PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Manufacture "Economic Crimes"


BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 06:46 PM
Democrats Manufacture Economic Crimes (http://www.mises.org/story/2129)

http://www.mises.org/images4/economiccrimes.jpg


Republicans Target Economic Crimes too (http://www.mises.org/story/2128)

banyon
05-08-2006, 07:15 PM
:p http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/BewareSpam.gif :)


j/k

penchief
05-08-2006, 07:15 PM
Democrats Manufacture Economic Crimes (http://www.mises.org/story/2129)

http://www.mises.org/images4/economiccrimes.jpg


Republicans Target Economic Crimes too (http://www.mises.org/story/2128)

Tell that to my Mom; a 62 year old woman who turns the keys at Rite-Aid for $8.15 an hour. She lost her overtime pay with that so called, "white-collar" overtime law passed by Bush's rubber-stamp congress.

Tell that to all the people whom I interact with on the job that have lost pensions because companies are being allowed to reneg on their legal obligations.

Tell that to the increasing multitudes that have to go without health insurance (including innocent children). I know plenty of 'em. Did it myself for some time.

Tell that to those who can barely provide for their families on their current wages. Especially when you throw in the fact that a 1988 Chevy pickup costs over $80 to fill the tank.

Tell that to the seniors who are slowly coming to recognize that they've been bamboozled by the Bush Administration's PharmiCare Program.

I could list examples all night long and the amazing thing is that this president and his republican rubber stamp congress fall on the side of their benefactors every single time. They are bought and paid for by the eco-political elite (i.e. the establishment).

I think it's time that we American's settle our differences and take back our government before this neo-fascist oligarchy really believes that it rightfully belongs to them.

patteeu
05-08-2006, 07:19 PM
Democrats Manufacture Economic Crimes (http://www.mises.org/story/2129)

http://www.mises.org/images4/economiccrimes.jpg


Republicans Target Economic Crimes too (http://www.mises.org/story/2128)

Good articles. Thanks for the links. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 07:22 PM
Tell that to my Mom; a 62 year old woman who turns the keys at Rite-Aid for $8.15 an hour. She lost her overtime pay with that so called, "white-collar" overtime law passed by Bush's rubber-stamp congress.

Tell that to all the people whom I interact with on the job that have lost pensions because companies are being allowed to reneg on their legal obligations.

Tell that to the increasing multitudes that have to go without health insurance (including innocent children). I know plenty of 'em. Did it myself for some time.

Tell that to those who can barely provide for their families on their current wages. Especially when you throw in the fact that a 1988 Chevy pickup costs over $80 to fill the tank.

Tell that to the seniors who are slowly coming to recognize that they've been bamboozled by the Bush Administration's PharmiCare Program.

I could list examples all night long and the amazing thing is that this president and his republican rubber stamp congress fall on the side of their benefactors every single time. They are bought and paid for by the eco-political elite (i.e. the establishment).

I think it's time that we American's settle our differences and take back our government before this neo-fascist oligarchy really believes that it rightfully belongs to them.

Did you even read what those were about?
There is no support there for the Bush administration or the GOP Congress...all the things you feel you are suffering from come from blunders on both sides. Those links are independent. Since there is little difference between what each side is doing.

If you really want improvement you'd see that...that is if you read it.
Admittedly they are long.

BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 07:32 PM
:p http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/BewareSpam.gif :)j/k
"All that Lenin learned about business from the tales of his comrades who occasionally sat in business offices was that it required a lot of scribbling, recording, and ciphering. Thus, he declares that accounting and control are the chief things necessary for the organizing and correct functioning of society. . . . Here we have the philosophy of the filing clerk in its full glory."-- ANTI-CAPITALIST MENTALITY by Ludwig VonMises


Guffaw!!!

j/k

penchief
05-08-2006, 07:48 PM
Did you even read what those were about?
There is no support there for the Bush administration either or the GOP Congress...all the things you feel you are suffering from come from blunders on both sides. Since there is little difference between what each side is doing.

If you really want improvement you'd look at a new way.

I'm suggesting that economic crimes are being committed against the working class (and even the middle class). The right wing always likes to say the the lefties are playing "class warfare." The most amazing and vile thing about that claim is that it is not class warfare to claim abuses. It is, however, class warfare to use your economic power to deprive fellow citizens of the means to provide for themselves and their families.

Privelege should not include the power to deprive others of basic human necesseties. It should not include the power to dictate to those of lesser means the conditions with which they are forced to live.

The basics of human dignity require that we treat each other with the appropriate amount of compassion. When some of us feel that we are entitled to more respect than others.....well, that's when we start having problems.

This economy is not what this administration is saying it is. Few is reaping luxury at the expense of Many's dignity. The numbers touted by the Darkside (i.e. Cheneyburton) is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in the real world.

I hope all of you Bush Apologists recognize that you have enabled this perversion of an administration. I hope you realize that you have been nothing more than Bush Tools. I don't necessarily see you as tools but the Retrocons sure do.

penchief
05-08-2006, 08:03 PM
I don't necessarily see you as tools but the Retrocons sure do.

