We really need a new progressive movement in America

[QUOTE=septimus]
If Eric the Green had simply posted links to the columns of Paul Krugman, the detractors in this thread would have had no answer, or resorted to snark about how worthless Nobel Prizes are.
[/QUOTE]

Are you volunteering? If so, feel free to quote Krugman or other sources in the context of what we’ve been discussing in this thread. My guess is Krugman would be closer to the ‘detractors in this thread’ on the topics under discussion than to the OP, but we won’t know until someone does the leg work to put together Krugman cites laying out his positions wrt the discussion.

It’s interesting that you think that pulling the Krugman card is a fiat win, and that ‘the detractors in this thread’ would have no ‘answer’ to anything he might say on a given subject.

-XT

[QUOTE=Eric the Green]
It’s not a big deal, but it is strange that a board has its own language. There are new people here all the time. I think people would do better just to speak English and use the term reference like everyone else. It would facilitate communication. But I was mainly being sarcastic; I won’t ignore your points.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it strange that the board has it’s own language? EVERY message board has it’s own language, inside jokes, shorthand for certain terms and foibles and idiosyncratic behaviors. That’s what good message boards are all about. Why should we change simply to accommodate new posters? It’s on a new poster to learn the board, how it operates and how it ticks, and whether this community is for the new poster,or if they should move on to another board that better suits them. WE all had to do that when we were new posters. I lurked for years before I started posting here.

My advice on this unrelated topic is to take it slow, read some threads, do some searches on subjects that interest you and see how those threads progressed and how the boards culture impacts the style and type of posts and arguments used, do some searches on Mod actions and notes and read through the FAQs in each forum to make sure you don’t get hammered, and then dip a toe in slowly. Trying to rush in as you have and posting as you have is not going to win you many supporters even from the many, many 'dopers on this board who ARE liberal/progressive types and would be more sympathetic to your broader stance.

Just MHO there, FWIW. Having seen newbies come in with the same attitudes and how many lasted more than a little while, I’d seriously consider the advice. Also, keep in mind that this is GD here…if you let your temper get out of hand you WILL be hammered. Flat. Take it to the Pit if you want to vent.

-XT

Here’s Krugman arguingthat the 2008 spike in oil was not caused by oil futures market speculators.

[QUOTE=Paul Krugman]
But the mysticism over how speculation is supposed to drive prices drives me crazy, professionally.

Any effect on the spot market has to be indirect: someone who actually has oil to sell decides to sell a futures contract to Joe Shmoe, and holds oil off the market so he can honor that contract when it comes due; this is worth doing if the futures price is sufficiently above the current price to more than make up for the storage and interest costs.

As I’ve tried to point out, there just isn’t any evidence from the inventory data that this is happening.

And here’s one more fact: by and large, futures prices over the period of the big price runup have been slightly below spot prices. The figure below shows monthly data from the EIA; as the spot price shot up, the futures price actually lagged a bit behind. In other words, there hasn’t been any incentive to hoard.
[/QUOTE]

:confused: Did you even try to understand my post? I’ve already conceded that OP is “wrong in almost every detail here”; why would I expect Krugman to support him? :confused:

Where OP is right (and where Krugman tends to agree with him) is in the big picture:
[QUOTE=Eric the Green]
We really need a new progressive movement in America
A movement that will reject the free market as the utopian solution to our economic problems, and instead advocate a mixed economy…

A movement for campaign finance reform and lobbying reform to take money out of politics, and to stop defining political spending as “free speech.”

A movement to … regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government …
[/QUOTE]

Why debate me? I may be more knowledgeable than OP, but certainly not in the league of Krugman.

If the underlying issues OP tried to raise are of interest to you, and you think he and Krugman are both wrong, read a few Krugman columns at random, link to the “worst” one and debate it.

This thread does have some aspects of a group mugging, IMHO. Many of the posters here have not directly called Eric names, but the tone has been rude and aggressive.

You may be the one who needs that advice, IMO

No, I thought she made a good case that they are also a result of race.

I think whatever I bring, you’ll likely have the same reaction.

Who are you to tell me what is not up to me to tell other posters?

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
This thread does have some aspects of a group mugging, IMHO. Many of the posters here have not directly called Eric names, but the tone has been rude and aggressive.
[/QUOTE]
Gee whiz, you’re breaking my heart here.

