# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/142 "2012-04-13T20:14:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The entire OP is a great big straw man so why don’t you step off? > > But if you like more specifics:… 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. I’m not looking to have you busted, mind, I have felt the crisp lash of **TomnDeb’s** disapproval, and wouldn’t wish it on you for such a miss of demeanor. I still wake up in a cold sweat, some nights… ---
**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 13, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/143 "2012-04-13T20:24:23Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Eric _is_ (well, mostly) right - it just sounds like he thinks it’s terribly easy to do the things he’s right about. Not easy at all. I just reject the idea that the difficulty is inherently in the proposals. The difficulties are mainly political: the natural unwillingness of the wealthy and powerful to give up some of their wealth and power, and their ability to deceive the people with tempting and convincing ideologies. I thought I was clear on that. ---
**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 13, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/144 "2012-04-13T20:38:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, they don’t. You are what we commonly refer to as ‘wrong’. Speculators speculate (I mean, duh) on what they THINK the price will be in the future on a given commodity. They base their expectation on what they think that price might be in the future on various factors. In the case of oil, little things like ‘will there be a war in the region’, or ‘will Iran stop selling oil to Europe’ or ‘will production levels start to come back up in Libya during this time period’…to name but a few. They absolutely don’t set the price. 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. > [@](#): > > Going further, OPEC, the oil cartel, doesn’t even ‘set’ the price…not technically. They set production, which INFLUENCES the price. They have a much larger impact on the price than ‘speculators’ do. 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. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry that you think I’m parsing your words as some sort of obstruction tactic (:p), and that by doing so it points out some really basic flaws and misunderstanding you have about how all this stuff actually works. “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. > [@](#): > > If you want to talk about free market policies, then we can certainly talk about them, though I’m not exactly sanguine about your understanding of that topic either. But that’s what I AM talking about. > [@](#): > > So no…it wasn’t clear…you made a statement that speculators can charge anything they want now…which is a ridiculous statement, good only for laughs. If they could charge anything they wanted then THEY WOULD DO SO. They don’t because they can’t…because ‘the market’, which is basically you, me and everyone and every entity that buys stuff, wouldn’t pay any arbitrary price set at the whim of speculators. You wouldn’t pay that one billioncagillionsccillionshoobydofentillon yen for that barrel of oil. Obviously true, which however has absolutely no bearing on the problem I am discussing. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying you have to be an expert…I’m say you need to understand the basics to be able to talk about this stuff and not sound like an idiot who doesn’t know a god damned thing. 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. > [@](#): > > So, your example of price fixing boils down to ‘public utilities’. I guess I wasn’t paying attention, as I couldn’t believe that this was the sum total of the evidence being brought to bear to support your conclusion there. You can be sure that after this post I’ll be paying even less attention…thanks for helping me out there. Wouldn’t want to waste my time. 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.” > [@](#): > > They weren’t irrelevant…I was trying (in vain) to get you to think and use your mind. Basically, your assertion here boils down to a conspiracy theory…a GLOBAL conspiracy theory…by the big oil companies to keep people using oil instead of changing to electrical or fossil fuels. 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.” > [@](#): > > And to fix this vast conspiracy is to have the government, by fiat, force a switch to non-fossil fuels based transport. Is that a good summary of what you are getting at, or did I fail to pay attention again to your sketchy plan? I mean you want to ‘Make fuel efficiency standards so high that only electric cars (or at first, hybrids) can meet them’. Would this be only for new cars or for all cars? Let’s assume you aren’t completely crazy and say it’s only for new cars. Which leads to…how would manufacturers meet the demand and produce all those electric cars or hybrid cars (and only top end high mileage hybrid cars, since many non-hybrid cars get better gas mileage than some hybrids)? How would people be able to afford these new cars? What effect would this have on the poor and middle class who might not be able to afford to spend $30-40k on a new car? 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. > [@](#): > > And that’s just to start…there are myriad questions, none of which are ‘irrelevant’ that could, should and would be asked about such a ridiculous plan before anyone would take it seriously. 