On second thought, I do. If you're a tool, you're a tool.

patteeu
05-08-2006, 08:07 PM
I'm suggesting that economic crimes are being committed against the working class (and even the middle class). The right wing always likes to say the the lefties are playing "class warfare." The most amazing and vile thing about that claim is that it is not class warfare to claim abuses. It is, however, class warfare to use your economic power to deprive fellow citizens of the means to provide for themselves and their families.

Privelege should not include the power to deprive others of basic human necesseties. It should not include the power to dictate to those of lesser means the conditions with which they are forced to live.

The basics of human dignity require that we treat each other with the appropriate amount of compassion. When some of us feel that we are entitled to more respect than others.....well, that's when we start having problems.

This economy is not what this administration is saying it is. Few is reaping luxury at the expense of Many's dignity. The numbers touted by the Darkside (i.e. Cheneyburton) is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in the real world.

I hope all of you Bush Apologists recognize that you have enabled this perversion of an administration. I hope you realize that you have been nothing more than Bush Tools. I don't necessarily see you as tools but the Retrocons sure do.


You forgot to turn your information deflectors off, penchief. BucEyedPea is not a Bush apologist. Nor were those links in her OP apologies for Bush policies. They were critical of both the democrats and the Republicans. Open up a little and let some knowledge in.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2006, 08:09 PM
On second thought, I do. If you're a tool, you're a tool.

Anybody got a phillips-head Socialist? Or a Retro-con #20 Torx? I'm trying to get a project finished. ;)

penchief
05-08-2006, 08:24 PM
You forgot to turn your information deflectors off, penchief. BucEyedPea is not a Bush apologist. Nor were those links in her OP apologies for Bush policies. They were critical of both the democrats and the Republicans. Open up a little and let some knowledge in.

Yeah...but that stuff was way too boring. I wanted to cut right to the chase.

BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 09:07 PM
I'm suggesting that economic crimes are being committed against the working class (and even the middle class). The right wing always likes to say the the lefties are playing "class warfare." The most amazing and vile thing about that claim is that it is not class warfare to claim abuses. It is, however, class warfare to use your economic power to deprive fellow citizens of the means to provide for themselves and their families.

Privelege should not include the power to deprive others of basic human necesseties. It should not include the power to dictate to those of lesser means the conditions with which they are forced to live.

The basics of human dignity require that we treat each other with the appropriate amount of compassion. When some of us feel that we are entitled to more respect than others.....well, that's when we start having problems.

This economy is not what this administration is saying it is. Few is reaping luxury at the expense of Many's dignity. The numbers touted by the Darkside (i.e. Cheneyburton) is not an accurate reflection of what's going on in the real world.

I hope all of you Bush Apologists recognize that you have enabled this perversion of an administration. I hope you realize that you have been nothing more than Bush Tools. I don't necessarily see you as tools but the Retrocons sure do.

I happen to agree with a lot of what you say....I just disagree, I think, ( as you don't offer any solutions or counter-points) with how to get there.

I'm am the farthest ( or is it furthest) thing from a NeoCon, who are also socialistic. I also did no vote for Bush.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2006, 09:16 PM
I happen to agree with a lot of what you say....I just disagree, I think, ( as you don't offer any solutions or counter-points) with how to get there.

I'm am the farthest ( or is it furthest) thing from a NeoCon, who are also socialistic. I also did no vote for Bush.It's furthest(I think). For all of my stylistic failings, I've still got a nasty grammarian streak. It comes from dating too many English Majors/Teachers over the years.

FWIW- You come across (IMNSHO) as a traditional "economic" conservative. I can't comment on the social component of your conservatism, as I can't really recall anything you've posted on social issues. Either you've not said much, or I really shouldn't have had that third pint...or be working on a fourth. ;)

Interesting though. I came from the right, and have drifted to somewhere near the middle..which side depends on the issue. My brand of youthful rebellion was going hard-right economicaly against my parents more leftist views. Well, that and a few other things that I don't know the statute of limitations on. :D

Now, I think I'm with most other folks. Right or Left leaning depending on the issue.

As for the neocon's being socialistic, that explains the campaign poster I saw in '04.

unlurking
05-08-2006, 09:42 PM
So "cutting to the chase" means calling other people tools? Nice. :(

banyon
05-08-2006, 10:27 PM
You haven't really given me any specifics as to why one system is better except to appeal to authority.

Ok. I'll be more specific by looking at these two articles.

