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…
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.
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.
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.
“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.
But that’s what I AM talking about.
Obviously true, which however has absolutely no bearing on the problem I am discussing.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Unlike some of the other posts on this thread, you make some good points about my OP.
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.
My OP was general principles; details can and have been filled in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not at all, and clarified above.
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!
Mostly, yes.
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.
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.
It enriches the culture we all live in. But I understand your reluctance. It should be mostly supported by itself.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Or maybe a better question would have been “why should my taxes go towards the arts instead of social safety nets or education?”
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
