to take time and research and level-headed decision-making (not a mad rush) before significant amounts of oil are produced from US oil shale resources.
It is my guess that the reason oil companies and Republicans today are publicly in a hurry (though privately, they are unwilling to invest much of their own money into oil shale research) to get political and public financial support, is that they simply want to hoard those leases for use at a future time when it truly becomes economically viable. If they are given leases today, this report makes it clear it will be decades before oil is produced from those resources. In sum, silly liberals aren't the reason oil shale isn't currently being exploited; rather it's unwillingness by energy companies to invest their own money right NOW that is the reason.
An idea for troubled times: minting coins worth $1 trillion each and buying back the federal reserve....
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=1115&Itemid=119
This post has been removed by the author.
Lauren,
That Rand report is a good one. That is the reason why it was my first citation in this post.
Again, if there are sooo many hurdles preventing the production of oil from oil shale…
A) How have other countries been producing oil from it since 1924?
B) Given that we already have guidelines for environmental protection, why do Dims STILL find it necessary to make it ILLEGAL to even attempt to produce oil from oil shale?
LAUREN said “BMW-Regarding your posts about how oil prices are controlled by just a few people, I have some questions for you....Should the US and other gvmts attempt to intervene in this price-setting scheme? Is it possible for the US and other gvmts wrest control of oil prices away from these few people? What changes should be made?”
Sorry for slow response but work is picking up at my low wage job. And this response did require a lot of thought.
As you read this response think of the Bennie Baby Bubble. A few people were never controlling the market they were supplying the market (and promoting) which expanded exponentially as every child wanted them and every parent and grandparent bought their kids more and more because –well they were always going up in value. Now image you could buy Bennie Babies using the same leverage as those now BK financial institutions did.
Yes, there is already a simple solution that like raising or lowing interest rates will help and is being overlooked. NO new laws are required. NO need for Democrats and Republicans to spend time debating ideology. No need for Supply Side and Demand Side Economist to argue. The mechanism is already in place. In a word it’s called –“Margin Requirements”.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166038,00.html
Yes, over long time frames Supply and Demand has always been the major variable. But having had more than a little Economics training myself I learn Economist in the effort to understand our complex economic world must first construct simple two dimensional charts –their most famous of all “Supply and Demand” or their assumption of “rational man”.
But the world is more complex than two dimensional and the relationship between variables often changes over time. Having studied and invested in the markets since first having a few dollars in the 70’s I’ve seen a lot. In the interest of time I’ll not go into my Beanie Babies or Hunt Brothers Silver Bubble of 1973 examples which prove there’s more to price than Economist two variables of -Supply and Demand.
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/hunt_bros.html
Investors and Speculators have always been able to buy stocks on margin. The margin requirements are regulated and maybe changed at anytime. Traditional buying stocks on margin requires 50% down. So, a person can control $100,000 worth of a stock for $50,000. But the relatively young Energy Futures Index markets had only been requiring around 5%. Which means the same $50,000 can control $1,000,000 worth of Oil.
So, if you had $50,000 to Invest/Speculate/Gamble and world Economic markets are growing, with oil demand climbing and the dollar falling you’d be advised to put it in Oil and if you wanted to make a big bet you could “leverage-up” your $50,000 by buying Oil on Margin.
Now magnify the above example buy the power of 1 to 10 leverage ratios x 1,000’s of wealthy investors, mutual funds, hedge funds, University Endowment Funds, Private and Public sector Pension Funds.
Margin requirements can be used like interest rates during high inflation and high demand Economist say raise interest rates to slow buyer demand and speculation and during bad economic times lower interest rates to increase demand. You can utilize Margin requirements the same way –to dial up or down “Leverage and Speculation”
Like everything -people in government and economist and others will debate this all year long before anything is tried. And the current debate over how much blame to assign “Speculators” overshadowed someone just saying just altering “Margin Requirements” as down with stocks for over 75 years. You may find it interesting that Economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman (no-right-winger) concludes in an excellent two dimensional classic Economics chart that there is “no bubble in oil” in May 08, when Oil was around $135 a barrel.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/more-on-oil-and-speculation/
So, in May 08 a Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman concluded at a $135 a barrel in a slowing world economy that their was no –oil bubble in responds to those who believed speculation played a role.
