We really need a new progressive movement in America

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Man, I don't even know how you did that! The first quote is mine the rest are from the Dread Pirate Eric. Probably against some sort of rule, so for the record I don't care beyond this clarification, as I'm in no wise insulted to have my name associated with those words, only that they are not, strictly speaking, mine own. More snark, a jigger less sincerity, and more cowbell, be more like me.

Clearly I accidently pasted the wrong tags over and over again without looking at them. Other than your quote, they were, in fact, meant to be the OP's bullet points.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Except I didn't say "right-thinking people" but "right thinking" and elect people who "think rightly." I "think" that is perfectly reasonable; we ought to elect people who think rightly. People who consider issues wisely. And no, I don't think Americans have done a very good job of putting people in who can do that. Nor do I expect people who support the Tea Party to agree with me.

I'll do my best. But I think the answers to a lot of these arguments are already obvious or well known, and the questions are not as legit as you say. I don't see the point of raising a lot of them.

And why should a discussion board be assumed to be a place where intricate details are discussed? This is not a legislative chamber. Is it assumed that unless someone can write a long essay of many pages, like legislators do, his points are vague?

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, but your unsupported opinion is not evidence.

Now then - provide evidence that the purpose of economics is to convince people not to change for the better.

Regards,
Shodan

Because people are using it that way on this thread, including you. Descriptions of "how things work" are put forth as if that proves that things can't be done a different way. That is inherently false.

Name an economic theory that is not based on someone's interest. I don't have a textbook. Friedman and Mises? Support free markets. Marxist theories? support the working class.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It enriches the culture we all live in. But I understand your reluctance. It should be mostly supported by itself.

Or maybe a better question would have been "why should my taxes go towards the arts instead of social safety nets or education?"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Name an economic theory that is not based on someone's interest.

All economics is about addressing people's interests. I mean that's actually the whole point of it. Figuring out how to convert raw materials into products and services that meet the needs and wants of the population.

I'll give you another example of unintended consequences and mutually exclusive conflicting conditions. People complain about farm subsidies as "corporate welfare". But I remember in the 80s, people used to bemoan the fate of Americans farmers. Although I suppose John Mellancamp didn't have Archer Daniels Midland in mind. The steel industry was another one that used to demand that the government step in and protect them from Japanese imports. In fact, I imagine most people are against corporate welfare until it's their industry and their jobs that are threatened. Should the government step in and bail out the GMs of the world or allow thousands of people to go unemployed?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The government does need to do things for us, and we need to support the actions. Conversion from fossil fuels will take time, but needs to happen faster than you think, and faster than the market will cause.

Why do we need government driving this and why do we need to support their actions?

Over a century or so ago whale oil was a huge business. Then the oil companies came in and whale oil was soon replaced with kerosene. The entire fuel industry shifted in a relatively short time (not to mention, whales got a big break). And it was all market driven. Why shouldn't we use that as a model?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There does not NEED to be middlemen beetwen buyers and sellers.

Okay. Can you explain how this would work? For instance, how will the gas station down the street be assured a steady supply of gas?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They should NOT go into finance; that's the point. At least fewer of them than today. Wasn't that obvious? More productive work; less gambling with money the producers generate.

You're skipping an important part of the question I asked, and that was: if people shouldn't be going into finance just to make money, for what reason should they choose finance as a career?

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by msmith537

All economics is about addressing people's interests. I mean that's actually the whole point of it. Figuring out how to convert raw materials into products and services that meet the needs and wants of the population.

And from what I've read it seems most economists fall into "schools" based around pet theories that serve one class or group or another, and it's about justifying economic practices that serve those groups. The actual converting of raw materials into products and services and such is not economics; it's commerce and industry, and in many cases chemistry. Economics is just peoples views and philosophies about it.

I'll give you another example of unintended consequences and mutually exclusive conflicting conditions. People complain about farm subsidies as "corporate welfare". But I remember in the 80s, people used to bemoan the fate of Americans farmers. Although I suppose John Mellancamp didn't have Archer Daniels Midland in mind. The steel industry was another one that used to demand that the government step in and protect them from Japanese imports. In fact, I imagine most people are against corporate welfare until it's their industry and their jobs that are threatened. Should the government step in and bail out the GMs of the world or allow thousands of people to go unemployed?

It depends on the circumstances, I think; and how permanent the welfare and situation is. GM got an emergency loan that was paid back, and it worked. I was not necessarily in favor of it, but it's hard to argue with results. I think while the people owned GM, they should have been required to make faster conversion to electric. There are times when grants to corporations or industries outlive their usefulness. I don't think there's an inherent contradiction in determining when that is; just a matter of good judgement-- and that's why we need politicians who know how to think wisely.

[elucidator]

....Over a century or so ago whale oil was a huge business. Then the oil companies came in and whale oil was soon replaced with kerosene. The entire fuel industry shifted in a relatively short time (not to mention, whales got a big break). And it was all market driven. Why shouldn't we use that as a model?

Because we cannot always depend that the things we need to do are going to be profitable, or at least not in the shorter term. And so long as the government is, in fact, by, for and of the people, there is nothing to fear from it simply because it is government. That government has been mostly oppressive throughout human history is not necessarily a inevitable fact of the essence of government.

Improve our government, we improve ourselves, improve ourselves, we improve our government.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't matter what you call it. What happens is that we are forced by THEM to pay higher prices than we should for no reason.

You aren't forced to pay the prices, and there are reasons why they fluctuate up or down radically, especially in the short term...as we saw in the last few months. That you don't know them does not negate this fact. That you don't understand that you have choices, and no one forces you to buy anything at any price merely underscores the key fact that you don't understand the fundamentals or basics, yet are trying to solve complex problems merely using rhetoric and a can do spirit, which is excellent in an action movie or comic book, but less helpful in real life.

They are not the ones who have been bidding the prices sky high based on ephemeral events; and the oil companies reap the rewards. They like it that way.

No, but then you lack even a basic understanding of the process, so there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing down this line. You don't WANT to know how things work, even at a basic level, and instead want to spout rhetoric and simplistic 'solutions' to complex problems that you don't understand.

"How it works" is nothing but established habits. They don't have to be done that way. Things are done that way because the oil companies and speculators make money on it; that's all.

How it works is reality, and understanding how things work is a prerequisite to attempting to not merely discuss the topic but to put forth some sort of meaningful ideas on solutions, or assert that things could be done in some other way. You need to understand, first, how things ARE done...and WHY things are done...the way they are before attempting to assert that they could be done some other way.

But that's what I AM talking about.

Why no...it's not. You might THINK that's what you are talking about, but you are all over the dart board plus off to the side and hitting the cat. Rauwwwwwlllll! Your concept of the 'free market' is, like your concepts on how or why fuel prices are what they are, fundamentally flawed by the plain fact that you don't have a clue and are attempting to expound on a subject that you don't even have a basic understanding of. It would be like someone who never had a highschool science class attempting to have a rational discussion about quantum physics with even a novice. One would at least have a basic understanding of what he DOESN'T know...and the other wouldn't have a clue even about that. I make no claims to be an expert on this subject...I know pretty clearly that I DON'T know a hell of a lot about this subject. But you...you don't even know that much, sadly.

Obviously true, which however has absolutely no bearing on the problem I am discussing.

Well, it all relates. You are attempting to put forth solutions to problems you don't understand and seemingly don't WANT to understand, even at a basic level. You are choosing to remain ignorant while simultaneously asserting that you know or have solutions to complex problems...or understandings of complex processes and systems that could simply be changed, somehow, because you want them to be able to be changed, despite the fact that you don't understand them even at a basic level.

And you simply can't see why that makes your assertions in this thread look so silly and ridiculous. Personally, having asserted many silly and ridiculous things in my time on this board, I can sympathize. What I CAN'T sympathize with is your desire to actively remain ignorant on subjects you want to discuss and make assertions on. To me, that's unforgivable.

So read between the lines a little bit instead of diverting attention to meaningless details. "They set prices" means the price is determined by their process of bidding and speculating, including whatever factors they use to determine what bids they make. Commodity markets are not some mysterious thing only experts can understand. The basic activity is well known and simple.

Perhaps the details would be more meaningful to you if you understood the basics. No, commodity markets are some mystery only experts understand, as exhibited by the fact that I'm no expert and I have a fairly decent basic understanding of how they work, though I don't invest in commodities as a rule. YOU, on the other hand, clearly don't have even that basic, fundamental understanding of them...as is clearly evidences by your assertions in this thread. And you don't WANT to understand them, again as is clear from what you've said here.

Public utilities are an example of how the price of things everyone needs can be controlled. I thought that was clear. I wasn't talking about price fixing in that case. I was talking about overturning the free market policy that says "the market must be left to determine the price."

And yet their prices also fluctuate. Sometimes by large amounts. And that's even with the leveling effect of government subsidies. How do you explain this?

Conspiracy isn't needed. They keep us hooked on oil because that's their business, and they don't want to change. Inertia and comfort with the status quo is not a "conspiracy."

Why? Why and how did they hook us on oil? WHY do we use oil? And, more importantly, why do other countries like China and India ALSO use it, and are actually increasingly becoming dependent on it for refined personal transport fuels for their vehicles? If not a conspiracy, perhaps you could explain it.

Prices will come down as more are being made, as always happens and IS happening. I didn't advocate forcing the poor to buy new cars, but I also think there should be support for companies that make conversions. However, I don't advocate requiring this of poor people, because conversion is unfortunately not a growing industry right now.

How will prices come down. Why will they come down? Do you know what goes into making all electric vehicles or hybrids? Do you know what rare earth metals are, where they are mined currently and where reserves exist, what the environmental costs are of mining them, how market forces effect them in a standard supply and demand equation, etc etc etc? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'...nor do you see that the exact same market forces in play concerning petroleum would be in play for the materials needed to manufacture lots and lots of new AEV or hybrids. And this leaves aside how we could possibly manufacture vehicles on the scales you are talking about, or the fact that the performance envelops of AEV's aren't near those of our current vehicles, nor the fact that hybrids would still be dependent on hydrocarbon based fuels...or myriad other things that would impact an attempt to do your simplistic ideas about forcing car manufacturers to stop producing fossil fuel based automobiles.

I ask again...why hasn't anyone, anywhere done this already? If not a conspiracy then why hasn't any other country moved forcefully towards AEVs and hybrids and away from fossil fuels (Brazil being the only exception to this I can think of...and even there the answer is complex)? Why haven't the Europeans, who pay a hell of a lot more for gasoline or other refined fuels than we pampered Americans do? Are the evil oil barons and speculators holding a gun to their collective heads and forcing them to drive cars using gas? They pay double or triple what you or I pay for gas at the pump...why are they still driving cars that use gas then? Why are the Japanese still using them, despite the fact that they have to import every drop of oil they use...AND they have the investment of hundreds of billions in alternative fuels and battery powered vehicles research as well. They have a vested interest in changing...why haven't they? If not a conspiracy then explain why.

If it is so rdiculous, why have a governor and a president, voted in by a majority of the people, adopted it? (and even the car companies have accepted it!) It's you that prefers to stall by asking endless questions instead of supporting what needs to be done if we are to live on a viable planet in the future.