Democrats Manufacture Economic Crimes

To say that consumption of oil products is an "addiction" is like saying that the breathing of air is "addictive." Petroleum is a commodity that has many uses, and without it we would be much poorer and life expectancy would be considerably shorter. Furthermore, the tone of the statement implies that it is somehow immoral for someone to use gasoline or any petroleum-derived fuel to power vehicles, to heat their homes, or to wear (as in nylon products). It would be nice to classify the Times's position as nonsense, but that is too nice. Instead, I think that evil or immoral better fits. Here is the "newspaper of record" telling people that their use of fuel oil is morally the same as smoking crack cocaine or mainlining heroin.

where to start? Well the analogy he makes is entirely inapt. Breathing oxygen is logically necessary for human life. We have no alternatives on the table, nor are there any reasons that we would need them. There are many alternatives to petroleum, enough that a county like France gets @80% of its electrical production from nuclear (just as an illustration). To point out that we don't need to have our citizenry bended over the knee of Terror-sponsoring regimes = nonsense? I guess insults will work in the absence of having the facts at your disposal.


Indeed, raising fleet mileage standards has been a constant part of Democratic Party statements since the original "energy crises" of the 1970s. Yet, this policy suggestion, which on the surface seems to make sense, is another example of Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy."

I guess I'll leave it to you to explain the "Broken Window Fallacy", since the author doesn't bother to for the uninitiated. But I guess I'd like to accuse him of subscribing to the "ignoring an obvious correlation fallacy" While he quotes the Times article that mentions the last time fuel efficiency was raised was @20 years ago, he somehow ignores the fact that this action hada direct correlation with low fuel prices through the 80's and early 90's (sans Gulf War I). He later in this section says "US companies simply cannot make enough money selling small automobiles to survive." But I thought he was an individualist? Doesn't he think that entrepreneurs could handle such a challenge?

As pointed out in my previous article, the environmental "benefits" from oxygenated fuels are negligible at best and harmful at worst, since consumers are paying billions of dollars for this "protection." To put it another way, the Times continues the outright dishonesty that these gasoline regulations actually help clean the air.

Of course, what would a Times energy editorial be like without yet another call for central government planning? Thus, we read:

Nice that he cites himself, instead of the actual studies that Congress based the requirements on. It would actually be illegal for Congress to have made those rules without such a study.

Arianna Huffington, another prominent Democrat, all but says that oil companies are gouging the public:

I glad that he continually blasts Arianna Huffington, but incorrectly identifies her as a Democrat. Sloppy.


So, in the end, we have Republicans calling for criminal investigations into oil company actions, new wealth transfers from taxpayers and consumers to the ethanol lobby, anti-trust actions against oil companies, and more government control of markets. On the other side of the aisle, we hear Democrats call for criminal investigations into oil company actions, new wealth transfers from taxpayers and consumers to the ethanol lobby, anti-trust actions against oil companies, more government control of markets, and new increases in automobile fleet mileage standards. From my reckoning, we are nearing political convergence.

So, in the end, we have an article supposedly based on an absolutist free-trade/free-market stance that swears that supply and demand should control prices, but somehow manages to get through an entire article about oil demand without mentioning increased demand from China and India which most experts believe to be the main factor in indefinitely high oil prices.

What's his solution? Oh yes, "the market will take care of everything", even though the historical record on market failures is more than adequate to disprove such a view. Did J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie take it upon themselves to clean up the polluted factories of the late 19th centuries, or did they shorten the increased work weeks, improve the dangerous working conditions, or prohibit child labor. Of course not, it required the willpower and democratic force of people who saw these practices for the social ills that they truly were. Or, if you want a contemporary example, these conditions grow worse the less regulation present in third world countries currently being used by MNC's for their cheap labor.

Republicans Target Economic Crimes

I'm not going to spend as much time on this article, since I think I've said musch of what I wanted to.

Congress is requiring a set of expensive mixtures in gasoline in the name of environmental protection, yet researchers have found no proof that these mixtures provide that protection.

again he does not refer to the study comissioned by Congress on the subject. Maybe he doesn't know about the Congressional Research service?

Sen. Charles Schumer, who, like his Republican counterpart Arlen Specter, is calling for new anti-trust legislation and the destruction of present oil firms.

Well, with the record number of large petroleum mergers and the very small of available competitors left, then one would think that calls for anti-trust to restore market competitiveness would be entirely reasonable. But not if you're a market absolutist like this dude. No, the invisible hand never needs any guidance even though even Admam Smith said it did. BTW, for this dude, the point of anti-trust legislation is to prevent monopoly/oligopoly conditions and thus restore the market. But I guess it's technically a regulation so it is teh debil.

What's my view?

Of course you already know because you said you have psychic progressive radar or something similar.

But I would be for a total revaluation of the way economic benefitsand costs are measured. Include what would normally be excluded as public good as part of the econometric calculus. Don't blindly folow market dictates when they aren't suited for the tasks we are asking them to perform (i.e., to value public goods or human dignity). I am completely for the use of markets where they are suited to be efficient allocators of resources, but when internal (monopoly) or external (environment/other valuations) failures occur, then I'm for regulatory remedies. I would also be for slamming shut the corporate/governmental revolving door that helps contribute to the ineffectiveness of governmental policies that this guy abhors. PAC's and lobbying need to be completely re-addressed in a serious fashion.

