Politics

[Buster Bluth]

I know people in their mid 30's who make those amounts and I knew people in their 20's who made the comparable salaries to your friend out of school in various industries. Big deal. I know prison guards who make 150k having only a high school diploma. I've met 23 year kids who were making about a mil a year doing various nefarious things. I'm still not sure what your point is? That jobs in the oil industry are awesome? A high paying job is a high paying job regardless of the industry. it just so happens that oil and coal are destined for the dust bin if we decide to pull our collective heads out of our posteriors. Anyhow, good for your friend.

Again, missed the point entirely. I don't what X jobs or Y jobs, I was X jobs and Y jobs.

Phasing out coal and oil would not break the bank or crush any economy. China and Germany are going full steam on this stuff and kicking our *** by the way.

China? Really? The country opening a coal power plant once a week? They are aggressively pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy, as we should be doing.

Do you understand capitalism and free trade? If China, or the US, or Germany, or (insert country) makes a great scientific discovery--EVERYONE BENEFITS. They would have to sell it to us, and in trade both sides win. That's the beauty. Now, should we be investing? Yes, and we are. Let's not act like there isn't a **** ton of research going on in this country.

Germany is going to be close to 80% renewable energy in a decade and their economy is cruising right along.

LOLWUT. The goal in Germany is 18% by 2020, 60% by 2050.

Plus natural gas would easily bridge the gap in this country. Again it's a matter of priorities and having to kick some rich aholes like the Koch brothers square in their money bags.

This is a joke and I see your true feelings. It's all a Koch Bros conspiracy. Gotcha. Natural gas is a godsend to us. A true miracle. But even natural gas averages to be 400% the cost of coal electricity. That is a higher cost when you are operating a factory in the US. That is a greater disadvantage to the Chinese. How do you not get that?

Glad you think Alaska is a big empty space. You should go up there sometime. It's pretty nice in the summer.

Are you seriously trying to say that Alaska is not mostly an empty place? That's why the Russians sold it to us in the first place...

Trying to equate Manhattan and ANWR is just dumb. For the record wildlife in Alaska got pretty fkkked by the Valdez spill,

Is it still there? I hear it's pretty nice in the summer.

along with the fishermen and natives who made their living off of said wildlife.

An extremely valid point. If I'm not mistaken, BP this time around did an admirable job in the gulf. Can it be better? No doubt.

Again there's absolutely no reason to be drilling there other than our own stupidity and resistance to inevitable change.

smh.

 

[pkt77242]

Again, missed the point entirely. I don't what X jobs or Y jobs, I was X jobs and Y jobs.



China? Really? The country opening a coal power plant once a week? They are aggressively pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy, as we should be doing.

Do you understand capitalism and free trade? If China, or the US, or Germany, or (insert country) makes a great scientific discovery--EVERYONE BENEFITS. They would have to sell it to us, and in trade both sides win. That's the beauty. Now, should we be investing? Yes, and we are. Let's not act like there isn't a **** ton of research going on in this country.



LOLWUT. The goal in Germany is 18% by 2020, 60% by 2050.

This is a joke and I see your true feelings. It's all a Koch Bros conspiracy. Gotcha. Natural gas is a godsend to us. A true miracle. But even natural gas averages to be 400% the cost of coal electricity. That is a higher cost when you are operating a factory in the US. That is a greater disadvantage to the Chinese. How do you not get that?



Are you seriously trying to say that Alaska is not mostly an empty place? That's why the Russians sold it to us in the first place...



Is it still there? I hear it's pretty nice in the summer.



An extremely valid point. If I'm not mistaken, BP this time around did an admirable job in the gulf. Can it be better? No doubt.



smh.

While he was wrong, you are wrong too. They are currently at about 25% and hope to be at 80% in 2050.

Germany Renewable Energy Production Is Living Up To The Hype - Business Insider

Germany breaks renewable energy barrier | GlobalPost

 

[Rhode Irish]

Ok time for a timeout, you two.

Buster, do you not buy the argument that oil is a commodity and its price is fixed by the world market, so producing more here would result only in a very, very modest price adjustment? I think most of the "drill baby drill" crowd doesn't grasp this idea, but you seem to be pretty well informed on the issue. Curious on your thoughts.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Buster, do you not buy the argument that oil is a commodity and its price is fixed by the world market, so producing more here would result only in a very, very modest price adjustment? I think most of the "drill baby drill" crowd doesn't grasp this idea, but you seem to be pretty well informed on the issue. Curious on your thoughts.