Votes, obviously. Also, unlike you, they aren't attempting to push things as far as you are advocating. But we'll see how it works out for California. I expect it to work out the same way that their ban on new coal plants has worked out for them, but I could be surprised.

As for asking endless questions, that's true...perhaps if you took a shot at answering some of them I'd be content and move on.

The "basics" of a dismal science that is intended to convince us to accept things as they are, rather than change them to something that works better for all.

Calling economics and economic theory the 'dismal science' might go over well with the faithful, but it's not exactly making you look good by continuing to trot that out in this discussion.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

And so long as the government is, in fact, by, for and of the people, there is nothing to fear from it simply because it is government.

This truth cannot be stated often enough.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Okay. Can you explain how this would work? For instance, how will the gas station down the street be assured a steady supply of gas?

Can't they just buy it from the suppliers when they need it? Just like many other items that are sold by markets, or publically regulated companies? Speculating on prices does not assure a steady supply. It only allows excuses for raising prices, based on fears of an interruption in supply. That's not the same thing. Honestly, I don't know why so many people here are defending commodity traders.

You're skipping an important part of the question I asked, and that was: if people shouldn't be going into finance just to make money, for what reason should they choose finance as a career?

I don't understand the question, I guess, or how it relates to my point. My point is that more people should NOT choose it as a career, because too many people are choosing it now, and it does not answer a need.

I don't think there IS any other reason, besides making money, that people choose finance as a career. I suppose a more altruistic reason, would be to help others make money.

[Eric the Green]

The remedy I'm suggesting is not that people choose that career for better reasons, but that fewer people choose that career.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can't they just buy it from the suppliers when they need it? Just like many other items that are sold by markets, or publically regulated companies? Speculating on prices does not assure a steady supply. It only allows excuses for raising prices, based on fears of an interruption in supply. That's not the same thing. Honestly, I don't know why so many people here are defending commodity traders.

Yes, they can. But how does the supplier know how much to have on hand? And from where will he get it. He either has to drill for more and refine it or make sure that he can have his order filled on time and at a reasonable price, no? That's what middle men help with.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't understand the question, I guess, or how it relates to my point. My point is that more people should NOT choose it as a career, because too many people are choosing it now, and it does not answer a need.

I don't think there IS any other reason, besides making money, that people choose finance as a career. I suppose a more altruistic reason, would be to help others make money.

Well, I'm sure most people choose not for a variety of reasons. But I'm sure that making money is among those reasons for even this who really enjoy finance. (Me, I would hate it.) But, you seem to agree that we need some people in the financial sector. You seem to also be of the mind that we have too many people in finance. I really don't know. But like any other industry, if there were too many, I think a bunch of people would be fired. If they need more, a bunch of people would be hired. Can you share why it is that you assume that the finance sector is over staffed. And if you could, are we talking about 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%?

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can't they just buy it from the suppliers when they need it?

Sure...but the suppliers will have to buy it from a large refinery, who will have to purchase large volumes of oil in anticipation of demand. They have to buy oil that they anticipate they will use not today, but a month from now...or 6 months from now...or a year from now...or 2 years from now. See, the oil has to be produced, which is another way of saying that wells need to pump the oil out of the ground, transported to a major hub, loaded on a ship, then transshipped to the refinery, stored, then processed into the various refined fuels (this is a simplification obviously). So...how much will you need 6 months from now? What things might effect the price 6 months from now? If I sell you oil today based on oil to be delivered 6 months from now, what happens if there is a revolution in Libya, say, during that time? If I sell you oil today that I produced 6 months ago, how do I know how much to produce? What if I produce X amount of oil today to see to you 6 months from now and you need X+Y...or you only need X-Y? Who takes the hit? If me, what if I go out of business and you need to get a new supplier, who would then have to produce oil (again, how much?) to sell to you on the spot 6 months from now?

What would happen without those speculators or the commodities market is your local retailer would have to go to the refiner and see what the price of gas is today. It might be cheap, if the refiner fucked up and produced a glut...or it might be hugely expensive, if they fucked up and didn't produce enough. Or it might vary wildly because today, the guy who just pulled in the oil tanker happens to have a lot more or a lot less than is needed because there was a revolution in Libya, or the Iranians decided not to sell to the Europeans this month...or myriad other things that could impact how much oil was produced and at what price. You think the current swings are wild because you don't realize what it would or could be like if people bought and sold things without speculators or a commodities market, and merely waited for a tanker to come into port before figuring out what the oil cost.

Just like many other items that are sold by markets, or publically regulated companies?

Other items ARE bought and sold in exactly the same way. Sheesh...don't you ever buy orange juice or milk? And publicly regulated companies DO have fluctuations in price. Even public utility companies have fluctuations in price because they still have to speculate and buy coal or whatever they are using to produce the power, and prices fluctuate due to all sorts of things. Did you think they were magically able to predict the future and know what the price of that coal or natural gas would be 6 months from now? That the government has some sort of magical time machine to determine it? The reason that they don't fluctuate as much (perhaps) is because in many cases the prices those utilities charge is fixed...which is simply another way of saying that the government sucks it up when prices shift and the coal or whatever costs more than they thought it would. We could do the same thing for oil/gasoline...China does. It would mean that companies would sell gas for a fixed price, and when the price fluctuates the government sucks it up and pays the difference.

It only allows excuses for raising prices, based on fears of an interruption in supply. That's not the same thing. Honestly, I don't know why so many people here are defending commodity traders.

They are defending them because they, unlike you, grasp at least the basics of why we have commodities traders, what their role is, and why things would be a hell of a lot worse if we didn't have them.

-XT

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can't they just buy it from the suppliers when they need it? Just like many other items that are sold by markets, or publically regulated companies? Speculating on prices does not assure a steady supply. It only allows excuses for raising prices, based on fears of an interruption in supply. That's not the same thing. Honestly, I don't know why so many people here are defending commodity traders.

I can help you out with that. Virtually everyone hear who is stating that economics is a science and not a scam are strong believers in keeping markets as free as possible. Most have modified their stands from being nearly pure free market types since 2008, for obvious reasons, but they still resist change ... just as you say, inertia is tough to overcome.

I have long maintained that regulation is absolutely essential to prevent free markets from becoming unfree, as the wealthy inevitably use their wealth to influence governments to influence the playing field in their favor. What we are seeing right now is the end game in poorly regulated capitalism ... the wealthy essentially own both of the major parties, leading to a capitalist oligarchy rather than a democracy. That's an important reason change is being evaded. Most American voters FAVOR your ideas ... the legislators do not hear them, only the wealthy donors who keep them in funds.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

You aren't forced to pay the prices,

Whaaaaat??? I certainly can't force them to lower their prices. Yes, I can ride my bike; that will do for short trips.

and there are reasons why they fluctuate up or down radically, especially in the short term...as we saw in the last few months. That you don't know them does not negate this fact.

Like what, besides those I DID mention?

That you don't understand that you have choices, and no one forces you to buy anything at any price merely underscores the key fact that you don't understand the fundamentals or basics, yet are trying to solve complex problems merely using rhetoric and a can-do spirit, which is excellent in an action movie or comic book, but less helpful in real life.

This seems to me the idea that we can change things by individual choice. That is false; my own choice in the market does not change what is available at what price. Rhetoric should be convincing if it points out solutions to problems that are already well-known and worked out, which most of them are, but are stalled because people are not getting behind them to balance the forces of the status quo interests on the other side.

No, but then you lack even a basic understanding of the process, so there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing down this line. You don't WANT to know how things work, even at a basic level, and instead want to spout rhetoric and simplistic 'solutions' to complex problems that you don't understand.

Nothing has been explained here that I don't understand, at all.

How it works is reality, and understanding how things work is a prerequisite to attempting to not merely discuss the topic but to put forth some sort of meaningful ideas on solutions, or assert that things could be done in some other way. You need to understand, first, how things ARE done...and WHY things are done...the way they are before attempting to assert that they could be done some other way.

I already know. Just because someone replies to my assertions, by trotting out how and why things are already done a certain way, does not mean I don't know all about that old, tired way.

Why no...it's not. You might THINK that's what you are talking about, but you are all over the dart board plus off to the side and hitting the cat. Rauwwwwwlllll! Your concept of the 'free market' is, like your concepts on how or why fuel prices are what they are, fundamentally flawed by the plain fact that you don't have a clue and are attempting to expound on a subject that you don't even have a basic understanding of. It would be like someone who never had a highschool science class attempting to have a rational discussion about quantum physics with even a novice. One would at least have a basic understanding of what he DOESN'T know...and the other wouldn't have a clue even about that. I make no claims to be an expert on this subject...I know pretty clearly that I DON'T know a hell of a lot about this subject. But you...you don't even know that much, sadly.

Now you are just making assertions. Prove them. You haven't talked about anything I'm ignorant of.

My point was that someone (you?) said that we don't have a free market, so how can it be the problem. I just said, yes that's right, it's the free market policies and ideology that is the problem. I think that's pretty clear, whether you agree or not. If you don't, you are in favor of those policies. I am not.

And yet their prices also fluctuate. Sometimes by large amounts. And that's even with the leveling effect of government subsidies. How do you explain this?

Now who's ignorant? The price for my electricity and water and gas do not fluctuate like the price of gasoline does. There are changes, but they must be approved, and they are not wild and do not almost double just because of what happens in Libya.

Why? Why and how did they hook us on oil? WHY do we use oil? And, more importantly, why do other countries like China and India ALSO use it, and are actually increasingly becoming dependent on it for refined personal transport fuels for their vehicles? If not a conspiracy, perhaps you could explain it.

I already did. Oil is an established industry; it's just easier to stick with the way things are done. But we need very much to change. Other countries are actually changing faster than we are, because their governments have more sensible people that ours, stuffed as it is with free marketers and Tea Partiers.

How will prices come down. Why will they come down? Do you know what goes into making all electric vehicles or hybrids? Do you know what rare earth metals are, where they are mined currently and where reserves exist, what the environmental costs are of mining them, how market forces effect them in a standard supply and demand equation, etc etc etc? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'...nor do you see that the exact same market forces in play concerning petroleum would be in play for the materials needed to manufacture lots and lots of new AEV or hybrids. And this leaves aside how we could possibly manufacture vehicles on the scales you are talking about, or the fact that the performance envelops of AEV's aren't near those of our current vehicles, nor the fact that hybrids would still be dependent on hydrocarbon based fuels...or myriad other things that would impact an attempt to do your simplistic ideas about forcing car manufacturers to stop producing fossil fuel based automobiles.

If you think we need to know all these details, then why don't YOU supply them? If you are so well-informed, why don't you know some of this stuff? I DO. I have given a few links. It may well be worth another thread to discuss all these details about cars, which I have done on other forums. This is a more general thread.

I don't think it's irrelevant to ask you, why do you have to ask me all these questions, if you are not just trying to obstruct. Again, if it's so "simplistic," why have our president and governor embarked well down that road? Why not think up solutions yourself to all these problems, instead of demanding them from me? The answers are pretty easy and clear.

