What a weird assertion, implying that to eliminate poverty and clean up the environment (two wholly unrelated ideas) we should eliminate the corporations. The resulting massive unemployment and cessation of water purification and farming ought to make for prosperity and pristine rivers. We can be just like Bombay in the 18th century!
Lib!
I didn’t say ELIMINATE them, I said sticking it to them.
Totally different.
I meant, regulation(per environmental help), quitting corporate welfare instead of welafare for poor women, ya doofus.
Hey how much for that hemp shirt?
"That’ll be $9.98.
Okay, here’s $10.00.
“And two cents is your change.”
Big deal, what am I gonna do with two cents?
Well…
I think at least part of the answer lies within. Few would claim that environmentalists represent single unified body of thought, as both Barbarian and VarlosZ pointed out. In much the same way that to say you’re religious doesn’t explain much either.
In your rendition of the inconsistency between principles and practice, I’d agree that free market environmentalists (a la Terry Anderson, Don Leal, and Paul Hawken) would see value in high energy costs assuming that this necessarily led to less pollution. However, there are plenty of other folks out there who just try to find some balance between what is good and what is right. **Good ** here represents maybe what we are morally encouraged to do, but not required to do–like giving to charity or buying locally grown produce. Right here represents what is morally required, or the moral minimum–like thou shalt not kill (obvious exceptions noted), or thou shalt not dump dirty engine oil into the stream. In an effort to find this balance there are likely to be disagreements on if something is right or if something is good. Where disagreements exist there is a perceived inconsistency between principle and practice.
Of course there most certainly are folks who find themselves unable to reconcile this problem, which to me would illustrate a poorly conceived of environmental ethic.
Just my two cents.
i got some Pets.com stock that right now is really low in price, so by your high school textbook’s logic, i should be fending off people with a club…
welcome to America…
let’s see here… votes, money, media exposure, fears of a recession causing relaxation of enviromental laws in order to boost business, actually caring about other people (it does happen!), people who sniff gasoline that are tired of paying more, and the alien conspiracy (stupid greys…)
i could name a few religions for you if you like, you can argue that they are not a monopoly in USA, but try that in Iran
minty green wrote:
I’ve heard it said that many environmental organizations resemble a watermelon: they’re green on the outside, but commie-red on the inside.
Of course you do know that stocks aren’t really a commodity and therefore don’t operate under the same “laws” of supply and demand right?
Grim
I think the main point that you’re missing (at least when it comes to individual leftist–the politicians can all fry for what I care), is that there are issues to be balanced, and that gas prices and energy prices are entirely separate issues.
If gas prices go up, then it’s true that the working class gets hit the hardest by it, and I think that’s why the House Dems are in support of price caps (personally, I’m not–but that’s because I’ve always made sure to put myself in a situation where gas prices aren’t a personal crisis. All the same, I understand the rationale).
Energy prices, on the other hand, really do stick it to everybody, and again, the people who suffer most are those who have the least to spend. At least in this country, there is some minimum of energy usage that is required for most people’s life: if you get out of work at 8pm, you’re going to need the lights on to fix dinner. Power being a (functional) necessity, I believe there should be price caps on it.
Granted, these are just personal beliefs, but I think the ideas are at least similar…
fine, how about pumpkin futures on November 1st?
I plead guilty to the condescending charge. Also, I wasn’t particularly clear. Let me clarify. In most cases price caps lead to shortages: demand at a given price is greater than the quantity supplied (at that price). The situation in California is an exception to that general rule.
Furthermore, the current shortage is one of electrical capacity, not energy, so that what’s really required is for consumers to cut back on energy usage at particular times, when electrical production is near 100% capacity. Now the best way to deliver this outcome would be to vary electrical rates according to how scarce electricity is and provide a feasible method for consumers to adjust their demand. As I noted above, web-based systems for large users (ie businesses) are currently under development.
A decent indirect way to curb consumer peak-usage would be to raise electrical rates for high-energy users -i.e. those who use their air conditioners a lot. I understand that a plan for such an increase is in the works.
THE POINT: simply raising the base consumer rate is not necessarily the most targeted method of reducing peak-usage. That’s the demand side. On the supply side, price caps can encourage greater energy production, as long as the cap is set above the long-run competitive price.
More precisely, supply and demand do operate on stock price, but the benchmark price is shifting continuously. E.g., Petsmart closed today at 4.28. If it opens at a similar price tomorrow, you could find a big supply available at a higher offered pirce – say $5 per share. Or, if you offered to sell some for $3,50 a share there would be a large demand.
flowbark wrote:
That’s something I’ve wondered about. Long distance telephone service rates are lower in the middle of the night than they are during the day, because the phone company’s lines aren’t under nearly as much heavy usage during off-hours as they are during peak hours. So why don’t electric energy costs work the same way? Why is the consumer’s cost per kilowatt-hour the same no matter what time of day those kilowatt-hours are consumed?
Surely, it must be easier to supply electrical power at 3 o’clock in the morning (when hardly anybody is pulling down any watts) than at 8 p.m. (during peak electrical usage hours).
I asked:
Woops … never mind. I just figured out why the utility companies don’t vary their price by time-of-day.
It’s because residential electric energy meters don’t record when energy was used, only the cumulative total of how much energy has been used.
Hmmm … sounds like we need power meters that can communicate with the utility company in real time…
You mean they don’t already? That’s a relief!
::removes tinfoil-lined hat::
Hijack!