No I agree with that. It won't push prices. We can destroy OPEC and then it can change haha

Likewise, would drilling and exporting/using not create tens of thousands of great-paying jobs and create wealth in this country?

 

[Buster Bluth]

While he was wrong, you are wrong too. They are currently at about 25% and hope to be at 80% in 2050.

Germany Renewable Energy Production Is Living Up To The Hype - Business Insider

Germany breaks renewable energy barrier | GlobalPost

Well that explains it. My source was from 2009.

I think we should adopt Germany's green energy policies and their austerity measures. What do ya think?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

The first Mormon president will be Manti Te'o.

 

[phgreek]

I could just as easily say, WTF, you Repubs who make the rich richer and the poor poorer, want me to believe that Romney is going to actually not give the rich a huge tax cut and **** the poor with his vision? Give me a ****ing break. It works both ways.

Indeed it does work both ways...So for you to ask for more details from this candidate cracks me up based on what your guy ran on last cycle...so still the same point...

I am sick of Romney saying that Obama's plan is right for the US but mine is amazing but I am not going to tell it to you. Just crazy.

I never heard him say that...If he did Nancy Pelosi would sue him for using a form of "pass it to see it"...Geez thats kinda catchy..."elect me to see it"...maybe he should reference Nancy, then you guys would think it was OK?

In all seriousness...if Romney thought he could put more detail out without distraction, and intentional misleading...He might do it. However, even with more detail, I assure you there would be the same economists lined up in the same corners fighting...causing mass fear,uncertainty, and doubt in the thing he's supposed to be strong in...Look at the Polls...if you are Romney...do you do anything different? Do you add anything...Looks to me like he's done what he had to do here...

 

[autry_denson]

The thing that kills me the most is when people cite national polls, as if they don't realize they're largely irrelevant. If Romney gains further support in Arkansas or Texas, or makes gains in New York or California, it doesn't effect the election at all. (And it could happen since those states aren't being contested.)

Also, all this talk about "momentum" is a little off. No doubt Romney had some a couple weeks ago after the first debate, but either Obama has stopped the bleeding or all of the convertible people have already moved, because not much has changed in a couple of weeks now.

The reality is that the map favors Obama and the climate favors Romney. I continue to believe that the climate is not of the President's making, but that doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and you can't expect most of the people to grasp the nuance of how we got where we are and how things are improving.

And...we've got a whole bunch of state polls in yesterday and today that are even more favorable to Obama. Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, even looking like there's some chance in Florida and NC. Confidence growing...

 

[Bluto]

Again, missed the point entirely. I don't what X jobs or Y jobs, I was X jobs and Y jobs.



China? Really? The country opening a coal power plant once a week? They are aggressively pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy, as we should be doing.

Do you understand capitalism and free trade? If China, or the US, or Germany, or (insert country) makes a great scientific discovery--EVERYONE BENEFITS. They would have to sell it to us, and in trade both sides win. That's the beauty. Now, should we be investing? Yes, and we are. Let's not act like there isn't a **** ton of research going on in this country.



LOLWUT. The goal in Germany is 18% by 2020, 60% by 2050.



This is a joke and I see your true feelings. It's all a Koch Bros conspiracy. Gotcha. Natural gas is a godsend to us. A true miracle. But even natural gas averages to be 400% the cost of coal electricity. That is a higher cost when you are operating a factory in the US. That is a greater disadvantage to the Chinese. How do you not get that?



Are you seriously trying to say that Alaska is not mostly an empty place? That's why the Russians sold it to us in the first place...



Is it still there? I hear it's pretty nice in the summer.



An extremely valid point. If I'm not mistaken, BP this time around did an admirable job in the gulf. Can it be better? No doubt.



smh.

Using your rationale of no I want X and Y jobs why not remove all environmental regulations? Wouldn't that create a fantastic boom in the energy production industry? Wouldn't that also destroy the need for investing in renewable energy? You seem to believe in the magic of the market. Why not set it completely free? That would destroy jobs if the x or y variety though wouldn't it? Much the same way jobs were lost vis a vis NAFTA. I mean that is what liberatarians want right?

I took economics in college too and again cost benifit analysis that ignores the negative social and environmental outcomes (which you seem to do with stunning ease) is pretty flawed. We should "be opening a coal power plant a week" is a ridiculous statement and shows this lack of understanding of how such a move would negatively impact the environment and society at large. I'm assuming that you have never seen a mountain top coal operation in action or the negative impacts that result from such mining.

As for the Koch quote it was more to demonstrate that for us to move forward as a society we will need to make some pretty tough decisions that may involve standing up to people with enormous power and influence. Sorry that appears to have gone over your head.