In June 08 the two major Futures Exchanges Tripled The Margin Reguirements. So, with margin requirements tripling and the “smart money” sensing a major world economic slow down money started flowing out of Oil investments and more people started “shorting oil”. And like a snow ball rolling down hill oil prices tumbling downward 4x faster than they had gone up.
http://cryptogon.com/?p=2671
So, clearly Raising Margin Requirements during periods when “money flows” are pouring into the oil futures market can reduce leverage which buy itself reduces speculation pressures.
P.S. I understand offshore drilling is a No-No on this blog to bring up. I understand the majority of people in CA and FLA hate the thought of offshore drilling but deepwater rigs are so far out no one can even see them from shore. I understand the Enviornmental issues. I just want to say it's 10x maybe even 100x a better possiblity than Shale Oil with less risk to the Enviornment and we do not need ANWR. The Terminator Gov. has a financial problem and should just open this and maybe one N-Electric Plant up for discussion. Mr. Terminator could even ask for federal stimulus money under the cover of infastructure. Its also true CA is idea for Solar Energy.
Bottom line LAUREN if you want cheap energy this is a case where "supply side" economics has value. You flood the market with the best Energy options that Experts can agree upon and you keep prices low.
Click on BMW for more information and a free financial rant on IRAQ.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/
KOO14.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9803E2DA1631F933A05757C0A9649C8B63
And... google "childhood leukemia german study"
Then ask yourself how many millions have been invested by the nuclear energy industry to fight or even sabotage other studies?
Most gvmt agencies exist today to protect industries, not people. See earlier posts for examples how gvmt hides its mistakes.
Reminder: As I earlier said, nuclear power can be safe--just don't let the Republicans design, build, run, operate or monitor the plants. We should outsource these activities to the liberal French.
BMW sez:
“we do not need ANWR”
But, we do.
ANWR alone, based on mean estimates, would boost our proven reserves by 48%. It would also better utilize existing pipeline capacity which is no longer at full capacity.
Click here for more on ANWR.
BMW, thanks for the response. Very interesting. I'll read it again tomorrow when I'm awake though. ha ha As for offshore drilling, I think we should incrementally improve our offshore output AFTER other substantial energy policy goals have been enacted and signed into law. "Drill baby drill" should not be our first priority when trying to conceive of a new energy policy. I think Paris Hilton had this one right. Also, offshore drilling off of Florida was never submitted to the Florida people for yeah or nay, though it is my understanding people of other Atlantic states had a say in the matter.
Lauren,
1) The page you cite on Three Mile Island is tin foil hat material. Click here for the fact sheet on the incident.
And, review (again) the more than 40,000 who die EVERY YEAR on the national highways. If our idiot “journalists” hyped THAT figure as much as they hype all manner of other material, we would have a horde of nut jobs rioting in the streets every day demanding that we immediately shutdown the highway system.
2) Where, in your NYT citation, do you find the phrase “peer reviewed”? This too is quackery which would NEVER pass ANY peer review!
Who you gonna believe? Sarah Palin or the US Dept of Energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#
Estimates_of_oil_reserves
In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy reported uncertainties about the USGS oil estimates for ANWR and the projected effects on oil price and supplies. “ There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region.... ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. [23]” The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3). [37] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels are within the proposed drilling region. [16]
BMW, BTW, Republicans earlier last year lied about China drilling off the coast of Florida, and asked, why shouldn't we? Well, Mel Martinez (R) himself pointed out the lie.
When Republicans stop using lies as their main arguments, and start using actual logic (as you did) then we can start having a rational discussion about offshore drilling.
Lauren,
Who you gonna believe? Wikipedia or the USGS?
If the media have trained you (like a good little lap dog) to hate Palin, just skip that part of my presentation.