For "economic" articles, I certainly didn't see much economic anaylsis. He got through the second article without mentioning China or India too. Seems to be a self-professed expert on environmental science though. I would hope that his academic articles were a little more well-researched and sourced.




BTW, sorry if this sounded snide. I just come off that way when someone pushes the right buttons like this guy. :)

BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 11:00 PM
It's furthest(I think). For all of my stylistic failings, I've still got a nasty grammarian streak. It comes from dating too many English Majors/Teachers over the years.
I see. Well, you seem to be extensively well read.

FWIW- You come across (IMNSHO) as a traditional "economic" conservative.

(IMNSHO) Well that's modest of you. : )

Traditional "economic" conservatives share the same economic principles as free-market libertarians....or at least they did at one time. Or they talk-the- talk on it but don't walk-the-walk. (Those can be hyphenated words right?)

There are still shades of differences such as Chicago School of Economics-Milton Friedman...who true libertarian free-marketers ridicule for relying too much on part of the statist model. Yet Milton considers himself a libertarian.

It is on social issues where right-libertarians part ways with traditional conservatives. Traditional conservatives feel markets, for the most part, regulate themselves. They do not feel this is true of certain social issues.

I can't comment on the social component of your conservatism, as I can't really recall anything you've posted on social issues. Either you've not said much,...
I'm not sure what I've posted here. I consider myself first a traditional conservative but also an originalist. That means I feel most social issues are to be decided at the local and community level unless a fundamental right or federal case. And not all the fake rights the left proclaims. But that can get complicated too. For instance sodomy (Texas vs Lawrence) I felt shoulda stayed at the state level. But locally, if I lived there, I'd repeal it. Catch my drift? Don't feel that way on all social issues though.

When I was introduced to libertarianism, I saw in it, a way to compromise on some of these social issues but some can't work in a welfare state as we wind up paying for other people's choices. Anyhow I do have a libertarian streak.

Interesting though. I came from the right, and have drifted to somewhere near the middle..which side depends on the issue.

Funny you say that because many people today, particularly on the net have labeled me a moderate. I'm always surprised at that. I say I appear that way because the NeoCons make me look moderate.

I do not care for the "moderate" label as I feel it's a wishy-washy position, not coming from any constitutional/philosophical principles....but not in all cases. I come to my position by favoring decentralized power as a form of limited govt. The original forumula was the center, but we have drifted so far left over time that position is right of center today--how I would best describe myself.

However, due to the WoT, I seem to be shifting again. My main problem with the GOP today, is not just it's socialist leanings (excessive largesse to buy votes, social spending and debt) but it is hopelessly internationalist. However, so are the Dems...and the hard left just stands for a different kind of internationalism.

My brand of youthful rebellion was going hard-right economicaly against my parents more leftist views. Well, that and a few other things that I don't know the statute of limitations on. :D

I went through a rebellion too. There was a thread here that I posted in where I stated how I came to my political philosophy. I grew up in a mildly liberal Democratic household. Blue collar worker family. Mother grew up poor. In college I cited all the big govt leftist bunk and ran it on my parents. But it was when I started working I began to change, as I also came into contact with business people and other political ideas. It's been an interesting journey.

But it was really when I visited the Foundation for Economic Education while working, which I was introduced to after switching parties, where things really started sorting out and making sense. Ayn Rand and Mises were once members there. Heard a lot of personal stories about Ms. Rand there. Met barristers from England, people from govt and all kinds of people. Changed me forever. I got quite a re-education. Things I never heard before.

As for the neocon's being socialistic, that explains the campaign poster I saw in '04.

The NeoCons are actually philosophical descendents of Leon Trotsky by their own admission. Kristol's dad wrote a book about it. They were socialists. And they do believe in permanent revolution (ie warfare). They are actually in both political parties. I've seen Kristol say on tv, that they (NCs) may just have to go to the Dems when they weren't gettin' their way on something.

Not all the younger ones are or even know this. NeoCons are defectors from the democratic left of the 1960's as they were apalled by the anti-war left during 'Nam. They found their home in the Reagan administration where they gave conservativism a more intellectual bent. They are also followers of a man names Leo Strauss. Some call them Straussians.

Strauss, I swear is Machiavelli incarnate. He believes especially in the use of the BIG-Lie tactic because the people are too dumb to know the truth. Philosopher king stuff...right out of Plato's Republic (The Soviet model). They do not believe in rolling back the welfare state and they are for building an empire. Krauthammer, a leading NeoCon pundit, has already bragged and boasted how we are an empire now. Holy cow! I always wondered why the eagle became our national bird. We really have crossed the Rubicon with Iraq imo.

They have hijacked the Republican party. They formulate and drive the agenda. There's not a whole lot I support about them anymore but there is no place else to go, right now, to nominate pro-market limited-govt candidates. I voted out of protest last time going third party. I get most of my WoT material from libertarian sources today.