Supply and demand do operate in a limited sense on stock price. However, stock is an abstraction of the value of a given company. If there is a total of 10 million shares of a given company with… say 2 million shares outstanding the price of the stock will fluctuate due to news about the company, developments in the companies industry or market, general nationwide economic trends, etc. even though the total number of shares available (the supply) to the public never changed (it’s remained constant at 10 million).
Back to our regularly scheduled programming…
Grim
Yup. Via the internet, maybe. Here’s a link:
http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/abstract.asp?pID=116&print=true
Grim – Recommend you read a basic econ book. A new one by Thomas Sowell is well-written.
The MARKET PRICE of a stock or commodity is what supply and demand produce in a free market. There is a supply curve that shows how big supply would be at a given price, and, similarly, a demand curve. The market price or going price is the price where supply and demand are equal. The quoted price of a stock is determined by the supply curve and the demand curve. These curves fluctuate all the time due to the reasons you list. The fluctuations in the supply and demand curves the cause the fluctuations in quoted price.
Your observation that the number of shares is fixed is beside the point. The total amount of any economic good is generally fixed, e.g. land, capital, metal, fuel, etc.
If this looks as murky to you as it does to me, try Sowell’s book – it’s clearer.
You guys are missing the point, so perhaps I didn’t state it explicitly enough.
Most of the arguments here have been along the lines of “why the environmentalists might want low energy prices”, with much discussion of the fact that they might want to help the little guy, they might be worried about a recession causing environmental problems, etc.
This ignores the fact that the SAME people are actually in favor of higher prices in the form of tariffs on energy. The Green Party has been in favor of vastly increased energy taxes in order to stimulate conservation and research into alternative fuels. Higher energy taxes were also a part of the Democratic Party platform.
So now that prices are rising on their own, the same people are in favor of tax breaks, price caps, and other artificial methods to keep the prices low. And what’s startling is the unanimity of that opinion. It’s not just the odd wildcard - the environmental left seems to be pretty much unified behind the idea of price caps or some sort of state intervention to provide more energy to people. As I said, the Sierra Club, the Green Party, and the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have all come out in favor of this. Some of the most extreme people are actually proposing a complete confiscation of energy infrastructure in order to provide more energy to the people at a fixed price.
So, how do you reconcile the two attitudes?
Okay, here’s my opinion: It’s because the rise of energy prices through market mechanisms is a THREAT to organized environmental groups. They don’t just want a clean planet. They want CONTROL over how the planet is to be run. In other words, if given the choice between people cutting back of their own free will due to higher prices, or people cutting back because the environmental lobby controls access to energy, they’ll choose the latter every time, even if the outcome is the same.
I’m painting with a broad brush here, so let’s all agree that there are exceptions to everything. But it’s always seemed to me that throughout all of the varied opinions on the left there is a strong undercurrent of authoritarianism. Look at school vouchers - there are certainly arguments for and against them, but that doesn’t explain the near hysteria of many people on the left when it comes to vouchers. Why? Because even if they work, they take control away from bureaucrats who run education.
Another example is Bush’s tax cut. Look at the difference between the Republican and Democratic proposals - forget the difference in amount of money, but look at how they wanted the tax cut dispersed. The Republicans are in favor of across-the-board cuts. In other words, the government has no say in who gets what. But the Democrats want to ‘target’ the cuts. This gives them power and control over the economy. They can use the tax code to reward and punish the things they want.
So there you have it. The environmentalists don’t just want a clean planet, they want power and control over the environment. They’re against natural price increases, but if prices were flat the same people would be saying that the price is too low and that we should tax people to bring the price up. They’re upset that people can’t have all the energy they want because of supply and demand, but if there was an unlimited supply they would advocate rationing to cut demand and limit access anyway.
The common demoninator throughout - big government, authoritarianism, and their gaining more power over our lives.
Simplicity itself, my dear pillager of the planet. When energy prices rise because of market forces, the big evil corporations keep all the extra money. When energy prices rise because of taxes, the money goes to food stamps and socialized medicine. Sheesh, what kind of conservative are you to miss that distinction?
Either way, I laugh my ass off at all the Ford Expedition owners. Funny stuff, I’m telling you.
I suppose the topic of this thread is, “Are environmentalists completely confused?” I say they’re not, but that touches on some policy issues that are perhaps better discussed here.
Anyway, I’m curious (respond in the other thread, if you feel like it.) Are you saying that households should be charged the spot price of electricity? I assert that there are better ways of resolving the current California energy crunch.
As an environmentalist though, I’d still like to put a tax on carbon dioxide, (say $10 per ton of CO2). In effect, that would encourage fuel switching away from coal, along with a somewhat higher price of electricity. (Too bad for Anthracite. 
)
If I wanted to reduce medium or long run household electrical demand, I wouldn’t engineer a temporary 16 month price spike; I’d take steps to encourage the purchase of more fuel-efficient home appliances. That might involve fuel efficiency standards (or taxes or feebates) or it might involve charging a somewhat higher price for electricity over the medium and short run.
Anyway, I’m heading in for the evening…
Oh, puh-leeze.
I consider myself on the left because as far as I’m concerned it’s youse guys over on the right who are so damned authoritarian. You know the usual suspects: morality through censorship, eliminating the separation of church and state, etc., etc. This conclusion about the left you’re trying to push won’t stand up to the light of examination.
I mean, I agree with you totally on the hypocrisy being displayed on this issue. I caught Daschle being hammered by some congressman from Alaska for this, and I remember that Daschle looked really, really bad. Because, really, his position was just totally untenable.
But to extrapolate from this to the idea that we’re all a bunch of rabid authoritarians is a bit, well, odd. The ACLU fights for the Bill of Rights every day, and I don’t think that’s because they’re in love with authority.