I ask again...why hasn't anyone, anywhere done this already? If not a conspiracy then why hasn't any other country moved forcefully towards AEVs and hybrids and away from fossil fuels (Brazil being the only exception to this I can think of...and even there the answer is complex)? Why haven't the Europeans, who pay a hell of a lot more for gasoline or other refined fuels than we pampered Americans do? Are the evil oil barons and speculators holding a gun to their collective heads and forcing them to drive cars using gas? They pay double or triple what you or I pay for gas at the pump...why are they still driving cars that use gas then? Why are the Japanese still using them, despite the fact that they have to import every drop of oil they use...AND they have the investment of hundreds of billions in alternative fuels and battery powered vehicles research as well. They have a vested interest in changing...why haven't they? If not a conspiracy then explain why.

I already explained why. My explanation is good enough for anyone willing to consider it. Their vested interest is in keeping the status quo. It is more "convenient" for them; they are used to it. They are like you; they prefer to ask skeptical questions rather than be on about the job. They are making money hand over fist doing things the old way.

Also, unlike you, they aren't attempting to push things as far as you are advocating. But we'll see how it works out for California. I expect it to work out the same way that their ban on new coal plants has worked out for them, but I could be surprised.

The governor is doing pretty good. Yes, it could be faster. If coal plants are closed, that's all to the good, and it has worked out quite well that we don't depend on it in CA (yes I'm from there). Our utility gets all it needs without it.

Calling economics and economic theory the 'dismal science' might go over well with the faithful, but it's not exactly making you look good by continuing to trot that out in this discussion.

-XT

I hear your point. Not sure what I can do about that though. Why would anyone say anything different about it? No-one has presented any principles of economics that are otherwise. Why is it up to me to provide all the "evidence," as Shobam thinks? Appeals to "economics," as if that means something, don't convince me. Reciting how things work today does not convince me. Requiring me to say everything in the absolutely correct terms, even though people already know what I mean, does not convince me.

[Eric the Green]

I question why you know so much about the reasons why things can't be done about cars, and yet don't know the answers to these questions.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I can help you out with that. Virtually everyone hear who is stating that economics is a science and not a scam are strong believers in keeping markets as free as possible. Most have modified their stands from being nearly pure free market types since 2008, for obvious reasons, but they still resist change ... just as you say, inertia is tough to overcome.

I have long maintained that regulation is absolutely essential to prevent free markets from becoming unfree, as the wealthy inevitably use their wealth to influence governments to influence the playing field in their favor. What we are seeing right now is the end game in poorly regulated capitalism ... the wealthy essentially own both of the major parties, leading to a capitalist oligarchy rather than a democracy. That's an important reason change is being evaded. Most American voters FAVOR your ideas ... the legislators do not hear them, only the wealthy donors who keep them in funds.

Absolutely right. Now I wonder if people here can hear the truth from you, any better than they can hear it from me!

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can't they just buy it from the suppliers when they need it?

Of course they can't. That's the whole fucking point.

Being optimistic, it takes at least six months to get fuel from a well in Texas to a gas station in Ohio. And you are seriously suggesting that a gas station owner goes out, notices that his storage tanks are at 10%, and then buys more from the ownrs of the well.

That's nonsense.

So then you will suggest that the refineries should just refine the same amount of oil to the gas station owner every week. That way there is a constant stream of produce moving through the system to keep him supplied.

But what do you think happens when a new copper mine offers the refinery twice as much per gallon for the fuel they are refining? Well, now the gas station has no fuel, because the fuel that was allocated to him has been sold to someone else.

Well, you say. The gas station owner should pre-pay for the fuel that he needs. He should estimate how much fuel he will need in six months time, and pay the oil refinery for that fuel ahead of time.

But how will the gas station owner know how much to pay for fuel in 6 months time? If the owner of the well thinks that lots of knew copper mines are going in and will need lots of gas to run their trucks, the well owner will want to charge more for the fuel in six months time. And if the gas station owner thinks that a competitor is going to find a big new well that will increase supply, he will want to play less.

So how the hell do these two players factor in all these multiple factors so they know how much to play for gas ordered today to be delivered in 6 months time? The oil drillers and gas station owners already have full time jobs drilling oil. They can't possibly research lal the possible factors that will affect oil prices in 6 months time, can they?

That means that the oil drillers and the gas station owners will have to hire people to do that research for them. Ad the researchers for the gas stations can then negotiate with the researchers for the oil drillers and agree at the price to pay today for gas to be delivered in six months time.

That's the only way that the system could possibly run efficiently, agreed

Except that this is fucking "speculation".

Just like many other items that are sold by markets, or publically regulated companies?

Like what?

Can youname even two of the "many" items that are sold without any brokers or speculators acting as middlemen.

Just two. I bet you can't do it.

Services can often be sold without brokers because the delay between the agreement and the termination of the contract is so short. But for goods that isn't the case. The delay between when a cow fucks a bull and when the resulting calf starts producing milk is so long that it would be hideously inefficient to operate a market without any means of manipulating future supply. The same goes for the delay between the geological survey of a block of farmland a mine site and the production of a length of copper wire and any other item that you care to name.

Speculating on prices does not assure a steady supply.

Nothing will assure a perfectly steady supply. But looking at the example above, you ill hopefully understand why it is impossible to have even a vaguely steady supply without speculation.

Honestly, I don't know why so many people here are defending commodity traders.

We know, that's the problem.

I don't understand the question, I guess, or how it relates to my point. My point is that more people should NOT choose it as a career, because too many people are choosing it now, and it does not answer a need.

So you are seriously syang that the US economy could function with nobody at all working in finance. An economy with no loans, no share, no bonds etc?

Because that is what "people should NOT choose [finance] as a career" means.

I don't think there IS any other reason, besides making money, that people choose finance as a career.

Right.

So you told us that under your proposed system people won't be in finance to make money.

And now you tell us that the only reason for people to be in finance is to make money.

Which means that under your system there will not be anybody in finance.

So your system entails an economy with no finance available from any source.

How exactly does that work?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The remedy I'm suggesting is not that people choose that career for better reasons, but that fewer people choose that career.

So you think that having fewer players in finance will make the economy more equitable, make the financiers more accountable and reduce financial profits.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

Sure...but the suppliers will have to buy it from a large refinery, who will have to purchase large volumes of oil in anticipation of demand. They have to buy oil that they anticipate they will use not today, but a month from now...or 6 months from now...or a year from now...or 2 years from now. See, the oil has to be produced, which is another way of saying that wells need to pump the oil out of the ground, transported to a major hub, loaded on a ship, then transshipped to the refinery, stored, then processed into the various refined fuels (this is a simplification obviously). So...how much will you need 6 months from now? What things might effect the price 6 months from now? If I sell you oil today based on oil to be delivered 6 months from now, what happens if there is a revolution in Libya, say, during that time? If I sell you oil today that I produced 6 months ago, how do I know how much to produce? What if I produce X amount of oil today to see to you 6 months from now and you need X+Y...or you only need X-Y? Who takes the hit? If me, what if I go out of business and you need to get a new supplier, who would then have to produce oil (again, how much?) to sell to you on the spot 6 months from now?

How are these requirements for producing oil any different than natural gas, food, electricity, water, and a hundred other items we need, some of which are regulated as I propose commodity traders should be?

You admit that commodity traders are considering "a revolution in Libya." That is so obviously bogus, that it betrays you to mention it. The revolution had nothing to do with supplies of oil. It was just an excuse. There were never ANY shortages of oil because of Libya, or because of worries over Iran this year, etc. There are no shortages of producers of oil. Refinery closings are another excuse that is used, I know; and demand in China, and so on. Yet no other commodity fluctuations seem to have this effect on prices at the store. Why is that? Because traders are bidding up the price so they can make money for themselves and the oil companies, that's why. If shortages occur, prices can go up. They don't need to go up BEFORE shortages occur.

If we don't want shortages of energy, then we sure as hell better get on with the job of finding alternative, clean sources of energy, Because the old ones are running out and getting more and more expensive while the new ones are getting cheaper and cheaper.

What would happen without those speculators or the commodities market is your local retailer would have to go to the refiner and see what the price of gas is today. It might be cheap, if the refiner fucked up and produced a glut...or it might be hugely expensive, if they fucked up and didn't produce enough. Or it might vary wildly because today, the guy who just pulled in the oil tanker happens to have a lot more or a lot less than is needed because there was a revolution in Libya, or the Iranians decided not to sell to the Europeans this month...or myriad other things that could impact how much oil was produced and at what price. You think the current swings are wild because you don't realize what it would or could be like if people bought and sold things without speculators or a commodities market, and merely waited for a tanker to come into port before figuring out what the oil cost.

Why is it then that gas prices fluctuate wildly and unfairly, and all the other prices do not? Answer me that one.

Other items ARE bought and sold in exactly the same way. Sheesh...don't you ever buy orange juice or milk? And publicly regulated companies DO have fluctuations in price. Even public utility companies have fluctuations in price because they still have to speculate and buy coal or whatever they are using to produce the power, and prices fluctuate due to all sorts of things. Did you think they were magically able to predict the future and know what the price of that coal or natural gas would be 6 months from now? That the government has some sort of magical time machine to determine it? The reason that they don't fluctuate as much (perhaps) is because in many cases the prices those utilities charge is fixed...which is simply another way of saying that the government sucks it up when prices shift and the coal or whatever costs more than they thought it would. We could do the same thing for oil/gasoline...China does. It would mean that companies would sell gas for a fixed price, and when the price fluctuates the government sucks it up and pays the difference.

The government is not "sucking it up," it keeps prices from wildly fluctuating. You don't think I know what I have to pay for "gas" as opposed to "gasoline"? The utility company gets the money it needs without wild price flucuations based on fears of what might happen 6 months from now.

They are defending them because they, unlike you, grasp at least the basics of why we have commodities traders, what their role is, and why things would be a hell of a lot worse if we didn't have them.

-XT

Which you haven't explained at all, other than to recite the way things are done.

I am beginning to suspect you are just a free marketeer. If you are, why not just say so? Maybe because you already in your heart KNOW what a delusion it is. And a very harmful one at that.

People in this country today (unlike in pre-Reagan years) have to pay hugely unfair high prices for basic needs, and they don't get enough in their paychecks to cover it. Something needs to be done about this, and it can only be done through the government.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, I asked you about what you said because...YOU said it. Who else should I have asked? I'll ask again: if you are of the opinion that people shouldn't go into finance just to make money, for what reason should they go into finance?

And his answer was that no one should go into finance because doing adds no value. If the producer wants to speculate, that's fine, but there should be no separate job of speculator. Because, as a speculator, it is in their best interest to constantly fearmonger so that they can get more money. The speculator has no reason to care about the longterm health of the market. It's in the speculator's best interest to create a bubble and then get out before the bubble bursts. It is in their best interest to gamble like this. Their own money is not really on the line.

I don't know enough about the market to say if his opinion is accurate, but I do know I see a lot of people misrepresenting his position.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Yes, they can. But how does the supplier know how much to have on hand? And from where will he get it. He either has to drill for more and refine it or make sure that he can have his order filled on time and at a reasonable price, no? That's what middle men help with.

And I don't see why accountants, buyers and estimators within the companies themselves can't determine the needs of the company, and the customers determine their needs, and communicate with each other, without middle men, or at least not without regulated middle men, instead of by gamblers.