I think the best solution now is to hope for divided govt again like under Clinton. Seems like a Dem Prez with a GOP congress worked well. It's the one party thing that's not so good. The GOP tends to throw its principles out when their man is at the head, who is not imo a real conservative and never was. So there are no checks and balances. Only problem is the Dems are going to be running war hawks. See it's one big Demopublican/Replublicrat party now.

Wasn't it Nixon who said "We're all Marxists now."

BucEyedPea
05-08-2006, 11:11 PM
banyon,
I actually got a good laugh outta your spam post! ROFL
I just thought I'd get back at ch'a...I just loved the line about:
"Here we have the philosophy of the filing clerk in its full glory!" ROFL








PS Huffington is now a liberal...check her stands. Now don't be sloppy!
Demand from other countries is mentioned elsewhere on that site in other articles. That was talking about a certain aspect.It's also a site that is for people who are already familiar with that material. It's not a to the broad public site.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 06:26 AM
Banyon, he described the broken window fallacy in terms of the cafe standards without being clear that he was doing so. The broken window fallacy is the idea that when a kid breaks a window, it's economically beneficial to society because the window repair guy get's paid and he can use that income to buy something he needs and so on. The reason it's a fallacy is because the window owner has to use his money to repair his window instead of using it for some other purpose. It's basically about unseen costs being underrepresented in an economic analysis.

In this case, congressionally mandated increases in fleet mpg appear on the surface to be a relatively cost free energy saving scheme. But as the author points out, there are costs of compliance that are not as obvious to John Q. Public.

I don't think there is any inconsistancy between his "individualist" views and his fear that increased government regulation might cause domestic auto manufacturers to go out of business. It's all about those same hidden costs imposed by the regulations.

Just out of curiosity, would you favor a law that requires consumers to buy cars that get X mpg or better instead of the cafe scheme?

patteeu
05-09-2006, 06:27 AM
PS Huffington is now a liberal...check her stands. Now don't be sloppy!
Demand from other countries is mentioned elsewhere on that site in other articles. That was talking about a certain aspect.

I suspect that banyon knows that Huffington is a liberal. I think his point is that she is not a democrat, which as far as I can tell appears to be true.

jAZ
05-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Democrats Manufacture Economic Crimes (http://www.mises.org/story/2129)


In a recent article on the current gasoline "crisis," I laid blame on the Republicans in Congress for inflammatory statements coupled with terrible legislation that has laid the framework for what is occurring at the gasoline pumps. Bad economic legislation coupled with the beating of yet more war drums directed this time at Iran means that we are expending increasing amounts of money just to fill our gasoline tanks.

In my criticism, I believe the Republicans are receiving what they deserve, especially since many Republicans like to tout themselves as adherents to free market principles.

I've said this before, and I think it's important to bring this up now, as this author starts to touch on it and then just stops.

The energy markets are currently not operating properly. The cost of this war and on going operations to protect oil shipping lanes are not reflected in the price of oil, but rather are accounted for by using defense funds pulled from the general tax funds.

A proper market would link these defense/war costs to the energy source that we are trying to protect (imported oil/gas). To not do so is to subsidize imported oil over alternate energy sources. We actually *need* an increased oil tax for our free markets to actually function properly.

I'm willing trade taxes dollar for dollar so that we aren't causing a net increase in taxes, but we need to properly reflect the true costs of oil in the cost of oil.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 09:01 AM
In a recent article on the current gasoline "crisis," I laid blame on the Republicans in Congress for inflammatory statements coupled with terrible legislation that has laid the framework for what is occurring at the gasoline pumps. Bad economic legislation coupled with the beating of yet more war drums directed this time at Iran means that we are expending increasing amounts of money just to fill our gasoline tanks.

In my criticism, I believe the Republicans are receiving what they deserve, especially since many Republicans like to tout themselves as adherents to free market principles.

I've said this before, and I think it's important to bring this up now, as this author starts to touch on it and then just stops.

The energy markets are currently not operating properly. The cost of this war and on going operations to protect oil shipping lanes are not reflected in the price of oil, but rather are accounted for by using defense funds pulled from the general tax funds.

A proper market would link these defense/war costs to the energy source that we are trying to protect (imported oil/gas). To not do so is to subsidize imported oil over alternate energy sources. We actually *need* an increased oil tax for our free markets to actually function properly.

I'm willing trade taxes dollar for dollar so that we aren't causing a net increase in taxes, but we need to properly reflect the true costs of oil in the cost of oil.


I actually agree with your assessment on this point. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to quantify the costs associated with protecting our access to oil as opposed to those associated with other foreign policy goals. In theory though, I'll recognize you as an honorary free marketeer on this narrow issue. ;)

jAZ
05-09-2006, 09:26 AM
I actually agree with your assessment on this point. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to quantify the costs associated with protecting our access to oil as opposed to those associated with other foreign policy goals. In theory though, I'll recognize you as an honorary free marketeer on this narrow issue. ;)
I'm a "fair marketeer". That being a free marketeer that recognizes that markets have failures that must be corrected though political policy. There is an important balance that must we walk in this area. A balance between over regulation and under regulation (yes, there is such a thing, you totally free marketeers!)

penchief
05-10-2006, 08:45 PM
I'm a "fair marketeer". That being a free marketeer that recognizes that markets have failures that must be corrected though political policy. There is an important balance that must we walk in this area. A balance between over regulation and under regulation (yes, there is such a thing, you totally free marketeers!)