Again, the bottom line on ANWR is:
“We can, in a VERY environmentally friendly manner, develop 1/100th of 1% of ANWR and get, in return, an estimated 48% increase in our proven oil reserves.”
Those who (falsely) claim ANWR would have little effect on prices have NOT accounted for how dramatically the price of oil can rise in response to relatively small global imbalances between supply and demand. Click here if you do not yet “get” that.
Republicans want some time to review the yet-to-be-unveiled bill. I think that's fair. You've got a week.
Dems want to spend on 'infrastructure'. That's a good rhetorical angle, but there are more pressing needs. Like stabilizing the mortgage market and propping up state and local budgets. More foreclosures and further erosion of housing prices = bad. Big layoffs in schools, police and fire departments = bad. A delay in the next big road improvement projects = not so bad.
Best idea I haven't seen spoken of explicitly for the residential finance market: Nationalize Fannie and Freddie. Order them to refinance upside-down mortgages without appraisals for long terms at cheap rates. The debt would be held by homeowners but the risk would be shared with the Feds. One way or another this situation is going to hit the entire world economy. It is much better to deal with it in this way than any other. If there are other ideas, I would love to hear them.
This post has been removed by the author.
GEEEEEEEE-ZZZZZUSSSS? Don't you guys ever get any sleep? Decided to take a peek with my morning coffee (actually it's tea) and I see y'all have been up all night.
SBVORsive...you've been awfully busy I can see!!! I'm beginning to wonder about all that extra time you have on your hands and all those links you have. Boy you've been busy on your website. WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR AND WHOSE WORKING FOR YOU?!!!!
To those of you who have not clicked on SBVORsive's profile, he has a very clear political agenda:
1. To prove that Obama is a communist, a pawn in some sort of left wing cabal (take a look at his take on Obama's logo with Che's head sticking in it)
2. To prove that environmentalism is merely a cult religion and a tool of this communist plot
And furthermore, I detect a little racist tone to what's going on. Are we going to hear more about this SBVOR? About what's wrong with the color of Mr. O's skin? I'm sure that's coming next. In fact, you've already hinted at it.
He's clearly not here to *EXCHANGE* ideas, I think he's to *CONVERT* us!!!!
It looks more like he is making money. I do not know somone so obsesive about initiating clicks on his links as much as SBVOR. So i am guessing he is building his click base. Or something of such intentions.
BMW:
Interesting analysis on margin requirements. Have heard it before but there is much validity to it.
Am not sure that a comparison to interest rates is all that valid. Interest rate changes, during more normal times, can have significant impacts with only slight, small increments. Not sure small increments of margin requirements would be equally impactive. To be effective I would think that larger increases in margin requirements would be necessary and that can be a dangerous move since it could create margin calls that could create havoc in the markets involved.
I agree with your premises in general, after all don't we know that low margin requirements were part of the cause for the Crash of '29.
Incorporating Jordan's point about too much free capital; there has been a tremendous amount of "actual" free capital, chasing all sorts of profit generating investments and when you add to that the "imaginary" free capital from margin buying you create, not a house of cards, but a skyscraper of cards.
Across all markets, margin requirements should be raised, but that's not a total solution. No doubt that will alter the strategies of the big funds and many of the big individual investors. With all that free capital available other investment vehicles will be conjured up to keep the leverage genie out of the bottle.
One way to dampen down the whole "paper" investment world would be to raise taxes to reduce the amount of free capital floating around. Using income taxes you can slow the rise in free capital but you can't get at what is already out there. A transaction tax, even a small one, would generate needed government revenues and tend to slow down market volatility, maybe even shift some capital to hard assets; maybe a new business venture? Dr. Reich, in a blog entry a few months ago proposed a Net Worth tax which could chip away at that existing free capital. I'm not a big proponent of the latter idea only because I see extreme difficulty in valuing many of the assets that make up Net Worth, especially on a point in time basis.
You ideas are good but you need to add raising taxes as a part of them. ;)
Magdalena sez:
“take a look [on my blog page] at his take on Obama's logo with Che's head sticking in it”
Hey! Magdalena! Take a look at Che’s image displayed in the Houston office of Obama supporters!
