# We really need a new progressive movement in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444 "2012-04-11T07:35:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/182 "2012-04-14T03:13:02Z")
[QUOTE=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? [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/183 "2012-04-14T04:26:29Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/184 "2012-04-14T04:28:00Z")
> [@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](http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/20000/3000/900/23955/23955.strip.zoom.gif). ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/185 "2012-04-14T04:33:16Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/186 "2012-04-14T05:21:26Z")
> [@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. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes:…😛 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. :rolleyes: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/187 "2012-04-14T06:17:02Z")
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/2010/10/19/china-charges-into-electric-cars/](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/19/china-charges-into-electric-cars/) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/188 "2012-04-14T06:23:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/189 "2012-04-14T06:27:48Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/190 "2012-04-14T07:12:06Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/191 "2012-04-14T14:16:13Z")
> [@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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Isis\_of\_the\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9f8e36/32.png) [@Isis\_of\_the\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isis_of_the_Well)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/192 "2012-04-14T14:35:32Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/193 "2012-04-14T16:11:09Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] 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™ 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™ 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](http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx), it hasn’t. Especially when you start doing little things like [adjusting for inflation](http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm). 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](http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/gasoline-tax-profits/) 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](http://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™ 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 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/194 "2012-04-14T17:33:43Z")
> [@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](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/). 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 ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/195 "2012-04-14T17:58:19Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/196 "2012-04-14T19:41:13Z")
> [@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 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/197 "2012-04-14T19:51:29Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/198 "2012-04-14T20:36:08Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/199 "2012-04-14T20:38:22Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/200 "2012-04-14T20:46:31Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/201 "2012-04-14T20:48:27Z")
> [@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](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/). 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=11)