A truly free market would be one that is completely free of artificial influences (i.e. using economic influence to purchase favorable legislation that unfairly creates windfall opportunities at the expense of the worker, the consumer, and the environment).

More than likely, America's current eco-political dilemna is the direct result of plans that were drawn up at the Cheneyburton Energy Task Force Meetings.

Wouldn't it be nice to know if those fuggers fugged us intentionally? They may not be laughing now but I'll bet they were laughing it up at our expense when they had that country club meeting.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 09:05 AM
In a recent article on the current gasoline "crisis," I laid blame on the Republicans in Congress for inflammatory statements coupled with terrible legislation that has laid the framework for what is occurring at the gasoline pumps. Bad economic legislation coupled with the beating of yet more war drums directed this time at Iran means that we are expending increasing amounts of money just to fill our gasoline tanks.

In my criticism, I believe the Republicans are receiving what they deserve, especially since many Republicans like to tout themselves as adherents to free market principles.

I've said this before, and I think it's important to bring this up now, as this author starts to touch on it and then just stops.

The energy markets are currently not operating properly.

This is a false concept. Just because we don't like how the markets are dealing with bad policy, including war doesn't mean it's not working. The market ALWAYS has the last say, even when corrected politically. Once you introduce one arbitrary others naturally follow.

The cost of this war and on going operations to protect oil shipping lanes are not reflected in the price of oil, but rather are accounted for by using defense funds pulled from the general tax funds.

That's just another arbitrary being entered in after the first one.

You do NOT need guns to ensure trade. It's the other way around.
"Where goods won't pass; armies will." Bastiat
FDR's oil embargo comes to mind--> Pearl Harbor.

The other flaw, imo, is that you seem to be saying that our foreign policy and making war, is based on securing oil for that industry. As such, it is being subsidized. That's a reach.

Iran and other ME countries don't eat their oil. They survive on trading it. They HAVE to HAVE us as customers. Even Saddam was selling us oil. Even Chavez. Trade keeps the peace. If we weren't antagonizing Iran and invading Iraq there'd be no need to be using the military to ensure oil's passage. In fact the more I look at the quote you selected, I'd say you and the author agree here.


A proper market would link these defense/war costs to the energy source that we are trying to protect (imported oil/gas). To not do so is to subsidize imported oil over alternate energy sources. We actually *need* an increased oil tax for our free markets to actually function properly.

This is all command economy, aka political economy. Same thing as a Soviet 5 year plan. LOL! How well did those things do? These ideas have consequences...as in they sound good on paper but they do not work.

#1 A proper market? Wtf is that?
Who get's to decide? You making it sound "authoritarian" like it's the same for everyone by decree of an authority. This is up to the individuals in the market to decide. Choices. It may be that most people want cheaper, cleaner energy but that's just the many agreeing on and having the same choice.

#2 Need an oil tax for our "free" markets to function properly?
Well there's an oxymoron using "free" and "tax" in the same sentence. That's called an artificial intervention that will distort the market.

I'm willing trade taxes dollar for dollar so that we aren't causing a net increase in taxes, but we need to properly reflect the true costs of oil in the cost of oil.
Again this is flawed. It is based on an assumption that we are using war to ensure oil supply. War is gov't. It is politics. Therefore, it is NOT the "free" market that is using tax money to function. It's govt action, bad policy disrupting markets.

I'm a "fair marketeer".

No. You are NOT a free marketer. You don't ascribe to the most basic tenets of a "free" market. You believe in a political economy even if you allow for a modicum of free market principles. Some call this, Clinton for one, Third Way Socialism. It's an interventionist model; not a free market one.

That being a free marketeer that recognizes that markets have failures that must be corrected though political policy. There is an important balance that must we walk in this area. A balance between over regulation and under regulation (yes, there is such a thing, you totally free marketeers!)
What you call market failures...are actually market signals. Market signals that are just being misread by those who can't see them or worse don't even know what they are. I say it's because of the earlier miseducation that needs to be undone.

There are two types of politicos that claim to support "free" markets:

Socialists and internationalists who support things like no tariffs, international but "fake" trade treaties ( that are loaded with subsidies and protectionism btw) in order to raise the economic level of poorer Third World countries as a wealth redistribution scheme.

Right Libertarians who really do support real "free" trade: no tariffs, no subsidies and no protectionism.These are people such as the author of this article. Certain conservatives fall into this camp. Some don't as sovereignty trumps it first. Some conservatives feel we need free trade inside the US first.