Sbvor:
Actually, I am here to deprogram you!
Pardon me but changing the flavor of the kool aid is not deprogramming.
Alcoholics Anonymous does not start their program by proposing a shift from whiskey to beer.
Your comment is more absurd to most of us than Reagan's fear of his favorite: "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Art,
I have provided the evidence (just the tip of the iceberg) for so-called Liberalism being a “totalitarian political religion” (actually, a totalitarian political religious cult).
If you are going to (predictably) play the “Moral Equivalence” card, show me your evidence!
Recommend that y'all read "Supercapitalism." I agree with most of what RR said except for one thing. RR states that corporations should not be taxed. I disagree although my understanding of the issue is not as sophisticated as RR's.
What is clear is that "free trade" has allowed corporations to seek the cheapest supply of their labor input wherever it can be found in the world. There is absolutely no responsibility to American workers by corporations who are only responsible to their bottom line. Corporations, as RR says, are only responsible to investors and consumers. Makes sense.
However, the dynamics of the current scenario could be changed by changing the "free trade" mantra to fair and balanced trade. Why should any country sell its workers down the drain? In fact some countries of the world have not done so regardless of the need to appease investors and consumers. How have they achieved this? I don't know, but it's worth a PhD thesis.
I think in Paris they have laws against fast food franchises. That's why neighborhood bistros flourish. And people willingly do pay more for food. Somehow people in Europe pay more for basic goods and services thereby supporting diversity and decent paying jobs.
Jeff - Interesting Ideas. The TARP was supposed to help to help Homeowners. Last Stats I saw, on Lou Dobbs, said 100 homeowners, out of 400,000 it was supposed to help, had been helped in 2008. Not good. I started to Refi my mortgage, at a lower rate, but didn't know if I would save enough. I believe most people in the country are in the same boat. So some will have the untenable option at some point to walk away ? The option put forth is to refi with a balloon, which is one of the programs that started the whole mortgage mess. And I thoroughly believe that mortgages ARE NOT what started our economic problems. It's just one of the ways that we, the people, bought in. And Lauren, by the way, I'm a Libertarian/Independent Registered Voter. I don't particularly care for people that shove their thoughts at me, either. I just believe in doing as much as possible for myself. Waiting for someone to do something for me is not an option, neither is failure.
And the Miltary - the Feds do 3 things well, Highways, Parks, and the Military. And only two things fall from the sky, Manna from Heaven, and the US Army Airborne. That's How I Earn My Living, And How I Earn My Pay. I just wish I could do it longer. Hoss Out.
Art:
In your most recent posting you state "A transaction tax, even a small one, would generate needed government revenues and tend to slow down market volatility, maybe even shift some capital to hard assets; maybe a new business venture?".
The fact that the existing supply of capital is not being used to generate a large multitude of new business ventures, or expand on existing ones, is pretty much an indication that there is just far and away much too much money directed towards investment and insufficient money directed towards consumption. Which should raise questions about income distribution and concentration in the US after the Reagan "Supply Side" revolution. The 'rich' have too much money and too little options for valid investment, and the rest of the nation has too little money to fund the level of consumption to maintain a healthy 'consumer based' economy. So it stands to reason not to invest in new ventures if the consuming marketplace doesn't have the cash to purchase the output of those new ventures.
A number of policy shifts could begin to correct this unbalanced investment/consumption condition, but they must address the issue of distribution of GDP growth across the whole of the economy rather than concentrate the bulk of that growth into the hands of a very small percentage of society.
Until the distribution issue of GDP growth is effectively addressed, no amount of Washington funded stimulus packages will correct the problem; they will only postpone it for a couple more years.
Well, I would like to talk about the Oil Problem...a lot of what we worried about boils down to that, and there are different theories about what is going on...
But I don't dare say a thing without getting slammed with a subvorsive sledgehammer...