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. > [@](#): > > And answering with vague assertions of a global conspiracy while demonstrating a keen lack of anything resembling even basic knowledge on the topic is less than ideal in getting anyone to listen to what you are trying to say…at least getting anyone who has even a passing understanding of things like commodities trading, economics, hybrid and electric vehicles, the free market…and any of the other subjects you’ve chosen to not only discuss but to attempt to put forth (vague, to be sure) ‘solutions’ to the ‘problems’. > > It’s hard to solve anything if you don’t even understand the basics. > > -XT 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. ---
**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 13, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/145 "2012-04-13T20:52:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If (the principles stated in the OP) were so obvious, they would have been adopted. But they haven’t been adopted. Therefore they are not as obvious as you seem to think. That does not follow at all. They have not been adopted because the people with power and money have resisted them and convinced the people to support them with misleading free-market slogans. > [@](#): > > Responding to the suggestion that banning the oil business might be deleterious to the economy by saying the government needs to do things for us shows, as I said, a severe lack of understanding of how things actually work. > > Regards, > Shodan 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. It is a question of CHANGING “how things work,” because they are not working well for us, and we are not required to accept “how things work” just because people such as yourself claim that any request for change betrays a lack of understanding of “how things work.” ---
**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 13, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/146 "2012-04-13T21:14:32Z")
[quote=“msmith537, post:140, topic:618444”] Unlike some of the other posts on this thread, you make some good points about my OP. > [@](#): > > We have that already. We don’t live in a laissez faire capitalist economy. What else would you like to mix it with? Our economy is weighted strongly toward laissez faire, and needs to be more mixed with “socialism” again as it was before Reaganomics. Conversion to greater laissez faire since 1981 has only worked for the wealthy. > [@](#): > > Vague and meaningless. Define “need”? My OP was general principles; details can and have been filled in. > [@](#): > > You can’t take money out of politics because politics and economics are intrinsically tied together. Yes you can, and no they’re not. Public financing, spending and contribution limits, and free access to public media would make politics independent of who has the most money. > [@](#): > > Again, vague and meaningless. There are already a shitload of Federal regulatory agencies and laws. And what is it about “corporate personhood” you think you would like to change? Your point here is more like the other nonsense people have posted. This is not vague at all. Regulations were thrown out and need to be reinstated. Ever hear of Glass-Steagall? How about _abolishing_ corporate personhood? Is that enough of a “change” for you? It’s obvious from what I said. > [@](#): > > Contradictory. There is an inherent conflict between providing security and surveillance and freedom. Too much of one results in a police state and too much of the other results in anarchy. Obviously, my statement means the balance has tipped too far toward security. Holding suspects without trial or access to attorneys is too far; warrantless spying is too far. There was never any need to curtail basic American rights to protect Americans from terrorists. Inspections work just fine. > [@](#): > > Also contradictory. The religious right also has freedom of speech and religion. You should be supporting First Amendment sepration of church and state. End the right’s culture war. That does not mean ending their right to speak; where did I say that? It means defeat them and their proposals. > [@](#): > > Overly simplistic. Not at all, and clarified above. > [@](#): > > Contradicts your views on “corporate welfare” as it pertains to the clean energy industry. Here you have a good point. Supporting new clean energies could be “corporate welfare,” but I support it because it is in the national interest. These were loans which can hopefully be paid back. More permanent support when the industry is already established would be where the problem comes in-- as in subsidies for oil companies. Now THAT is **Corporate Welfare** capitalized! > [@](#): > > Helps them do what? Protect them from what? Are you talking about social safety nets? Mostly, yes. > [@](#): > > More corporate welfare. > > Not to mention if you make transportation costs cheaper, we will just burn through fossil fuels more quickly. That is a good point too. I just don’t think we should have to pay higher prices than necessary. But the real need is to jump-start clean energy so there is competition to the gas sold by the now-subsidized oil companies. That would bring down gas prices and pollution too. > [@](#): > > We already have a progressive tax structure. No, that was virtually destroyed by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts; especially the latter. Of course, Republicans and Libertarians want to push this even further, and their plans need to be opposed. Enacting the Buffet rule and repealing the Bush tax cuts would restore a “progressive” system. > [@](#): > > Why should my taxes pay for that stuff? It enriches the culture we all live in. But I understand your reluctance. It should be mostly supported by itself. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/147 "2012-04-13T21:32:14Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > That does not follow at all. They have not been adopted because the people with power and money have resisted them and convinced the people to support them with misleading free-market slogans. Or else a lot of people aren’t dumb enough to fall for these kinds of assertions without evidence or logic behind them. > [@](#): > > It is a question of CHANGING “how things work,” because they are not working well for us, and we are not required to accept “how things work” just because people such as yourself claim that any request for change betrays a lack of understanding of “how things work.” It’s not any request for change that gets rejected - just the ones that the proposers either can’t, or won’t, defend, or their defense makes no sense. Especially the ones where repetition takes the place of logic. > [@](#): > > 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. Please provide evidence that the purpose of economics is to convince people not to change for the better. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 13, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/148 "2012-04-13T21:40:52Z")