Well, I'm sure most people choose not for a variety of reasons. But I'm sure that making money is among those reasons for even this who really enjoy finance. (Me, I would hate it.) But, you seem to agree that we need some people in the financial sector. You seem to also be of the mind that we have too many people in finance. I really don't know. But like any other industry, if there were too many, I think a bunch of people would be fired. If they need more, a bunch of people would be hired. Can you share why it is that you assume that the finance sector is over staffed. And if you could, are we talking about 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%?

Experts have related these facts on TV and in the news media ad nauseum. I think the figure is that the percentage of US GDP has more than doubled in recent years. People are not going into finance because there is a need for it, but because opportunities opened up for people to get rich quick by gambling, thanks to eased regulations put into effect by free market politicians. If you think the reasons for things being as they are, is economic necessity (and thus we HAD to have the 2008 crash, etc.), I beg to differ. No, the reason is politics.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

So you think that having fewer players in finance will make the economy more equitable, make the financiers more accountable and reduce financial profits.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

And I cannot respond to your posts, because you are replying to things I did not say.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How are these requirements for producing oil any different than natural gas, food, electricity, water, and a hundred other items we need, some of which are regulated as I propose commodity traders should be?

They aren't any different. All those things are also traded by "speculators"

Seriously, are you unaware of the food futures market?

You admit that commodity traders are considering "a revolution in Libya." That is so obviously bogus, that it betrays you to mention it. The revolution had nothing to do with supplies of oil. It was just an excuse. There were never ANY shortages of oil because of Libya, or because of worries over Iran this year, etc. There are no shortages of producers of oil. Refinery closings are another excuse that is used, I know; and demand in China, and so on. Yet no other commodity fluctuations seem to have this effect on prices at the store. Why is that? Because traders are bidding up the price so they can make money for themselves and the oil companies, that's why. If shortages occur, prices can go up. They don't need to go up BEFORE shortages occur.

So it is all a big conspiracy. A conspiracy involving not just the US government, but the governments of the entire world, including Russia, China and North Korea. Because if even one of those countries refused to co-operate, they could corner the world market by selling the commodity at the real price, which you claim is well below the standard set in the US future's market

All those governments are involved in a conspiracy to make money for Wall Street futures traders.

Do you relaise how batshit crazy that sounds?

If we don't want shortages of energy, then we sure as hell better get on with the job of finding alternative, clean sources of energy, Because the old ones are running out and getting more and more expensive while the new ones are getting cheaper and cheaper.

Ummm, if the old ones are getting more expensive new ones are getting cheaper, then won't it inevitably reach a point where the new ones are cheaper than the old? And if they are cheaper, won;t everybody buy them?

This seems to a be a problem that has an inbuilt solution and requires no tampering.

Why is it then that gas prices fluctuate wildly and unfairly, and all the other prices do not? Answer me that one.

Are you fucking kidding me? You can not be this ignorant. Have you been asleep since 2006?

The government is not "sucking it up," it keeps prices from wildly fluctuating. You don't think I know what I have to pay for "gas" as opposed to "gasoline"? The utility company gets the money it needs without wild price flucuations based on fears of what might happen 6 months from now.

So you want to end all government subsidies, except the government subsidies for gas, which stop your gas prices from fluctuating wildly.

And you wonder why there is no consensus on abolishing subsidies.

Which you haven't explained at all, other than to recite the way things are done.

Ahhh yeah, he did, as did numerous others.

People in this country today (unlike in pre-Reagan years) have to pay hugely unfair high prices for basic needs...

And what is that based on? What would be the fair price for these things, and how did you calculate that?

Something needs to be done about this, and it can only be done through the government.

And what is that based on?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And I cannot respond to your posts, because you are replying to things I did not say.

Yeah, sure.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And I don't see why accountants, buyers and estimators within the companies themselves can't determine the needs of the company, and the customers determine their needs, and communicate with each other, without middle men, or at least not without regulated middle men, instead of by gamblers.

I see now you're conflating two different things. One is Middle men", the other is "regulation". If you're arguing for a degree of regulation, I don't think you'll find much opposition. But middlemen actually help a company be more efficient. Particularly smaller companies. Without them, they'd have to assume a level of expertise that could be costly. And they'd incur risk—of not getting the supply they needed in time.

But you have to be careful what you wish for. As John Rockefeller created his behemoth company, he had just the idea you did. But for his company, the expensive and uncertain cost as shipping. So, he bought a railroad. And it worked. Now he not only knew what his costs would be and was able to keep them low, he could always guarantee that he'd get shipping capacity over competitors. This is what caused the government to break the company up. Anyway, just thought I'd share the story for its irony as it applies to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Experts have related these facts on TV and in the news media ad nauseum. I think the figure is that the percentage of US GDP has more than doubled in recent years. People are not going into finance because there is a need for it, but because opportunities opened up for people to get rich quick by gambling, thanks to eased regulations put into effect by free market politicians. If you think the reasons for things being as they are, is economic necessity (and thus we HAD to have the 2008 crash, etc.), I beg to differ. No, the reason is politics.

I see your point, but surely there must be a need. Otherwise, why would companies keep hiring more and more people? I can see the incentive for the p[otential employee—he wants to make some of that good money. But why would the employer want to hire someone he does not need and part with the money he loves so much?

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I see now you're conflating two different things. One is Middle men", the other is "regulation". If you're arguing for a degree of regulation, I don't think you'll find much opposition. But middlemen actually help a company be more efficient. Particularly smaller companies. Without them, they'd have to assume a level of expertise that could be costly. And they'd incur risk—of not getting the supply they needed in time.

My own preference is more radical; get rid of them. But I'd settle for more regulation, like what occurs in industries regulated by public commissions.

I see your point, but surely there must be a need. Otherwise, why would companies keep hiring more and more people? I can see the incentive for the p[otential employee—he wants to make some of that good money. But why would the employer want to hire someone he does not need and part with the money he loves so much?

Because the "need" I spoke of was the need in society, not the need of a trading company to hire a broker. The stock company's "need" was to make money by gambling. That is not society's need, which is to have more people going into more productive occupations.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

Yeah, sure.

Are you sure your name is not Barney?

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Whaaaaat??? I certainly can't force them to lower their prices. Yes, I can ride my bike; that will do for short trips.

You can choose not to purchase their products. If enough people do that then it will shift the supply and demand equation and force lower prices. Of COURSE you have choices. You could, for instance, purchase one of those electric cars you mentioned. After all, you want to have the government essentially force everyone to have to buy one, if they want a car...what's the problem with you exercising your choice right now and getting one?

You of course have other choices you could make. As you note, you could ride a bike. You could walk. You could use public transportation. You could purchase a house close to your work and close to the store. Have you noticed that the Amish don't use a lot of gasoline? You could take up a similar lifestyle. Your choices abound. And if enough people make similar choices it WILL 'force them to lower their prices'. You'd know this if you understood the basics.

Like what, besides those I DID mention?

Like all the ones I mentioned that you are seemingly unaware of. If you want to have a discussion about why the price of oil and gas fluctuate and have been fluctuating lately then I'm happy to have such a discussion. There are a lot of factors that impact the price of gas you pay at the pump. Contrary to your assertions, they aren't set arbitrarily by a bunch of speculators charging whatever they like and fucking the little guy.

This seems to me the idea that we can change things by individual choice. That is false; my own choice in the market does not change what is available at what price. Rhetoric should be convincing if it points out solutions to problems that are already well-known and worked out, which most of them are, but are stalled because people are not getting behind them to balance the forces of the status quo interests on the other side.

You have individual choice. In addition, individual choices aggregate and cause real effects. That's what The Market ACTUALLY IS. Prices aren't set arbitrarily and at the whim of 'speculators'. The status quo, wrt fossil fuel energy, is the status quo because it is and has been for quite a long time the most economical and cost effective. That's why most people haven't rushed out to get a all electrical vehicle, by and large...because it doesn't make economic sense to do so from a cost to benefit perspective. As oil becomes more scarce the price rises because it costs more and more to both produce it AND to find new, exploitable resources. In addition, the US isn't the only country using oil...many emerging nations ALSO want their share. THAT, combined with fluctuations in regional politics (like, say, the possibility of a shooting war in the Gulf between Iran and Israel, Iran's decision not to sell to the EU, revolutions in Egypt and more importantly Libya, the ongoing dust up in Syria, the continued boil in Iraq, etc etc) plus disruptions on the refining side, and a bunch more things, are what impact the prices. OPEC's decisions on how much oil to produce have a huge effect as well. It's complex and complicated...your simplistic screed isn't even the cartoon version of the reality.

Nothing has been explained here that I don't understand, at all.

Then either you have been dishonest in your posts and you have the lure behind the boat, hoping for some fish, or DeNile isn't just a river in Egypt. I'm going with the second choice.

I already know. Just because someone replies to my assertions, by trotting out how and why things are already done a certain way, does not mean I don't know all about that old, tired way.

You don't though. You THINK you have a good handle on this stuff, but your replies in this thread make it crystal clear that you don't even have a nebulous grasp of the issues and factors involved in the discussion you are trying to have. That's fine, and I'd urge you to back off of talking about any specifics and stay with the big picture, feel good rhetoric filled touchy feely discussion. I'd urge that because it's clear you don't have the foggiest what you are talking about when drilling down into your solutions to our problems. You might want to consider that the REAL progressives in the current progressive party might just know more about this stuff than you do, and have a clearer idea of what's possible, probable, and effective wrt changes in policy. I know that a lot of this boards liberals know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than you do, and while their politics might be roughly similar, they are more practical about solutions because they DO understand at least the basics on this stuff. You might want to consider that. Or, continue to travel down the river DeNile...

Now you are just making assertions. Prove them. You haven't talked about anything I'm ignorant of.

Again? Seriously, I'm not just making assertions...that's what YOU have been doing. I tried to start off this discussion by asking you pointed questions to try and get some details about your plans concerning why we 'need a new progressive movement in America', as well as your vague list of what needs to be done. It pretty quickly ran up against your ignorance of the deeper issues you brought up, and your misconceptions of even the most basic mechanisms for how this stuff works. Hell, even your concept of something like the 'free market', a really big picture idea, is flawed, as you seem to think we have some sort of laissez-faire free wheeling capitalist system without regulation or restraint that NEVER existed in the world, let alone in the US.

Now who's ignorant? The price for my electricity and water and gas do not fluctuate like the price of gasoline does. There are changes, but they must be approved, and they are not wild and do not almost double just because of what happens in Libya.

... Perhaps you have noticed a few things that are obvious...such as the fact that the Middle East is a lot further than the place where the coal or natural gas comes from for your local utility? It's also more abundant, as well as the fact that other countries around the world, especially those with emerging economies aren't all bidding to purchase it. I mean, come on...at least make this hard! And these aren't even scratching the surface as to why your electric bill varies less than the price of gas at the pump.

Also, the price of oil or even refined fuels have NOT 'doubled', and it's not just because of what happens in Libya. Seriously...you do yourself no favors by posting stuff like this. It just makes you look even more ignorant.

I already did. Oil is an established industry; it's just easier to stick with the way things are done. But we need very much to change. Other countries are actually changing faster than we are, because their governments have more sensible people that ours, stuffed as it is with free marketers and Tea Partiers.

No, you didn't...you didn't even dodge the question very well. So, basically you are back to a vast international conspiracy theory. That's wrong too, of course, but it's funny that you won't even own up to that.