Jordan, your theories of too much capital and the investment bubbles is interesting and is one I hadn't' thought of. Did you get this from RR's book? A lot of people think we have already reached peak oil production and the see the current crisis an ultimate, unavoidable outcome of our dependence on oil. James Kunstler is certainly one of these. We had some discussions a blog back (Silverfox, Karen, BMW, Art) on cultural evolution, peak oil production, and the contradictions inherent in the concept of an economy constantly requiring growth..
If oil is truly at its peak, then the outcome of the current debacle is decidely grim, if this depression is merely a recession, another swing in our volatile economy, then the outcome is obviously a lot more positive. But it is very diffcult to know where the truth lies because the OPEC countries conceal of lot of the facts about how fast they are depleting their reserves.
What we do know is that the second largest oil field outside of Saudi Arabia, the Cantarell field, is depleting "has shown a 30 percent depletion rate in the past year alone." According to sources I have read, Mexico is the greatest supplier of oil to the U.S. after Saudi Arabia.
I think understanding what is happening behind the closed doors of OPEC, and world oil prices is crucial to understanding what is going on with the world economy right now.
Currently, the price of oil has been on a slide, and the most effect of this result is to render current efforts into shale oil production too unprofitable to be worthwhile...which begs the question.... Was this deliberate?
Hmmm....
Correc: The most immediate effect of this
I hope Hoss's descent from the sky is somewhat slowed otherwise he will create a big mess for someone to clean up. Keep up the good work.
SBVOR is full of himself and is, in reality, not examining the evidence. One of the first pieces is that this country was founded upon revolutionary principles -- of justice, law, and the right to self governing. SBVOR's religious cult is clearly extreme right wing conservatism. As for me my Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and I try to put my thinking in line with the teachings of the Bible about justice, responsibility for my fellowman (and woman), and so forth.
For SBVOR he needs to realize that the modern corporation does not really care about its employees, especially the lower level. Nor are the goals of the employees necessarily congruent with the company's. Some will be and some aren't. If he believes otherwise he believes also the millenium has arrived with God as our King. Part of the problem between management and labor is the distrust brought about by the mendacity of management. Who can trust them?
Since when is it Fascism when a freely elected legislative assembly passes legislation that restrict us. The members of that assembly can be removed from office at the next election. This term "liberal fascism" is a recent one the extreme right has come up with recently to attack the middle and left. Indeed, the extreme right is so far to the right they are not even able to see the middle with binoculars.
The problem I find with libertarianism is that it is at its heart selfish, self centered, and tends to anarchy. Too much freedom is license and dangerous. Our Consitution has limits on freedon such as the majority cannot compel me to worship a certain way. The Congress can not create an aristocracy.
For a society to function comfortably there must exist a certain element of order.
Art
i believe we will reach time prety soon, when seing a president with such words will be welcomed. And we need to change that bad perception of our own president for our own good. I am not saying that we should fake it, only that we deserve a president that can rebuild such view of the office.
We, who are so dissapointed in the office of president, also diminish its value when needed.
There is inherent value in having a steady leader, no need to explain why. Lets hope O will deserve our respect.
Considering previous free capital before it could be controled trough new taxes, that's being destroyed right now on the Wall Street. Free capital is being consolidated right now also, which puts it in even smaller number of hands, with more power then ever. Would there be a need to prevent them from fully controling everything i do not know.
Higher taxes could be a double whammy to free capital after such destruction. Then we would need to fix supply side, not just demand side. But it is needed to be done before deflation or inflation does it wheather wanted or not. That is where the trick for Obama is.
Magdalena
i read Knustler (thank you) and obviously we agree on direction we are heading, but i believe he is a bit more sensational because his predictions are iminent. I would say it will take more time till then 3-4 years which gives Obama enough time to prevent such things.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fox:
Don't know that we're really at odds here but as I read your comments I would adjust them somewhat.
Consumption is a result. In order to consume, individuals must either have earnings or credit. Granted far too much of our consumption over the past 30 years has been through credit as opposed to earnings. In order to have earnings people must have jobs. To have jobs we must have new business ventures. Keep in mind that the Investment component of GDP is in hard assets, plant and equipment, not paper.