> [@Jilaad](#): > > Talking about the virtues of “right-thinking people” (aka people who agree with what you’re saying) is totally the Sarah Palin “Real Americans” move - people who disagree with you must be wrong-thinking. You’ve directly called half the country idiots, uninformed, and lazy. If you want to convince people to join your cause, insulting them starts you off on the wrong foot. 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. > [@](#): > > You’ve said several times that the solutions are simple and obvious, that everyone knows that needs to be done. You’ve also said several times that you are “right” and just left it at that with nothing to back it up. If you want to convince people to join your cause, just asserting that you’re right isn’t going to do it. > > You’ve been asked a lot of legitimate questions about things you’ve said, and people have pointed out possible negative consequences of your ideas. Instead of answering the questions or demonstrating how the pros outweigh the cons, you wave it all away by calling people obstructionists and say that the things just need to be done. It sure would have been nice if Bush thought through what would happen after taking out Saddam though, wouldn’t it? Asking “how are we going to pay for two wars when we have this giant tax cut” just seems prudent doesn’t it, and not obstructionist? It cuts both ways. Just thinking about this tactically, you’re trying to win people to your side. That means they’re not on your side right now. They’re bound to have questions about your policies and how they would work. Right? They shouldn’t just take you at your word with no evidence; that’s what’s wrong with Fox News, right? 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. ---
**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 13, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/149 "2012-04-13T21:51:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Or else a lot of people aren’t dumb enough to fall for these kinds of assertions without evidence or logic behind them. There’s plenty of evidence and logic and I mentioned some. The proposals in my OP don’t come out of the blue; legislation is in congress, or existed before in law, for many of them. The reason they are not adopted is _politics_. Glass-Steagall for example; _why has that not been reinstated_? Because the financial lobby resisted it, and Republicans listened. No other reason. NOT having this law is what resulted in the great crash of 2008. People who worked in the industry confirmed this; I guess you didn’t see that. And yet I hear _people here say_ that “regulating the financial industry would have all sorts of costs.” Yet it worked well for 70 years, and things did _not_ work out well, as Sen. Dorgan predicted, when it was repealed. I think people need to take more account of obvious facts like this. Why don’t they, if not for being brainwashed by free market nostrums that were responsible for the repeal in the first place? > [@](#): > > It’s not any request for change that gets rejected - just the ones that the proposers either can’t, or won’t, defend, or their defense makes no sense. > > Especially the ones where repetition takes the place of logic. Please provide evidence that the purpose of economics is to convince people not to change for the better. > > Regards, > Shodan The fact that economists defend such ideas as are being defended here: that “this is the way things work,” as if there was no other way things could work. There are no “laws” or “principles” in this dismal science. Even “supply and demand” is not a “law.” Economists are just folks who argue for their point of view about how the economy should work, and the various schools consist of folks who advocate different policies that will work to the advantage of the group they favor. Tell me something in economics that is NOT like this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/150 "2012-04-13T21:56:43Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > The fact that economists defend such ideas as are being defended here: that “this is the way things work,” as if there was no other way things could work. There are no “laws” or “principles” in this dismal science. Even “supply and demand” is not a “law.” Economists are just folks who argue for their point of view about how the economy should work, and the various schools consist of folks who advocate different policies that will work to the advantage of the group they favor. Tell me something in economics that is NOT like this. 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 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/151 "2012-04-13T22:02:06Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > The fact that economists defend such ideas as are being defended here: that “this is the way things work,” as if there was no other way things could work. There are no “laws” or “principles” in this dismal science. Even “supply and demand” is not a “law.” Economists are just folks who argue for their point of view about how the economy should work, and the various schools consist of folks who advocate different policies that will work to the advantage of the group they favor. Tell me something in economics that is NOT like this. 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 ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/152 "2012-04-13T22:03:00Z")
> [@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. ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/153 "2012-04-13T22:03:01Z")
> [@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? ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/154 "2012-04-13T22:04:59Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/155 "2012-04-13T22:30:39Z")
> [@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?” > [@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? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/156 "2012-04-13T22:47:54Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/157 "2012-04-13T22:51:21Z")
> [@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? > [@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? ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/158 "2012-04-13T22:54:22Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/159 "2012-04-13T22:54:32Z")
> [@](#): > > …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. ---
**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 13, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/160 "2012-04-13T22:58:10Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/161 "2012-04-13T22:59:10Z")
> [@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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=9)