Yes, I will likely ask for facts and logic the next time you post some overblown piece of non-factually-based nonsense.

Somebody who at least knows what a “cite” is. Also somebody who is less than startled to see the reactions of a newbie who has stepped out of his weight class.

Like XT says, you might want to read up a bit and see how things get done around here. It’s an interesting place, one of the best on the 'Net in my opinion, but you are going to need your A game.

Or not, as you prefer.

Regards,
Shodan

Whatever facts I bring, you will call nonsense. Because you are committed to the opposing view to mine, whatever the facts are.

Somebody who thinks he has a right to tell other posters what to say. :rolleyes: :smack:

I won’t be playing with you.

If car companies can make an electric car and batteries today, why couldn’t they make them two or three decades ago? Did the physics of how to make a battery change in that time? No, it’s because the CEOs of the car companies decided not to do the research and development. Without government prodding and investment, change for the better does not occur. Only change that might make a profit.

I think your general point here is correct, but this doesn’t make much sense. Speaking as one poster to another, I can see you’re taking a lot of fire in this thread, but try not to take it as a personal reproof. You can learn something from debates like this if you evaluate the arguments objectively.

The eternal cry of the Newbie Refuted.

You are perfectly free to say what you like, subject to the rules - I am not a moderator.

But your little effort to tell XT to stop arguing with you and “move on” when it was painfully obvious that the reason was that you had been badly worsted in the debate was a little too transparent.

You can’t just post this unsubstantiated garbage and say “it’s obvious that I am right”. Or rather, you can do it, but if you expect it to get very far, “get used to disappointment”.

Regards,
Shodan

I think it makes sense. We’ve known of the need to convert to electric cars for decades now. And despite what XL says, GM did abandon work on one in the 1990s. They could have made one then, and earlier. Nothing has changed in the universe in this time; some research and development would have made electric cars happen earlier. What doesn’t make sense?

One thing I have learned is how many tenacious defenders of the current economic system there are on this board. Nothing is more detrimental to our society and its future today than free market ideology. But you’re right, it may lead me to work out my arguments better to deal with these guys. It is evident that not only would I not change the minds of folks like Shodan, XL and Blake, no matter how many facts and how much logic I posted, but they would go on posting the same arguments over and over as if I had said nothing. It is a bit of an eye opener. Tenacious believers here are more of a challenge than they are on Theology Online! But as for Shodan, he has completely discredited himself with me; he is on my ignore list; the first one here, and I have only put a few people on ignore on other forums over the last 14 years; 5 total including him.

The statement “If car companies can make an electric car and batteries today, why couldn’t they make them two or three decades ago?” As an argument it doesn’t make any sense: compare "if Apple can make an iPad now, why couldn’t they make them two or three decades ago? I agree that car companies dragged their feet on new technologies and showed little interest in things like increased fuel efficiency, and if that hadn’t been the case, we’d be further along than we are. But as it is, electric cars are a dicey investment, which means that in some alternate history, they would have still been one initially.

The whole argument over oil speculators was just a challenge from someone who question my OP statement that prices are too high and need to be brought down in “transportation,” among other things. Commodity market speculation is just one aspect of that. The following quote is not put forward as proof, but it shows I am not the only “freshman” who writes “screeds” (what a ridiculous word) to that effect:

THE drastic rise in the price of oil and gasoline is in part the result of forces beyond our control: as high-growth countries like China and India increase the demand for petroleum, the price will go up.

But there are factors contributing to the high price of oil that we can do something about. Chief among them is the effect of “pure” speculators — investors who buy and sell oil futures but never take physical possession of actual barrels of oil. These middlemen add little value and lots of cost as they bid up the price of oil in pursuit of financial gain. They should be banned from the world’s commodity exchanges, which could drive down the price of oil by as much as 40 percent and the price of gasoline by as much as $1 a gallon.

Today, speculators dominate the trading of oil futures. According to Congressional testimony by the commodities specialist Michael W. Masters in 2009, the oil futures markets routinely trade more than one billion barrels of oil per day. Given that the entire world produces only around 85 million actual “wet” barrels a day, this means that more than 90 percent of trading involves speculators’ exchanging “paper” barrels with one another.