In recent years capital has looked mostly to paper or to plant and equipment and new business ventures overseas. This takes it out of our GDP, and thus growth. Keep in mind also that any influx of jobs and thus discretionary income increases and thus consumption increases multiplies and creates more jobs and more incomes and more consumption. That is part of the purpose behind the stimulus plans. The other part is to fund research and new ventures in "green" technology and thus more jobs, etc., etc., and so forth.
If we assume that consumers have learned some lessons, a huge assumption given the propensities of the American public, likely, even a return to decent unemployment levels, with more jobs and more earnings, will not result in the profligate spending we have seen in the past. Tighter credit will further delimit that possibility. But, if we can get people back to work, it will be a big first step toward a return to steady GDP growth, even if at lower rates. In the interim, stimuli, from the government, are necessary simply to stop the negative GDP. The other two elements of GDP are dead in the water and if government does not pick up the slack we're in for a long rollercoaster ride on the downside.
The only element of GDP that is somewhat uninfluenced by attitudes, visions of gremlins versus visions of sugar plum fairies, is the big "G". Enabling a brighter picture, along with some interim money flow, is all "G" has to offer. If it works, things will get better, albeit marginally. If it doesn't work, I'm afraid weaseldog and dasht and numerous others are correct; save your trash, you may have to eat it.
Magdalena,
Again, for a reasoned view of “Peak Oil”, click here and take a look at the data I cite from an EIA study on “Peak Oil”. We are AT LEAST 40 years away from “Peak Oil” (probably at more like 60). Personally, once we factor in Oil Shale, I think “Peak Oil” is at least 100 years away (or more).
It is a quantitative fact that global supply currently exceeds global demand. That is why OPEC recently ordered their faithful to artificially lower the supply by 400,000 barrels per day (only half of what ANWR would be producing if Clinton had not vetoed drilling in ANWR in 1995). And, OPEC hopes to lower the supply even more.
Sorry gal, but there is NOTHING in Saudi Arabia that can even come CLOSE to what we have right here at home. We ONLY need to run the Liberal Fascists out of office so that we can make it LEGAL to develop those tremendous resources (and put Americans back to work).
When we do FINALLY reach “Peak Oil”, the world will not come to an end. But, oil prices will then remain high and gradually rise higher. We will likely never run out of oil. It will simply gradually become too expensive to make use of except for the most essential of items.
John
We must have read Supercapitalisam at the same time, before NY. I agree it is a tremendous insight system we are in. Long term tendencies and environment forces that get us to where we are.
I do agree that corporate taxes need to be almost 0% maybe 1% becouse corporations do not suffer from paying taxes, becouse they include it in price of a product or service. So it is customer that is paying corporate taxes.
Corporate taxes are useful to incentivise corporation what they should buy so it would be tax deductable.
It is acctually a milder version of "central planing' because government decides what is tax deductable and what isn't. For example. If government say that corporations can get SUV tax credit for buying SUVs, all corporations will buy SUVs before sedans, if there is no tax credit for sedans. Thats why SUVs are still top sellers. Because SUVs bring tx credits for corporations today. Up to $100,000 tax credit for HUMMERS. Can you believe that? And hybrids get only $5,000 tax credit. What would hapen if govt removes SUV tax credit and gives $20,000 for hybryds? HE HE
Other big reason for remowing corp tax is that lobbyists fight for which industry will get tax relief.
Only reson for still having it is that govt tought (in 1945) they could control salary increses by taxing corp. But at the same time gave them incentives to give bonuses in stocks which is taxed at only 15% comparing to 36% for regular salaries. They hoped at the time that taxes will curb wage disparities within a company. By increasing taxes on capital investments, such as stocks, would prevent huge disparities in wages between workers and CEO bonuses.
Only thing that RR is mistaken is about Karl Marx. This period of bad economy and reasons for it prooves Marx right. Marx says that free market inevitably leads to this kind of collapse. That is unsustainable due to constant prefecting profit searching means.