I'm also going to assume that based on the absurdity of your statements about Alaska being empty are just a bad attempt at being a contrarian.

Well have a good day. I'm sure we'll be arguing about this more later. Haha.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Bluto,

Good point about the negative social and costs of economic growth. That is often the real issue, although those advocating for a clean and health environment are often forced to make strained arguments that their policies are just as likely to lead to more jobs.

The only thing I would add to that point is that while environmental policy makers often remind us about the social costs of doing business, they forget the social benefits. Dirty industrial countries, with their cancer and other issues, still have much longer life expectancies than undeveloped countries.

 

[WaveDomer]

The thing that kills me the most is when people cite national polls, as if they don't realize they're largely irrelevant. If Romney gains further support in Arkansas or Texas, or makes gains in New York or California, it doesn't effect the election at all. (And it could happen since those states aren't being contested.)

Also, all this talk about "momentum" is a little off. No doubt Romney had some a couple weeks ago after the first debate, but either Obama has stopped the bleeding or all of the convertible people have already moved, because not much has changed in a couple of weeks now.

The reality is that the map favors Obama and the climate favors Romney. I continue to believe that the climate is not of the President's making, but that doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and you can't expect most of the people to grasp the nuance of how we got where we are and how things are improving.

National polls are relevant. Why? Because if President Obama's ceiling is 47 - 48% nationally, that means Romney is winning the popular vote. If you look at history, how many times has someone won the popular vote and lost the election? 4. Also, state polls tend to trail national polls. An incumbent not getting over 48% is a problem. The WaPo/ABC poll has Romney at 50% and the President at 47% with a Dem +4 sample. Romney is winning independents in that poll by 19 which, if it holds, is the largest since Reagan in '80.

Now it is true that Romney is getting a large vote out of states that are already decided, and President Obama is getting a lot less support out of those states too. Including states like California which are clearly going Obama. So he could lose the popular vote and still win the EC. But it's rare. It is clear that President Obama is beating the bushes to try and get his base out to vote. Winning campaigns don't put out a dumb ad equating voting with sex. They just don't.

But I do appreciate how you think many people are not as smart as you and won't grasp the "nuance" of what is going on.

 

[Bluto]

Bluto,

Good point about the negative social and costs of economic growth. That is often the real issue, although those advocating for a clean and health environment are often forced to make strained arguments that their policies are just as likely to lead to more jobs.

The only thing I would add to that point is that while environmental policy makers often remind us about the social costs of doing business, they forget the social benefits. Dirty industrial countries, with their cancer and other issues, still have much longer life expectancies than undeveloped countries.

Good point and it is well taken. There are other factors at play in those countries as well, such as corruption, lack of central authority, no rule of law, extreme income and wealth inequality and what not as well. I suppose my final argument is that we currently possess the technology to move beyond coal and oil for that matter and that we could be doing much better. Instead we as a nation have spent the last 10 years sticking out heads back in the sand from my perspective. Again it's a matter of priorities not "hating jobs" which is what initiated this tangent. We transitioned and restructured our entire economy and much of our society in the space of 4 years during WW2 and from an economic standpoint emerged just fine from that.

 

[Bluto]

Ok time for a timeout, you two.

Buster, do you not buy the argument that oil is a commodity and its price is fixed by the world market, so producing more here would result only in a very, very modest price adjustment? I think most of the "drill baby drill" crowd doesn't grasp this idea, but you seem to be pretty well informed on the issue. Curious on your thoughts.

There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning regarding this. Would post a link but I'm on my phone.

 

[GoIrish41]

Amazing how many people are just immune to evidence. .

Brought to you by the same people who deny climate change, believe that raped women's bodies "have a way of taking care of that," and against all logic will insist that we can balance the budget by bringing in less revenue.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Brought to you by the same people who ... believe that raped women's bodies "have a way of taking care of that,"...

That was a quote by one guy. "People" means more than one.

 

[phgreek]

More news coming out on Benghazi.

Before this turns political and ugly...prayers for the families. This thing is going to keep trickling out, and none of it seems like it would be comforting to them.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Good point and it is well taken. There are other factors at play in those countries as well, such as corruption, lack of central authority, no rule of law, extreme income and wealth inequality and what not as well. I suppose my final argument is that we currently possess the technology to move beyond coal and oil for that matter and that we could be doing much better. Instead we as a nation have spent the last 10 years sticking out heads back in the sand from my perspective. Again it's a matter of priorities not "hating jobs" which is what initiated this tangent. We transitioned and restructured our entire economy and much of our society in the space of 4 years during WW2 and from an economic standpoint emerged just fine from that.