Do you have a cite that other countries are changing faster than the US wrt hybrid or electric vehicle sales? Because the last time I looked the US was the number one buyer of those vehicle types world wide, though that might be unfair since the EU as a whole might surpass us...I wouldn't know, thus the request for a cite. Feel free to back that up.

If you think we need to know all these details, then why don't YOU supply them? If you are so well-informed, why don't you know some of this stuff? I DO. I have given a few links. It may well be worth another thread to discuss all these details about cars, which I have done on other forums. This is a more general thread.

Well, a couple of things here. First off, I'm not the one asserting we need a new progressive movement in the US, nor am I the one saying I have all the answers...answers that have eluded experts in the fields of alternative energy, economics, tax policy, regulation and the other host of things you've expounded on. YOU have...thus, the request for you to discuss some of those details. Secondly, I HAVE given you some details...so have others. You've mainly handwaved them away. If you don't want to discuss this aspect of your claims anymore, I can certainly understand that and I agree with your reasoning...it's clear you don't understand this stuff, so you should probably retreat back to big picture, more generalized topics with more rhetoric and more bunnies jumping and leave the grimy details behind.

The governor is doing pretty good. Yes, it could be faster. If coal plants are closed, that's all to the good, and it has worked out quite well that we don't depend on it in CA (yes I'm from there). Our utility gets all it needs without it.

How about those brownouts and power shortages? Pretty neat, ehe? Here's a news flash....It's working 'well' because YOU GET A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR POWER FROM OTHER STATES WHO DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIDICULOUS REGULATIONS YOU DO (from memory it's something like 20-30%, but I could be misremembering). It's nice when you can go by those ideals, but then use someone else's electricity (oh, and water), right?

Time will tell if the push for harsher emissions controls wrt automobiles will work out in California. Frankly, you guys aren't doing so hot, economically (I have a lot of family who live there), and my guess is that you aren't going to see a large percentage of CA roads being driven on by AEVs or even mainly hybrids anytime soon, regardless of the regs, except by the rich and well to do.

I hear your point. Not sure what I can do about that though. Why would anyone say anything different about it? No-one has presented any principles of economics that are otherwise. Why is it up to me to provide all the "evidence," as Shobam thinks? Appeals to "economics," as if that means something, don't convince me. Reciting how things work today does not convince me. Requiring me to say everything in the absolutely correct terms, even though people already know what I mean, does not convince me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, kimosabe. I think you are un-convince-able. I'm merely pointing out here that continued attempts to call economics and economics theory the 'dismal science' is laughable, when it's clear you neither know nor WANT to know much about it, how it works, what it does or anything else.

-XT

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How are these requirements for producing oil any different than natural gas, food, electricity, water, and a hundred other items we need, some of which are regulated as I propose commodity traders should be?

Um...is this a trick question? Assuming not, then the answer is...they aren't. All those things ARE traded commodities, with volatilizes and fluctuations. Oil, being an INTERNATIONAL commodity that has become more scarce AND desired, especially by countries with emerging economies, has more factors impacting it's price than, say, the corn grown by your local farmer...but it's all the same at the basic level. You know...that supply and demand stuff.

You admit that commodity traders are considering "a revolution in Libya." That is so obviously bogus, that it betrays you to mention it. The revolution had nothing to do with supplies of oil. It was just an excuse. There were never ANY shortages of oil because of Libya, or because of worries over Iran this year, etc. There are no shortages of producers of oil. Refinery closings are another excuse that is used, I know; and demand in China, and so on. Yet no other commodity fluctuations seem to have this effect on prices at the store. Why is that? Because traders are bidding up the price so they can make money for themselves and the oil companies, that's why. If shortages occur, prices can go up. They don't need to go up BEFORE shortages occur.

Um...you know, Libya did have a revolution, right? And that their production of oil dropped something like a million barrels a day...right? And that, because of that, it had a non-zero effect on oil futures...which means that if you were buying oil last year for 6 months from then, that you'd have to take that, among many other things, into account when deciding what you thought the price of oil would be when it actually got produced and delivered...right? Ok...probably not right as this is probably already getting into deep waters for you.

You have a fundamental ignorance of this topic. You don't get it, even at the most basic level. And this paragraph you wrote here pretty much highlights that completely. It's wrong and shows pretty definitively why you don't get it.

If we don't want shortages of energy, then we sure as hell better get on with the job of finding alternative, clean sources of energy, Because the old ones are running out and getting more and more expensive while the new ones are getting cheaper and cheaper.

Preaching to the choir. I'm all for alternative energy, especially nuclear. The old ones ARE running out, or at least becoming more and more difficult to exploit...which means more and more scarce (well, oil is anyway). What you don't get is that it will be market forces that enact a change, long before your well meaning but ignorant cries for change happen. As a for instance...if gas gets to be $4/gallon (in the US obviously...it's double or even 2.5-3 times that in many places in Europe already) it will cause some non-zero number of people to make a choice and buy a hybrid, a more fuel efficient car, or maybe even an AEV. Or, perhaps to just drive less. If gas goes to $5/gallon it will have a greater effect. At $6/gallon an even greater effect. And so on. At some price point, there will be an, oh, say event horizon...people will increasingly be demanding alternatives, and at some point the market will deliver and there will be an increasing shift to whatever alternative the market (i.e. you, me and your neighbor Doug) shows as a clear winner. All your government regulations and other horseshit won't have as much effect as simply the price of gas that that average American has to pay. If you understood this, then what you'd REALLY be asking for/demanding is simply to have the price of gas go up and up. Since you are a progressive, then you'd probably want to advocate that the government increase taxes on gasoline in the US to levels at or above those in Europe. The LAST thing you should want, if you really grasped all this, is for the price of gas to go down or be cheaper, since that will cause people to actually want to use more and avoid making a change to alternatives.

Why is it then that gas prices fluctuate wildly and unfairly, and all the other prices do not? Answer me that one.

It's not. The price of gas has gone up maybe a dollar, on average, as a national average. It's done so because the price of oil has risen due to several uncertainties in the Middle East, the biggest one being the threat/possibility of a shooting war between Israel and Iran. However, there are a bunch of other factors, including regional unrest in other countries, including many oil producing countries such as Libya, the fact that demand world wide continues to rise...and probably some factors that I'm unaware of on the production or even refining side. Also, TAXES have gone up on gas in many states (you say you are from CA...your taxes on gas are always high anyway, and IIRC they recently went up due to budget shortfalls. When I was in LA this winter the price of gas was nearly a dollar more than I pay in New Mexico...and that's mainly due to your higher state taxes on gasoline, though there are a few other factors such as distribution and such).

But if you look at the price of oil historically, it's always been volatile...and that's only going to increase as it becomes more scarce (thus, harder and more expensive to produce AND to find and exploit new sources) AND the world wide demand continues to rise. I mean, you must know that countries like China and India, as well as a host of other emerging economies are on the rise wrt their demand for the stuff...right? China alone is putting millions of new cars on the road a year at this point. More bidders needing more oil, and that oil becoming more scarce=higher prices and more volatility in the market, with speculators having to guess what that volatility will be 6 months or a year or 5 years down the pike.

The government is not "sucking it up," it keeps prices from wildly fluctuating. You don't think I know what I have to pay for "gas" as opposed to "gasoline"? The utility company gets the money it needs without wild price flucuations based on fears of what might happen 6 months from now.

Of COURSE they are, if they are fixing prices. Either that or you are paying a hell of a lot more than you should be, and that buffers the utility when the price of their fuel fluctuates....or, in your case since you live in CA, the price your utility pays some other utility in some other state for power. Oil fluctuates more as a commodity for the reasons I've given you, but power production inherently has fluctuations as well, and if you aren't seeing them then SOMEONE has to be buffering those fluctuations.

Which you haven't explained at all, other than to recite the way things are done.

Well...I tried.

I am beginning to suspect you are just a free marketeer. If you are, why not just say so? Maybe because you already in your heart KNOW what a delusion it is. And a very harmful one at that.

I'm not sure what a 'free marketeer' is, exactly, but yeah...I AM an advocate of the free market, yes. Never denied it. It's interesting that you think that free market economics is 'a delusion', at a time when more and more countries, including many former or current COMMUNIST countries, embrace free market economics.

Perhaps you are again operating under the misconception that 'free market' means 'completely unregulated and without restraint'. That SEEMS to be what you are getting at. I don't advocate that, nor does any but the most fervent libertarian type. I have no problem with regulation or government oversight. The devil would be in where to draw the line, not whether there should or shouldn't BE a line, as far as I'm concerned.

People in this country today (unlike in pre-Reagan years) have to pay hugely unfair high prices for basic needs, and they don't get enough in their paychecks to cover it. Something needs to be done about this, and it can only be done through the government.

No, actually, they don't. Basic goods and needs are cheaper in the US than just about anywhere else in the world. They are also more abundantly offered here than just about anywhere else in the world. Seriously...GO to other countries and see for yourself. Go to Europe and see what gas costs you...or what food or even a shirt cost. Or a car. Or a house. You have no idea what you are talking about even here, unfortunately.

-XT

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

Um...is this a trick question? Assuming not, then the answer is...they aren't. All those things ARE traded commodities, with volatilizes and fluctuations. Oil, being an INTERNATIONAL commodity that has become more scarce AND desired, especially by countries with emerging economies, has more factors impacting it's price than, say, the corn grown by your local farmer...but it's all the same at the basic level. You know...that supply and demand stuff.

It is hard to see how you could say that. Many commodities are bought and sold by producers and consumers. Oil is no more necessary than the other things, but its price is the only one that fluctuates because of events virtually unrelated to its cost. I have not had to pay huge hikes on any of the other commodities I have to buy often. Food prices do not fluctuate like oil prices do at the store; they just don't. Food is more of a necessity than oil, and so are electricity, natural gas and water. That's because they are regulated, even if there are traders involved. Food prices did not go up in spite of all the horrible natural disasters around the world last year, which are happening because we continue to use oil and coal. Traders exist because it's a chance for someone to make money, not because they serve a need. BUt if you insist on having them, God knows why, at least they should be regulated. And it's amazing how some of these people here even defend the Wall St. gamblers with derivatives and credit default swaps, as if they served some kind of need. What a bunch of rot.

Um...you know, Libya did have a revolution, right? And that their production of oil dropped something like a million barrels a day...right? And that, because of that, it had a non-zero effect on oil futures...which means that if you were buying oil last year for 6 months from then, that you'd have to take that, among many other things, into account when deciding what you thought the price of oil would be when it actually got produced and delivered...right? Ok...probably not right as this is probably already getting into deep waters for you.

I brought up Libya first; did you miss that? The point being that it had no effect on actual supply, only what some traders thought might happen. Why should that determine the price? Because traders want to make money by raising the price, that's what.