Magdalena:
Oh God, the pain, the excruciating pain!
I have to agree with sbvor, “SuBVORsive Sledgehammer” was a stroke of semantic genius.
Magdalena
Concerning peak oil, we are trough it or we are just about to, but that doesnt mean that oil will jump sky high right away. We are still at peak and we will be for at least another 10 years and then slowly go downhill, not suddenly as when we reached the peak. Lets say if the world needs 80 mill a day, in 10 years there would be 79 mill a day of supply at price of $80 a barel. But at price of $150 a barel there would be 90 mill barels a day.
To keep it at level of 80 mill barels a day it will have to be over $200 in 20 years. Deeper the oil, and more exotic reserves it is more expensive, but it is there.
After an oil reservoir is seemingly empty, oil in the ground needs time to seep trough porous rock to collect in place where the drill is and it can be opened again.
Total extractable oil is there waiting at different prices for next 100 years. But we can not wait till there is only deep oil(expensive) left. Not only for global warming sake, but oil is much more needed for making plastics and so many different things that can not be wasted on transporatation, when there is an alternative for transportation. There are alternatives everywhere, past and presently used, the thing is that oil based transportation is cheapest still.
Comon SBVOR, even Max said communisam is utopia, for today and some future, but maybe in next 500-1000 years it might be possible, depending on state of mind of humankind. Only Bible and keeping up The Constitution can teach us how to be socialy aware of our effects on environment, including people, in order to acheive communisam.
Sbvor did you ever think that our govt members live by "work as much as you can and take as much as you need" which is a communist credo. Our senat and congress members work as much as they can or must and they vote each others salaries (as much as they need). The thing is that corporate executives take much more then they need.
Jordan,
1) If you don’t believe the EIA “Peak Oil” study which I cited, what is your source backing your allegations on the timing of “Peak Oil”?
2) Within the next 10 years, Al Gore and James Hansen and the IPCC will ALL be widely regarded with the same ridicule as Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (quite a fitting totalitarian comparison).
If you do not understand why, start here and here, then proceed to here.
Dr. Will Happer is just the latest to speak out in agreement. He his joined by 32,000 of the best scientists in America and many more around the world.
Folks:
Sbvor says, Personally, once we factor in Oil Shale, I think “Peak Oil” is at least 100 years away (or more).(emphasis added)
Though I am on the optimistic side of the "Peak Oil" question, I find little solace in the opinion expressed above. The opinion itself is not so worrisome, rather it is the opinionator who is scary.
Oh yes, Art - FEAR THE SLEDGEHAMMER!
For, I crush totalitarian political religious cults where ever I may find them!
ROFLMFAO!!!
Sbvor:
There are few things that I fear, in this life or after, among them you will find yourself missing.
So far, with all your ranting and your hysterical hyberbole, you have yet to crush anything.
You are a shining example of one, "who is a legend in his own mind".
SBVOR,
I actually was hoping to have a conversation without you, but just for the record:
I AM NOT CLICKING ON ANY OF YOUR LINKS, NOT A ONE OF THEM, NOT HERE, NOT NOW, NOT TOMORROW, NOT EVER...!!!
So don't even bother with 'em!!
IF YOU CAN'T SAY IT PLAIN & SIMPLE ALL BY YOURSELF THEN DON"T EVEN SAY IT. YOUR LINKS DO NOTHING TO JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENTS OR WHY YOU ARE HERE.
They are in your text, on your profile, on your webpage, none of 'em...I think you're getting paid per click and you aren't getting paid on my behalf. Whose paying you anyway??!!!!!!!
I look forward to the day when the main topic of conversation here doesn't have to be SBVOR..I wish we could focus on the more substantive issues...!!!
The only thing I'm getting from these comments is that Reich and his tenured professors need to be put in their place.
Each tenured professor is very similar to a little CEO which is delusional in its salary profession.
Abolish tenure and the sucking sounds you hear from the nations colleges will diminish.
Post a Comment
<< Home