My thought with coal is that we need to ease off cautiously it because it is so abundant domestically. It would be a shame to inadvertantly become more dependent on oil. Or learn that fracking really is dangerous (all indications to this point are that it is not).

With alternative energies generally, I wonder why venture capitalists aren't trying to be the first into the market if the technology is there. It seems like so much of the early money is looking for government subsidies, rather than showing any faith in the the profitability of the actual technology. I guess my point is, putting aside the cost of infastructure, I am just not confident that we can make any real inroads with alternative energy yet. It seems that natural gas (complimented by clean coal) is the short term solution.

 

[RDU Irish]

More news coming out on Benghazi.

Before this turns political and ugly...prayers for the families. This thing is going to keep trickling out, and none of it seems like it would be comforting to them.

Obama is "swift boating" himself on this issue. Did he really think he could sweep it under the rug until after the election?

As for oil spills, consider 21,000 gallons relative to 660,000 gallons in an Olympic swimming pool. You can do math on Deep Horizon to argue that the total oil spilled in the Gulf is similar to about 5ml of oil added to your neighborhood swimming pool. Environmentalists never cease to amaze me with their complete lack of scope in their arguments.

Another fun fact, you could put the entire world population in Rhode Island without anyone touching (unless they want to of course). Before you dismiss it, do the math yourself. If you can't do the math, STFU about economics.

 

[PraetorianND]

Already seeing this becoming politicized. Almost linked an article and decided against it. Prayers.

 

[IrishinSyria]

...aaaand it still dependson who you "regard"...believe...same thing

In politics it does matter who you "believe" but actually, there's a pretty solid consensus in the world of economics that Obama's basic economic philosophy is empirically right and Romney's is not. That was not the case two years ago, but recent developments in Europe have settled a lot of questions as to the impact of national spending during recessions (or the impact of the "multiplier", see: The Economist)

Of course, one political party has made a recent resurgence by ignoring detailed empirical evidence in a whole host of fields, so I don't expect that to matter.

 

[Bluto]

Obama is "swift boating" himself on this issue. Did he really think he could sweep it under the rug until after the election?

As for oil spills, consider 21,000 gallons relative to 660,000 gallons in an Olympic swimming pool. You can do math on Deep Horizon to argue that the total oil spilled in the Gulf is similar to about 5ml of oil added to your neighborhood swimming pool. Environmentalists never cease to amaze me with their complete lack of scope in their arguments.

Another fun fact, you could put the entire world population in Rhode Island without anyone touching (unless they want to of course). Before you dismiss it, do the math yourself. If you can't do the math, STFU about economics.

This stuff about the oil spill is a bit misleading. How big would the people swimming in that concentrated spot of the 5 ml spill have to be to make it a true scale model? I doubt anybody in their right mind would have dove into any of the water off the gulf coast immediately after the spill. Before you get on your high horse about environmentalists you might want to take an introductory ecology class.

As for getting everyone to stand on Rhode Island how long would it take before people started committing mass genocide due to lack of resources?

Some economists amaze me with their lack of perspective. Economic theories are just that and there are many ways to examine and explain what makes the world go around.

 

[Rhode Irish]

In politics it does matter who you "believe" but actually, there's a pretty solid consensus in the world of economics that Obama's basic economic philosophy is empirically right and Romney's is not. That was not the case two years ago, but recent developments in Europe have settled a lot of questions as to the impact of national spending during recessions (or the impact of the "multiplier", see: The Economist)

Of course, one political party has made a recent resurgence by ignoring detailed empirical evidence in a whole host of fields, so I don't expect that to matter.

 

[phgreek]

In politics it does matter who you "believe" but actually, there's a pretty solid consensus in the world of economics that Obama's basic economic philosophy is empirically right and Romney's is not. That was not the case two years ago, but recent developments in Europe have settled a lot of questions as to the impact of national spending during recessions (or the impact of the "multiplier", see: The Economist)

Of course, one political party has made a recent resurgence by ignoring detailed empirical evidence in a whole host of fields, so I don't expect that to matter.

Multiplier...smells Keynsian...I mean no disrespect, but I can already tell you I disagree. No need to keyboard duke it out. I will admit I am pretty closed-minded there...sorry...there was just never a time where it resonated with me, and I left it behind once I left academia.

I am however quite interested in your statement "ignoring detailed empirical evidence in a whole host of fields". I feel there is something new to be learned here...what have you? what Fields?"

BTW...