The author is spot on. Real free trade, especially anyone making a windfall, is to be treated as a criminal act. Pure emotionalism.

jAZ
05-11-2006, 09:26 AM
Wow, Buc, you put a lot of effort into this posting and you typically sound as if you are knowledgable, but in this case, it's all for nothing, because you just have no idea what you are talking about.

The free market system is based on a theoretical assumption called "perfect information". Without this uptopian element, these markets are naturally flawed. This is why the SEC exists (in order to facility a as much free flow of market information as possible).

One way to game this loophole is to hide certain product costs (those that would otherwise drive up the cost of the product). In this case, DC hides the cost of securing and transporting oil from the ME in the form of a national tax used for "National Defense", forcing even walkers and bike riders to subsidize the cost of oil.

I assumed anyone reading this would understand the following implicity, so I left it out, but for you I'll be very clear. The best way to make sure that the cost of oil properly reflects the true free market price, the oil companies would need to fund all costs necessary to obtain and transport this oil. That would include (in this case) the cost of the Iraq war, and all equipment and operating costs needed to secure shipping lanes. This is a direct cost that the oil companies are not paying for (and there fore are not properly reflected in the supply/demand price point. If they were, the oil companies would refues to sell oil at the price they are today, and instead would need to raise prices, shifting the demand slightly downward. This reduced demand would be filled by alternate methods (renewable energy, more bus riders, walking, etc).

I assumed that people would understand that it's not practical to ask (or even wise to permit) oil companies to conduct wars and engage in international hostilities to secure their products. So instead, I posed the need for a shift of tax dollars from general income tax funds, to gas tax funds. But in reality, the truest "free market" way to handle this would be to let the oil companies figure it out on their own.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 09:56 AM
Wow, Buc, you put a lot of effort into this posting and you typically sound as if you are knowledgable, but in this case, it's all for nothing, because you just have no idea what you are talking about.
:BS:

Quit projecting Mr. Kettle. You sure do use a lot of ad hominem and condescension.

I know what I am talking about. It's a microeconomic view.

The free market system is based on a theoretical assumption called "perfect information". Without this uptopian element, these markets are naturally flawed. This is why the SEC exists (in order to facility a as much free flow of market information as possible).
Utopian? Wow!
There is NO such thing as a perfect world or perfect information my friend.

One way to game this loophole is to hide certain product costs (those that would otherwise drive up the cost of the product). In this case, DC hides the cost of securing and transporting oil from the ME in the form of a national tax used for "National Defense", forcing even walkers and bike riders to subsidize the cost of oil.

You're talking about perfect information, and yet here you are speculating, based on what I don't know, on a certain act with no proof but mere allegation.

Why?

What does DC have to do with a private company's costs on transportation of oil anyway?

I'll answer for you: Nada!

And any real "free" marketer would not support these actions, even if true.

You sequencing is flawed. This follows a bad foreign policy, that we have to rely on defense to secure oil. This is not a real "free" marketer's argument. (See above.) BTW I do not consider Bush a real "free" marketer nor any industry being protected from markets by gov't connection.

I assumed anyone reading this would understand the following implicity, so I left it out, but for you I'll be very clear. The best way to make sure that the cost of oil properly reflects the true free market price, the oil companies would need to fund all costs necessary to obtain and transport this oil.

Huh? Where did I disagree with this idea. I didn't!

That would include (in this case) the cost of the Iraq war, and all equipment and operating costs needed to secure shipping lanes.

Yeah well...they didn't start this war now did they?

What's your case for that besides just hating "Big Oil?"
Lemme ask you...did you hate Bush before the Iraq invasion, before the WoT or is it the RESULT of these acts? Be honest.

This is a direct cost that the oil companies are not paying for (and there fore are not properly reflected in the supply/demand price point.

Agree and disagree.

Disagree that this is oil's "direct" costs soley based on their actions as a business. It's our cost, since we vote for our leaders. Our leader went to war which is the MOST disruptive and destructive force to an economy. I, for one, do not believe in the myth war is good for an economy. It's not. Perfect example here.

Agree We are paying for a big price spike due to war, or threatened war activities in ME are we not? Yet you're complainin? Look at the price.

If they were, the oil companies would refues to sell oil at the price they are today, and instead would need to raise prices, shifting the demand slightly downward. This reduced demand would be filled by alternate methods (renewable energy, more bus riders, walking, etc).

What pray tell is happening as we write this?
My observation is that people are at the very least changing some of their ways.

I assumed that people would understand that it's not practical to ask (or even wise to permit) oil companies to conduct wars and engage in international hostilities to secure their products.

Except that's a matter of political opinion, not fact. Not everyone subscribes to it. IMO it's based on extreme bias to oil/Bush connections with it.

So instead, I posed the need for a shift of tax dollars from general income tax funds, to gas tax funds. But in reality, the truest "free market" way to handle this would be to let the oil companies figure it out on their own.

Yep! They are...look at the prices.