Preaching to the choir. I'm all for alternative energy, especially nuclear. The old ones ARE running out, or at least becoming more and more difficult to exploit...which means more and more scarce (well, oil is anyway). What you don't get is that it will be market forces that enact a change, long before your well meaning but ignorant cries for change happen. As a for instance...if gas gets to be $4/gallon (in the US obviously...it's double or even 2.5-3 times that in many places in Europe already) it will cause some non-zero number of people to make a choice and buy a hybrid, a more fuel efficient car, or maybe even an AEV. Or, perhaps to just drive less. If gas goes to $5/gallon it will have a greater effect. At $6/gallon an even greater effect. And so on. At some price point, there will be an, oh, say event horizon...people will increasingly be demanding alternatives, and at some point the market will deliver and there will be an increasing shift to whatever alternative the market (i.e. you, me and your neighbor Doug) shows as a clear winner. All your government regulations and other horseshit won't have as much effect as simply the price of gas that that average American has to pay. If you understood this, then what you'd REALLY be asking for/demanding is simply to have the price of gas go up and up. Since you are a progressive, then you'd probably want to advocate that the government increase taxes on gasoline in the US to levels at or above those in Europe. The LAST thing you should want, if you really grasped all this, is for the price of gas to go down or be cheaper, since that will cause people to actually want to use more and avoid making a change to alternatives.

That point was made already. Why go on and on about it? Read the other posts. To some extent I acknowledged this. But I am not one of those who think the market should determine whatever happens. Is that not obvious? There's no reason we should not do what's right, rather than wait for the market to force things, when we need the change to happen more quickly. And prices are unfair; why should we tolerate them? We should have switched already by now, and could have, except folks like you rave on about how we should let the market operate. Meanwhile the climate crisis claims more and more lives while we dither and wait for the market, because we agree with Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan. Phooey with those guys; we should do what's right.

It's not. The price of gas has gone up maybe a dollar, on average, as a national average. It's done so because the price of oil has risen due to several uncertainties in the Middle East, the biggest one being the threat/possibility of a shooting war between Israel and Iran. However, there are a bunch of other factors, including regional unrest in other countries, including many oil producing countries such as Libya, the fact that demand world wide continues to rise...and probably some factors that I'm unaware of on the production or even refining side. Also, TAXES have gone up on gas in many states (you say you are from CA...your taxes on gas are always high anyway, and IIRC they recently went up due to budget shortfalls. When I was in LA this winter the price of gas was nearly a dollar more than I pay in New Mexico...and that's mainly due to your higher state taxes on gasoline, though there are a few other factors such as distribution and such).

The price has tripled in a decade. It's only one thing that is hurting middle class and poor folks, while their wages decline relatively speaking. And folks like Blake snipe and scowl and ask me for statistics, when they are easily available and well-known. Anyone who doesn't know how much the cost of higher education, housing and health care have risen, and how slowly wages have risen in recent years, has got to be living under a rock. It's amazing how young people these days can make it at all.

But if you look at the price of oil historically, it's always been volatile...and that's only going to increase as it becomes more scarce (thus, harder and more expensive to produce AND to find and exploit new sources) AND the world wide demand continues to rise. I mean, you must know that countries like China and India, as well as a host of other emerging economies are on the rise wrt their demand for the stuff...right? China alone is putting millions of new cars on the road a year at this point. More bidders needing more oil, and that oil becoming more scarce=higher prices and more volatility in the market, with speculators having to guess what that volatility will be 6 months or a year or 5 years down the pike.

It has never been as high or volatile as today. Prices vary between $70 and $140 a barrel within a year, and prices at the pump 3 times what they were just 10 years ago. And oil companies making more profit than any companies have EVER made, for providing a product we ought to be weaning ourselves off of as fast as we can. And there you are defending it.

Of COURSE they are, if they are fixing prices. Either that or you are paying a hell of a lot more than you should be, and that buffers the utility when the price of their fuel fluctuates....or, in your case since you live in CA, the price your utility pays some other utility in some other state for power. Oil fluctuates more as a commodity for the reasons I've given you, but power production inherently has fluctuations as well, and if you aren't seeing them then SOMEONE has to be buffering those fluctuations.

Yes, the public utility commission buffers them, by requiring no more than fairly reasonable price hikes; at least not the hikes that oil companies and health insurance companies and colleges get away with.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think progressives are demoralized and don't think they can challenge the dominant trickle-down ideology. The ideology needs to be debunked and we all can do our part. I know we NEED a new or revived progressive movement, and we need to realize that we need it and that it can happen.

As far as which channel, I don't care at this point; whatever works.

I get the sense that you're more of an idea rat.

[Eric the Green]

I'm not sure what a 'free marketeer' is, exactly, but yeah...I AM an advocate of the free market, yes. Never denied it. It's interesting that you think that free market economics is 'a delusion', at a time when more and more countries, including many former or current COMMUNIST countries, embrace free market economics.

Perhaps you are again operating under the misconception that 'free market' means 'completely unregulated and without restraint'. That SEEMS to be what you are getting at. I don't advocate that, nor does any but the most fervent libertarian type. I have no problem with regulation or government oversight. The devil would be in where to draw the line, not whether there should or shouldn't BE a line, as far as I'm concerned.

The line has been moved over way too far, drastically, since Reagan. We need to put it back at least where it was, if we want a fair and more equal society with opportunity to advance, instead of just reserving everything for 1% of Americans.

No, actually, they don't. Basic goods and needs are cheaper in the US than just about anywhere else in the world. They are also more abundantly offered here than just about anywhere else in the world. Seriously...GO to other countries and see for yourself. Go to Europe and see what gas costs you...or what food or even a shirt cost. Or a car. Or a house. You have no idea what you are talking about even here, unfortunately.

In other countries things are more equal than here, and peoples lives are improving. Here they are declining fast. Gas has been more expensive in Europe than here for decades; that is not news. But it isn't rising as fast. Before the crash we imposed on them, it was getting easier to live in Europe. But whatever the situation is, just because things are claimed to be worse in other nations, is not reason to tolerate greater inequality here than elsewhere, and much greater inequality before free market policies went into effect in 1981..

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

You can choose not to purchase their products. If enough people do that then it will shift the supply and demand equation and force lower prices. Of COURSE you have choices. You could, for instance, purchase one of those electric cars you mentioned. After all, you want to have the government essentially force everyone to have to buy one, if they want a car...what's the problem with you exercising your choice right now and getting one?

You are at least as determined as me not to hear what the other person is saying.

I already made the point that one person making a market decision has no effect on the market. That is an undeniable fact. The question then is, what else can we do to change things; not more talk about what I should or should not buy.

Like all the ones I mentioned that you are seemingly unaware of. If you want to have a discussion about why the price of oil and gas fluctuate and have been fluctuating lately then I'm happy to have such a discussion. There are a lot of factors that impact the price of gas you pay at the pump. Contrary to your assertions, they aren't set arbitrarily by a bunch of speculators charging whatever they like and fucking the little guy.

That IS what is happening, and no I DON'T like it.

You have individual choice. In addition, individual choices aggregate and cause real effects. That's what The Market ACTUALLY IS. Prices aren't set arbitrarily and at the whim of 'speculators'. The status quo, wrt fossil fuel energy, is the status quo because it is and has been for quite a long time the most economical and cost effective. That's why most people haven't rushed out to get a all electrical vehicle, by and large...because it doesn't make economic sense to do so from a cost to benefit perspective. As oil becomes more scarce the price rises because it costs more and more to both produce it AND to find new, exploitable resources. In addition, the US isn't the only country using oil...many emerging nations ALSO want their share. THAT, combined with fluctuations in regional politics (like, say, the possibility of a shooting war in the Gulf between Iran and Israel, Iran's decision not to sell to the EU, revolutions in Egypt and more importantly Libya, the ongoing dust up in Syria, the continued boil in Iraq, etc etc) plus disruptions on the refining side, and a bunch more things, are what impact the prices. OPEC's decisions on how much oil to produce have a huge effect as well. It's complex and complicated...your simplistic screed isn't even the cartoon version of the reality.

None of those worries have caused a shortage of a single drop in oil. The status quo is what it is, because the oil and car companies deliberately killed the electric car, and that WAS a conspiracy. It is the status quo because of the arguments you just made, which amount to "we have to settle for the way things are, because the market says so." No we don't. We could have required the car companies to switch a long time ago. A little fiat here and there saves us a lot of trouble, when we bother to impose one, instead of waiting for the all-holy MARKET.

Then either you have been dishonest in your posts and you have the lure behind the boat, hoping for some fish, or DeNile isn't just a river in Egypt. I'm going with the second choice.

Nothing has been said here that I don't already understand. Just because you trot things out to answer me, doesn't mean I haven't heard it all before. How does that follow?

You don't though. You THINK you have a good handle on this stuff, but your replies in this thread make it crystal clear that you don't even have a nebulous grasp of the issues and factors involved in the discussion you are trying to have.

No, I just don't agree with your compulsive defense of the free market as it exists today.

Again? Seriously, I'm not just making assertions...that's what YOU have been doing. I tried to start off this discussion by asking you pointed questions to try and get some details about your plans concerning why we 'need a new progressive movement in America', as well as your vague list of what needs to be done. It pretty quickly ran up against your ignorance of the deeper issues you brought up, and your misconceptions of even the most basic mechanisms for how this stuff works. Hell, even your concept of something like the 'free market', a really big picture idea, is flawed, as you seem to think we have some sort of laissez-faire free wheeling capitalist system without regulation or restraint that NEVER existed in the world, let alone in the US.

The point is, the "mechanisms" have to change. They were put into effect by humans; they are not natural laws. Noone here yet has given me a "principle of economics," and they won't, because there aren't any. They are nothing but habits. Our system has gotten so free-wheeling that crashes and depressions happen like after the 1920s, and yet tea party types just completely ignore this and want even more deregulation, and Republicans repeat it like they were parrots. It is outrageous beyond imagining. The restraints were taken off, and yet you seem totally ignorant of this, and don't even know how traders ruined our economy by gambling on money they didn't have and bet against their own customers without any requirements even to disclose what they were doing to anyone. If that's not free-wheeling, then I don't know what is. And someone here has the gall to keep asking me why someone should go into finance, completely ignoring my point that too many people go into finance. And yet that is an obvious point made by many experts. The free marketers like you just prefer to ignore this and continue to defend this evil system that enables 1% of Americans to trample on the rest of us and make money by gambling with other peoples money as if that were productive. I have news for you; it is not productive at all.

... Perhaps you have noticed a few things that are obvious...such as the fact that the Middle East is a lot further than the place where the coal or natural gas comes from for your local utility? It's also more abundant, as well as the fact that other countries around the world, especially those with emerging economies aren't all bidding to purchase it. I mean, come on...at least make this hard! And these aren't even scratching the surface as to why your electric bill varies less than the price of gas at the pump.

Also, the price of oil or even refined fuels have NOT 'doubled', and it's not just because of what happens in Libya. Seriously...you do yourself no favors by posting stuff like this. It just makes you look even more ignorant.

Just ignore facts then; that's the way. Forget that oil was over $140 a barrel, and just a year before it was $60. Talk about ignorant. And what difference does it make where the oil comes from? Making excuses like that for gamblers is pretty lame in my book. If we had any sense we would get off of all this foreign oil so we wouldn't be beholden to oil traders someplace else, for goodness sakes. And we've been talking about doing that since Nixon, and have done nothing. Why? Because we believe in the free market, and the oil companies take advantage of this ignorance to do whatever they want and charge us whatever the hell they want to, and make more profits than any other companies have ever done, by FAR; that's why, and there's no other reason on God's green Earth.

No, you didn't...you didn't even dodge the question very well. So, basically you are back to a vast international conspiracy theory. That's wrong too, of course, but it's funny that you won't even own up to that.