Because of speculation, today’s oil prices of about $100 a barrel have become disconnected from the costs of extraction, which average $11 a barrel worldwide. Pure speculators account for as much as 40 percent of that high price, according to testimony that Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, gave to Congress last year. That estimate is bolstered by a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Many economists contend that speculation on oil futures is a good thing, because it increases liquidity and better distributes risk, allowing refiners, producers, wholesalers and consumers (like airlines) to “hedge” their positions more efficiently, protecting themselves against unseen future shifts in the price of oil.

But it’s one thing to have a trading system in which oil industry players place strategic bets on where prices will be months into the future; it’s another thing to have a system in which hedge funds and bankers pump billions of purely speculative dollars into commodity exchanges, chasing a limited number of barrels and driving up the price. The same concern explains why the United States government placed limits on pure speculators in grain exchanges after repeated manipulations of crop prices during the Great Depression.

The market for oil futures differs from the markets for other commodities in the sheer size and scope of trading and in the impact it has on a strategically important resource. There is a fundamental difference between oil futures and, say, orange juice futures. If orange juice gets too pricey (perhaps because of a speculative bubble), we can easily switch to apple juice. The same does not hold with oil. Higher oil prices act like a choke-chain on the economy, dragging down profits for ordinary businesses and depressing investment.

When I started buying and selling oil more than 30 years ago for my nonprofit organization, speculation wasn’t a significant aspect of the industry. But in 1991, just a few years after oil futures began trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, Goldman Sachs made an argument to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that Wall Street dealers who put down big bets on oil should be considered legitimate hedgers and granted an exemption from regulatory limits on their trades.

The commission granted an exemption that ultimately allowed Goldman Sachs to process billions of dollars in speculative oil trades. Other exemptions followed. By 2008, eight investment banks accounted for 32 percent of the total oil futures market. According to a recent analysis by McClatchy, only about 30 percent of oil futures traders are actual oil industry participants.

Congress was jolted into action when it learned of the full extent of Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s lax oversight. In the wake of the economic crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law required greater trading transparency and limited speculators who lacked a legitimate business-hedging purpose to positions of no greater than 25 percent of the futures market.

This is an important step, but limiting speculators in the oil markets doesn’t go far enough. Even with the restrictions currently in place, those eight investment banks alone can severely inflate the price of oil. Federal legislation should bar pure oil speculators entirely from commodity exchanges in the United States. And the United States should use its clout to get European and Asian markets to follow its lead, chasing oil speculators from the world’s commodity markets.

Eliminating pure speculation on oil futures is a question of fairness. The choice is between a world of hedge-fund traders who make enormous amounts of money at the expense of people who need to drive their cars and heat their homes, and a world where the fundamentals of life — food, housing, health care, education and energy — remain affordable for all.

Joseph P. Kennedy II, a former United States representative from Massachusetts, is the founder, chairman and president of Citizens Energy Corporation.

You need to familiarize yourself with the rules around here: you’re not allowed to state that a poster is on your ignore list unless you’re in the Pit. Speaking more generally: no, there are plenty of posters you’re never going to win over. But that doesn’t mean that your argument is without flaws and that they’re being contrary just for the hell of it.

I disagree completely. They were built and abandoned a decade and more ago, so yes they could have replaced fossil fuel cars by now. Apple could have made an ipod 3 decades ago, if research had achieved that point by then. But that’s apples and oranges, so to speak. ipads were products created to create a market, not fill a need. They did not exist before. It is obvious that the car companies did not want to change to electric because of the need for a healthy climate or even to head off an oil shortage. Corporations usually do not consider anything but profit, and they are averse to change. The people and the government through movements need to help create these changes. The market would not have done so. Unlike the ipad, this is not some new thing that didn’t exist; just a new engine for the same product as before. The analogy does not fit.

Excuses for our corporate system, and justifications for it as “free enterprise,” have captured too many minds, and obviously most minds here. This is anything but a “liberal” board as someone said, but very conservative. It is a lot of people here who are the freshmen writing screeds, screaming that they are well-informed about economics and that I am not. Not so by a long shot.

Oh, and electric cars existed long ago; they are not new by any means. Oil was easier and more profitable I’m sure 90-100 years ago, but that’s different from saying they needed to be invented.