Fact is oil prices overall since the 70's have been on a downward trend overall despite spikes.

Political events do create temporary spikes as a market reaction to the uncertainty. This alone forces people to conserve and creates an environment where alternatives develop ...that is the market working. Yet you still clamor for govt intervention when it is doing the very thing you want.

As I recall, the energy problem actually began in 2001 before 9/11 under Clinton. There is also increased demand worlwide. What do you have to say to that?

jAZ
05-11-2006, 10:04 AM
I'm sorry, but you simply amaze me with your in ability to have any idea what I'm saying. Do you understand that my point in calling "perfect information" utopian, was to say that there is no such thing? I'm sorry, I can tell that you are a good person and in your heart you mean well, but I'm not going to spend the effort needed to drive this a simple yet abstract point home for you, when you can't even reason soundly enough to recognize that you are agreeing with me that "perfect information" does not exist.

I'm not chasing my tail, and I'm not talking you out of chasing your own. Let me know when you start slowing down and reading more carefully, and we can continue this discussion.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 10:16 AM
No. I just did not write that one line more clearly.
I just do not think it makes a market flawed necessarily. (cases of fraud)
Nor does a market need perfect information on a macro scale to work. Why? Because value is subjective.

It came across to me as though you needed perfect information in order for a market to work. That struck me as utopian.

So take some responsibility for your own writing as well instead of relying on blame,criticism and put downs of posters because they don't agree with you or suffer the crime of misunderstanding when more information ( perfect?) may be needed to flush it out.

:hmmm: An idea for another thread?? How 'bout thought crimes by Dems?

PS I do read very, very quickly on these boards as I am also multi-tasking ie producing at work and taking a break....unless I am not working. So you will have to forgive me, oh perfect one, if I miss a post or not get all the nuances sometimes. Sometimes, I have to come back later to take more in.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 08:45 AM
No. I just did not write that one line more clearly.

...
PS I do read very, very quickly on these boards as I am also multi-tasking ie producing at work and taking a break....unless I am not working. So you will have to forgive me, oh perfect one, if I miss a post or not get all the nuances sometimes. Sometimes, I have to come back later to take more in.
I've discoverd that I have a pet peeve on these boards, and that's people misreading information and then starting a new side debate/fight based upon their mis readings. It's often used as a form of distraction, deflection or hijacking (not suggesting that you were trying to do so, I'm sure this was an honest mistake).

It forces a whole series of posts as we "debate" this pointless and unnecessary side-track.

Then it's necessary retrack the discussion back on the original point (which isn't always easy to do), just to start back over where we left off.

It happens all too often on here (I'm guilty of not taking in all the details of a post as well). But when someone gets contentious about defending an ill-informed post (rather than recognizing their error), I refuse to particpate. It's a total waste of (everyone's) time.
I just do not think it makes a market flawed necessarily. (cases of fraud)
Nor does a market need perfect information on a macro scale to work. Why? Because value is subjective.

It came across to me as though you needed perfect information in order for a market to work.
Any market that doesn't have perfect information is in fact flawed. It's the very definition of the idea of markets. They are theoretical entities that are in fact utopian. They have real life counterparts that just like anything practical (not theoretical), are flawed.

Being flawed does NOT mean they aren't functional. Our markets are functional for the most part, but without perfect information, our markets are inherantly flawed. This example of subsidizing oil through non-oil reveunes paying for securing access and transport of oil from the ME is a flaw in the oil markets.

Correction of this flaw can happen in only 1 way. Force the oil companies to fund any activities needed to secure their imported products. A utopian way to accomplish this would be to literally turn the responsiblity for that security over to the oil companies themselves. Let them buy the Stealth Bombers, cruise missles and battleships and soldiers to protect their imports. A more practical and less problematic way would be to shift the tax basis for the funds used to secure the import of oil, onto the product itself... thus allowing the market price to reflect the true costs of the product.

Notice, I said *shift*. Meaning, raise oil taxes and lower other taxes equally.
That struck me as utopian.

So take some responsibility for your own writing as well
I will.

I told you it was "utopian". That might be why it struck you that way.
... instead of relying on blame,criticism and put downs of posters because they don't agree with you or suffer the crime of misunderstanding when more information ( perfect?) may be needed to flush it out.
Whenever I am wrong, I hope you will correct me.

If you are going to take it personally when someone corrects you when you are wrong, then we should all just quit now. If all you'd like is for folks to pat you on the back and look the other way when ever you screw up, then you are in the wrong place.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 08:51 AM
Being flawed does NOT mean they aren't functional. Our markets are functional for the most part, but without perfect information, our markets are inherantly flawed.
To flush this idea out a little, I wanted to point out that it's necessary to

(1) move as close as practical to the utopian markets of theory
(2) by striving for perfect information.

We can't ever obtain perfect information, but as long as we recognize these two elements are vastly important, we will be able to construct very, very powerful and useful markets. If we ignore these two points, we will have massive market failures.