There is no conspiracy, except maybe about the electric car, and it was probably only one or two companies involved even in that one. Conspiracy theories are stupid. As I said, and you weren't paying attention, there does not need to be a conspiracy, when all they have to do is sit back ands get rich off our "free market" obsession which lets them off the hook from changing what seems to be working well for them and keeps them rolling in dough. Why do they need to conspire, when all they need to do is refuse to change? That's easy enough, for Christ's sakes! No conspiracy needed.

Do you have a cite that other countries are changing faster than the US wrt hybrid or electric vehicle sales? Because the last time I looked the US was the number one buyer of those vehicle types world wide, though that might be unfair since the EU as a whole might surpass us...I wouldn't know, thus the request for a cite. Feel free to back that up.

at least spell site correctly. I heard it a number of places, but I will get more facts to back up my assertions as I go along, when I have time I will. I just don't necessarily remember where I heard everything, since these things have been so widely reported it's hard to believe they are not known by everyone. We know that China is switching to solar energy faster, and is outpacing us in making the panels and driving down the price. I think the same is true with electric cars and batteries and such. I'm SURE the EU has long passed us too, yes. The USA is the laggard on green energy.

Well, a couple of things here. First off, I'm not the one asserting we need a new progressive movement in the US, nor am I the one saying I have all the answers...answers that have eluded experts in the fields of alternative energy, economics, tax policy, regulation and the other host of things you've expounded on. YOU have...thus, the request for you to discuss some of those details. Secondly, I HAVE given you some details...so have others. You've mainly handwaved them away. If you don't want to discuss this aspect of your claims anymore, I can certainly understand that and I agree with your reasoning...it's clear you don't understand this stuff, so you should probably retreat back to big picture, more generalized topics with more rhetoric and more bunnies jumping and leave the grimy details behind.

Nothing has eluded experts in these fields; it's you guys who have eluded the facts about them. If you were really interested in our country, you would know what the alternatives are, and you wouldn't be arguing with me. Instead you are giving me the industry line. There are way too many conservatives and libertarians here, that seems apparent. But that's fine; you have a right to express your opinions.

No, as I said, I pretty much assumed the things I have asserted are common knowledge, but I guess not. This IS a more general big-picture thread, and my first visit here (and maybe not a happy one), but most of the threads I see here don't deal with important issues at all. Maybe I need to start a few to delve into these issues in more detail, assuming there's really an interest. Maybe if others like you had already done so, instead of dwelling on the inane subjects that DO exist here, you would know more. I have already researched electric cars and solar energy and other subjects on other forums. Why haven't you? And for that matter why AREN'T you calling for a bigger progressive movement? I don't see any thread here on these vital issues.

And again, I don't know why you have such a place in your heart for commodity traders. Why are you guys defending the people who rip you off? Stand up for yourselves and the ones who are charging you high prices. That is what drives up the cost of living; meanwhile you guys all complain about taxes (and regulations, as you do below), which have never been lower. Instead of arguing with me and calling me ignorant, join me in calling for lower prices.

How about those brownouts and power shortages? Pretty neat, ehe? Here's a news flash....It's working 'well' because YOU GET A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR POWER FROM OTHER STATES WHO DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIDICULOUS REGULATIONS YOU DO (from memory it's something like 20-30%, but I could be misremembering). It's nice when you can go by those ideals, but then use someone else's electricity (oh, and water), right?

What a bunch of rot. I saw from the utility bills where the energy comes from, and it's not what you say. See, you knock regulations, and then you deny that you are a laissez faire apologist. You are that.

Time will tell if the push for harsher emissions controls wrt automobiles will work out in California. Frankly, you guys aren't doing so hot, economically (I have a lot of family who live there), and my guess is that you aren't going to see a large percentage of CA roads being driven on by AEVs or even mainly hybrids anytime soon, regardless of the regs, except by the rich and well to do.

If we aren't doing so hot, it's because of the high cost of living due to housing, high immigration pressures, and Republican politicians who strangle our budget. We are making reforms though, so I hope at least the latter situation will ease in the near future, and Ca at least (if not America) will move forward. We DO seem to know how to make some good reforms right now. If the switch to electric cars doesn't happen, it will be because you rich folks and you rich free-market excuse-makers have succeeded again in derailing the regulations, and they already did before. That could happen. But otherwise, CA will not only shift a great deal, especially since electric cars are already the same price as others, all things considered, but what CA requires will require the same shift EVERYWHERE in the USA, because CA is the largest market, and car companies will have to adjust their entire way of doing things in order to meet the needs of the largest market. Your guess will be wrong, in that case. Just another case of you ignoring the facts in order to defend the way things are, and have fun calling someone else ignorant just because he states the facts that should be obvious.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, kimosabe. I think you are un-convince-able. I'm merely pointing out here that continued attempts to call economics and economics theory the 'dismal science' is laughable, when it's clear you neither know nor WANT to know much about it, how it works, what it does or anything else.

-XT

I am certainly not the first to call it that; it is a famous phrase. Or at least it WAS until these days when a lot of younger people know nothing but free market insanity because they have been brought up in it. I guess that includes you, or you would have heard the phrase.

[Eric the Green]

China is gearing up to go big on electric cars by 2020. They haven't done so yet, it appears, but the policies are in place to do it soon.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/...electric-cars/

[Blake]

Does anyone wonder that I thought this was freshman screed?

There is so little understanding of the issues, so little thought to it, that it reads exactly like the ranting of a college freshman who has just had her "eyes opened" by her professors.

It's not the type of material anyone would expect from someone over 20.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

Does anyone wonder that I thought this was freshman screed?

There is so little understanding of the issues, so little thought to it, that it reads exactly like the ranting of a college freshman who has just had her "eyes opened" by her professors.

It's not the type of material anyone would expect from someone over 20.

Thanks for your enlightening comments. I see so many stats and illuminating ideas here, it takes my breath away.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Blake

Of course they can't. That's the whole fucking point.

Being optimistic, it takes at least six months to get fuel from a well in Texas to a gas station in Ohio. And you are seriously suggesting that a gas station owner goes out, notices that his storage tanks are at 10%, and then buys more from the ownrs of the well.

That's nonsense.

So then you will suggest that the refineries should just refine the same amount of oil to the gas station owner every week. That way there is a constant stream of produce moving through the system to keep him supplied.

But what do you think happens when a new copper mine offers the refinery twice as much per gallon for the fuel they are refining? Well, now the gas station has no fuel, because the fuel that was allocated to him has been sold to someone else.

Well, you say. The gas station owner should pre-pay for the fuel that he needs. He should estimate how much fuel he will need in six months time, and pay the oil refinery for that fuel ahead of time.

But how will the gas station owner know how much to pay for fuel in 6 months time? If the owner of the well thinks that lots of knew copper mines are going in and will need lots of gas to run their trucks, the well owner will want to charge more for the fuel in six months time. And if the gas station owner thinks that a competitor is going to find a big new well that will increase supply, he will want to play less.

So how the hell do these two players factor in all these multiple factors so they know how much to play for gas ordered today to be delivered in 6 months time? The oil drillers and gas station owners already have full time jobs drilling oil. They can't possibly research lal the possible factors that will affect oil prices in 6 months time, can they?

That means that the oil drillers and the gas station owners will have to hire people to do that research for them. Ad the researchers for the gas stations can then negotiate with the researchers for the oil drillers and agree at the price to pay today for gas to be delivered in six months time.

That's the only way that the system could possibly run efficiently, agreed

Except that this is fucking "speculation".

This part of your post is at least coherent and to the point.

That's the way to run it, yes. And I don't think that's speculation in the sense of commodity gamblers. It's negotiations. Negocios, the Spanish word for business.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My own preference is more radical; get rid of them. But I'd settle for more regulation, like what occurs in industries regulated by public commissions.

Your preference is fine, what people have been trying to point out is that you haven't made the case that it is either doable or capable of solving what you see as "a problem". You seem to think that your ideas are as self-evident as they are wonderful and revolutionary. You seem to want to hand wave away particulars. Now, you're free to do that. But you should realize that if you do, you're ideas are simply not going to be taken as seriously as I think you'd like them to be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because the "need" I spoke of was the need in society, not the need of a trading company to hire a broker. The stock company's "need" was to make money by gambling. That is not society's need, which is to have more people going into more productive occupations.

I understand that. But you seem to think that the people going into finance now are not fulfilling a need the finance industry has. That's how I was using need. By your own estimation, most of these people in finance are greedy and just care about money. So, why in the world would they hire people and give them huge chunks of money if they weren't filling some need?

No snark intended, but it would really do you well to notice the holes in your knowledge base and theories. Again, trying to gloss over them is not helping you. You should really embrace what Blake has been pointing out.

[Isis of the Well]

Progressive has of course become "very left". In the case of the US "to the left" of the mainstream democratic party.

I don't view it as actual policies though, but progressive as populist....power to the people and change in general.
The original liberals were the limited government/free market guys!


I actually see limited, open government and free markets as progressive!
It's a change all right, bringing power to the people.
Let me explain, I used to be a hardcore lefty. I believed in Social Democracy, specifically the Nordic Model.

I still do, however those countries are just special cases of humanity. It can't happen here, it's not in our mindset and our government is too corrupt.

So IMO how can we bring power to the working/middle classes and small business and end our oligarchy?

Less government.
See, I used to hate the free market but I realized we don't really have one!
There are so many subsidies/breaks/rules that big business get, and that is NOT free market. Right? It should be less government intervention, not giving breaks to business.

IMO the only way to empower the masses is to:
. Greatly reduce our burden.
Between federal and state income tax, payroll taxes, outrageous property taxes here in NJ...god that must be like 40ish% for a MIDDLE CLASS family!
Obama has targeted $250,000 as wealthy, but if you make that and live in New York City...between Fed, State, City and property taxes...I believe its near 50% they pay! 250K is not a lot, that's not fat cat wall street money!

To relieve this tax burden that chokes middle/working class and small business government needs to be reduced. Drastic cuts to defense spending, and make reasonable cuts to domestic government.

End subsidies and corporate welfare and promote an actual free market in things like health insurance and energy.

With a limited government we can reduce taxes on the middle class, have the room to fund welfare (!) and by ending all breaks for companies they'd have to actually compete. Health insurance and energy are very concentrated and that drives price up.

I consider myself a limited government liberal, or efficient liberal. The core of liberalism just done well, with no benefits to big business and a generally free market, but not 100% with light but reasonable regulation.

That's my progressive movement!

[XT]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I already made the point that one person making a market decision has no effect on the market. That is an undeniable fact. The question then is, what else can we do to change things; not more talk about what I should or should not buy.

That's like saying we need to change our entire system because our one vote doesn't count. No, of course your one decision is not going to change the market. That doesn't mean that you don't have choices you can make, and it doesn't mean that in the aggregate that things won't change if enough people make the same decisions. Since you are so focused on the price of gas, if it rises high enough then there WILL be change. The Market(tm) will force a change.

So, the REAL question DOES hinge on what you should or shouldn't buy, multiplied by several hundred million of your fellow Americans, and impacted by several billion other humans throughout the world who are also part of the decision cycle. I realize that you don't get it, but if you want REAL change there is already mechanisms in place to effect that change.