Economists For Romney

The BO campaign has one of these too...but I think you likley have that one...

to my original point:

I was never trying to say anything remotely partisan...was simply saying others do indeed exist who are fairly decorated who think a little differently. I wander about some of these guys on Romney's list too...but the point is...there is another side with some pretty sharp guys involved.

I think sometimes folks kinda ascribe "truth" to the phenomena of agreeing with an expert, or their interpretation of "empirical" data. I call that resonance...but I would not allude to it being truth, right, correct, nor would I claim anyone ignored anything...others may, you know, interpret the data or see something that mitigates a set of conclusions drawn from said data...

My bottom line on Obama policy...the ONLY thing you can say is, we need more time. So how convenient folks identify "emperical" data to support that. I look at what the guy said...I gave him his 3 years plus...this IS NOT the recovery I had in mind. Look at it this way, Anemic kids still grow...just not fast enough, and not in a healthy way.

 

[irish1958]

Whoever wins, we are in for more major grid-lock. Mitch MicConnell stated a few years ago that the only legislative goal of the Republican Party (in the Senate) is to ensure the defeat of President Obama by opposing any and all of his legislative agenda. A great deal of Romny's criticism of president Obama has to do with his failure to pass legislation in the past two years ( and his promise to repeal whatever was done in the first two years of Obama's term).
Since neither party will control both the House and have at least a 60% majority in the Senate grid-lock is bound to continue, especially if Romney wins.
If the absolute opposition to the president's agenda succeeds in defeating Obama, what do you think the chances are that the Democrats will cooperate with Romney? Why wouldn't they adopt the same successful strategy?

 

[phgreek]

If the absolute opposition to the president's agenda succeeds in defeating Obama, what do you think the chances are that the Democrats will cooperate with Romney? Why wouldn't they adopt the same successful strategy?

maybe...but there was actually "a little" conduct by Dems beyond this sound bite that contributed to gridlock.

They can continue to do what they have done...not change a thing...and we STILL have gridlock...I don't think its exactly accurate to state it as if this would be a new Dem tactic in response to a R president.

 

[IrishLax]

maybe...but there was actually "a little" conduct by Dems beyond this sound bite that contributed to gridlock.

They can continue to do what they have done...not change a thing...and we STILL have gridlock...I don't think its exactly accurate to state it as if this would be a new Dem tactic in response to a R president.

This. Seriously, you can't possibly think this is a solely Republican problem. The looming sequestration is the best example of this.

And then there is the fact that Obama used up all of his political capital getting Obamacare passed when the majority of Americans opposed the bill... so there were very few "favors" left to call in to get anything else done.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I kinda like a little gridlock. Seems like everything Congress does, it's just an over-reaction to national hysteria.

Their cures are often worse than the identified diseases.

PATRIOT Act, ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, Ca$h for Clunkers, etc. These are all bad, bad bills in hindsight.

 

[BobD]

This. Seriously, you can't possibly think this is a solely Republican problem. The looming sequestration is the best example of this.

And then there is the fact that Obama used up all of his political capital getting Obamacare passed when the majority of Americans opposed the bill... so there were very few "favors" left to call in to get anything else done.

I think most Americans feared Obama care because of relentless Republican fear mongering.

 

[RDU Irish]

I feared Obama because he was grossly inexperienced and one of the most liberal extreme senators (next to Kerry). Plus he had Congress and the Senate behind him if he won and Democrats Gone Wild scares me slightly more than Republicans Gone Wild.

I also feared McCain. He wa/is s a career legislator with the economic knowledge of a pile of crap.

South Park had it right, the options were a sh!t sandwich (McCain) versus giant douche (Obama).

Governors make better Presidents. They have executive experience that Congressment and Senators lack. As such, Romney is immensely more qualified for the job and I take solace in the Grand Ole Party refusing to embrace him.

 

[phgreek]

I feared Obama because he was grossly inexperienced and one of the most liberal extreme senators (next to Kerry). Plus he had Congress and the Senate behind him if he won and Democrats Gone Wild scares me slightly more than Republicans Gone Wild.

I also feared McCain. He wa/is s a career legislator with the economic knowledge of a pile of crap.

South Park had it right, the options were a sh!t sandwich (McCain) versus giant douche (Obama).

Governors make better Presidents. They have executive experience that Congressment and Senators lack. As such, Romney is immensely more qualified for the job and I take solace in the Grand Ole Party refusing to embrace him.

This thought pattern makes sense to me...has most of my adult life. I must admit though...I still couldn't vote for Clinton over Bush Sr. ...so I'd be fibbing if I didn't acknowledge there is more at work on me than that...but if I had a preference, both D and R presidential candidates should be govs. first.