That IS what is happening, and no I DON'T like it.

Say instead you don't understand it and are just lashing out in ignorance. Otherwise you wouldn't continue to insist that it's what's happening, after you've been shown why you are wrong by several different posters in several different ways. The pounding your chest and screeching that you don't like it is a nice, dramatic touch, but it really isn't helpful when it's clear you don't like something that you don't understand and fail to grasp.

None of those worries have caused a shortage of a single drop in oil. The status quo is what it is, because the oil and car companies deliberately killed the electric car, and that WAS a conspiracy. It is the status quo because of the arguments you just made, which amount to "we have to settle for the way things are, because the market says so." No we don't. We could have required the car companies to switch a long time ago. A little fiat here and there saves us a lot of trouble, when we bother to impose one, instead of waiting for the all-holy MARKET.

So much ignorance, so few words. People who have to to work in the real world and attempt to buy oil certainly DO worry about a drop in oil production from a single major producer, such as Libya. It can certainly cause short term shortages, but mainly it causes disruptions in the market due to logistics and that whole supply and demand thing that you also seem unable or unwilling to grasp. If supply drops but demand goes up then the price goes up. If supply goes up and demand drops then the price goes down.

The auto industry didn't kill the electric car...here's a news flash, you could go out and buy one right now, today. If you want one that has a similar performance envelop to your current car it's going to cost you around a hundred thousand dollars, but they are out there. They are very expensive due to their use of those rare earth metal thingies that you don't want to know about, there were safety and longevity concerns (there still are) in the past, and they didn't perform as well as ICE vehicles. No one would buy them, so companies didn't make them. Even today, they are a niche market, despite the fact that gas costs more today than in the past. It's a ridiculous conspiracy theory that Big Auto Killed the Electric Car(TM) and doesn't match the facts.

You don't understand even what 'the market' is, nor do you have any understanding of electric vehicles, yet you feel you are qualified to assert that we could have just waved a magical wand and forced a change through. Again I ask...why hasn't anyone else done so? Ok, the US is corrupt and evil and in the pocket of Big Business, and especially Big Auto and Big Oil. Got that...it's standard screed. But why hasn't Europe done it? They have stronger regulations and their people are more willing to go by fiat government dictates. They also signed the Kyoto Accords and were bound to heavily reduce CO2 emissions. So, why didn't they do it? Oh, that's right...Big Auto forced them to not make the change. Ok, why not Japan? Oh, that's right...Big Auto forced them. Well, why not China then...still a communist country. Hell, by fiat they forced millions from their homes to build a big dam....oh, that's right, Big Auto forced a totalitarian communist government to buy NEW ICE cars, instead of just going to magical AEV technology that only an American company could possibly have developed (well, unless all of the other foreign auto manufacturers, even those who have spent billions on R&D for alternative fuels and battery system are all in on the CT).

Lastly, the 'all-holy MARKET' is you and me and everyone else who buys things. You might want to try and wrap your head around that.

The price has tripled in a decade. It's only one thing that is hurting middle class and poor folks, while their wages decline relatively speaking. And folks like Blake snipe and scowl and ask me for statistics, when they are easily available and well-known. Anyone who doesn't know how much the cost of higher education, housing and health care have risen, and how slowly wages have risen in recent years, has got to be living under a rock. It's amazing how young people these days can make it at all.

No, it hasn't. Especially when you start doing little things like adjusting for inflation. You are right...those stats ARE easily accessible. I figure you didn't go get them because you knew they would make you look even more foolish and clueless about this stuff. I've tried to give you this advice before, but her goes again...don't talk about subjects you know nothing about, and don't make assertions based on your lack of understanding and ignorance. LEARN something about the subject and THEN discuss it.

It has never been as high or volatile as today. Prices vary between $70 and $140 a barrel within a year, and prices at the pump 3 times what they were just 10 years ago. And oil companies making more profit than any companies have EVER made, for providing a product we ought to be weaning ourselves off of as fast as we can. And there you are defending it.

Horseshit. Click on the second link I provided above. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. And oil companies don't make more profits than any company ever, not in relative or absolute terms. Again, your ignorance is just rhetorical bullshit that you spout off without any actual knowledge on this subject. I was doing a quick search for a link for this, but instead I found this one which is pretty interesting, even if it doesn't address your ridiculous assertion here.

And even these figures don’t account for income taxes that the companies pay on their profits. Those taxes would drive the tax total higher yet, but we know of no authoritative source that has attempted to break down how much income tax should be allocated to each gallon of gasoline. One big problem in trying to calculate such a per-gallon amount is that income can be earned on the sale of any number of products besides gasoline, such as diesel, home heating fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, crude oil and whatever else a company might sell.

The same goes for profits. The EIA does not attempt to calculate an average figure for the profit earned on each gallon of gasoline. "It’s not that these guys [the oil companies] are obfuscating; it’s that the processes are intertwined," EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org. He added that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."

Nevertheless, the oil industry has tried to do something close to that. A publication from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s principal lobbying arm, displays a graphic stating that "taxes" made up 15 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump in 2007 (that figure comes from EIA) and showing a figure for "earnings" (a measurement API prefers to straight "profit") of 8.3 percent. This figure is the average earnings for the industry per dollar of sales.

Yes, the public utility commission buffers them, by requiring no more than fairly reasonable price hikes; at least not the hikes that oil companies and health insurance companies and colleges get away with.

Who decides what constitutes a 'fairly reasonable price hike' constitutes? And what happens if the price of whatever fuel or energy they are providing to their customers spikes? Well, as you indicated the commission does...which is another way of saying that the government and taxes are paying to smooth out those prices for you. At a guess this is a factor in why CA's energy utilities and policies are all screwed up...people aren't seeing the real costs of their energy use reflected in their bill, so are using all they want while simultaneously supporting efforts to get rid of coal fired power plants (and blocking new nuclear plants) in the state. I don't know that's what's happening, mind...just a guess on my part, and there are probably several other factors I'm not aware of, but that's a standard result of taking The Market(tm) out of the equation. And this is something you want to increasingly do on many other fronts...and without understanding of how any of it works.

I don't think CA is a good model that the rest of the US would want to emulate, to be honest. Though you guys did have the Governator, which was kind of cool.

-XT

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because people are using it that way on this thread, including you. Descriptions of "how things work" are put forth as if that proves that things can't be done a different way. That is inherently false.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

Food prices do not fluctuate like oil prices do at the store; they just don't.

If you are asserting that food commodities don't fluctuate in price, well, that is obviously false. I suspect your inability or unwillingness to understand economics is hindering your ability to understand how this undermines your position.

You appear to be calling for a new progressive movement that doesn't know what it is talking about, and is deeply committed to courses of action that haven't been thought thru beyond sloganeering.

We already have one of those, so the competition for supporters among the gullible and misguided is likely to be fierce.

Regards,
Shodan

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Isis of the Well

I actually see limited, open government and free markets as progressive!
It's a change all right, bringing power to the people.
Let me explain, I used to be a hardcore lefty. I believed in Social Democracy, specifically the Nordic Model.

I still do, however those countries are just special cases of humanity. It can't happen here, it's not in our mindset and our government is too corrupt.

So IMO how can we bring power to the working/middle classes and small business and end our oligarchy?

Less government.
See, I used to hate the free market but I realized we don't really have one!
There are so many subsidies/breaks/rules that big business get, and that is NOT free market. Right? It should be less government intervention, not giving breaks to business.

Too bad you have no imaginable coalition for the foreseeable future. The idea of "small government" has been well and truly hijacked by big business interests.

If it comes, it will be brutal on the have-nots; it will keep the have-a-littles in line by giving them tax cuts and encouraging them not to think outside their class; and it will let the haves continue to consolidate power thru money.

More than likely, though, it will be big government allied to wealthy and social-conservative interests, and sold as small government thru middle class tax cuts and a heavy spin.

Like it or not, the only definition of "free market" that applies in American political thought is the idea that the market should have unlimited power and zero responsibility.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

Like it or not, the only definition of "free market" that applies in American political thought is the idea that the market should have unlimited power and zero responsibility.

Don't be ridiculous. You're confusing the caricatures of the irresponsibly left-wing with what really gets said.

If that definition were the only one, Ron Paul would be the putative GOP nominee instead of a fringe candidate. It's like saying Kucinich is in the Senate, therefore socialism is all we talk about.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

Like it or not, the only definition of "free market" that applies in American political thought is the idea that the market should have unlimited power and zero responsibility.

Sez who? The only folks I've ever heard talk about the 'free market' in terms of unlimited power and zero responsibility are US left wingers, usually of the more crazy variety. Folks I've heard talk about the 'free market' in terms of zero regulation and total freedom are generally the loonier libertarian types. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be a mainstream political discussion point that I've ever heard of....and definitely not 'the only definition' of 'free market' as applied to US political thought.

-XT

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Here is a question I've been thinking of: Why shouldn't corporations have influence and have a say in government (this is different, needless to say, from corporations controlling government)? After all government can regulate and tax corporations separately from individuals who control and run those corporations, so isn't it only natural corporations as a collective are lobbying government?

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Here is a question I've been thinking of: Why shouldn't corporations have influence and have a say in government (this is different, needless to say, from corporations controlling government)? After all government can regulate and tax corporations separately from individuals who control and run those corporations, so isn't it only natural corporations as a collective are lobbying government?

Everyone deserves a say; Hillary Clinton talked about that during her campaign. The question is should their money be the most influential aspect of our elections.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by XT

Sez who? The only folks I've ever heard talk about the 'free market' in terms of unlimited power and zero responsibility are US left wingers, usually of the more crazy variety. Folks I've heard talk about the 'free market' in terms of zero regulation and total freedom are generally the loonier libertarian types. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be a mainstream political discussion point that I've ever heard of....and definitely not 'the only definition' of 'free market' as applied to US political thought.

-XT

What we have in the USA is too little regulation, because of the philosophy that the market should be left as much as possible to manage itself without interference. We've had regulations that were applied after the last great crash in 1929, that were repealed to encourage the free market in financial gambling; leading to the next great crash of 2008. We have too little regulation of energy and fuel efficiency, leading to too much greenhouses gases. Our free health care market has resulted in higher insurance premiums than in other countries. Government agencies like the FDA and EPA get way too little funds, resulting in the poisoning of our food and water. Union rules have been abolished so that it is harder for workers to be represented at the bargaining table. Taxes are not enough to cover the expenses of government, because higher taxes are incorrectly assumed to hurt jobs by taking money away from "job creaters." And so on.

The free market philosophy is dominant. It may not have won a complete victory, but keep letting the tea party control congress, and they will try to gain it.

[Eric the Green]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever. If you are asserting that food commodities don't fluctuate in price, well, that is obviously false. I suspect your inability or unwillingness to understand economics is hindering your ability to understand how this undermines your position.

You appear to be calling for a new progressive movement that doesn't know what it is talking about, and is deeply committed to courses of action that haven't been thought thru beyond sloganeering.

We already have one of those, so the competition for supporters among the gullible and misguided is likely to be fierce.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, maybe I haven't been good enough in justifying some of my positions, but then when you say other progressives are just as bad as me, you make my point. It is not me you are criticizing, but progressives, saying they are all as naive as you claim that I am.