California being the largest economy may also have something to do with its simply being the most populous state by far. (150% more than the next nearest state, over twice that of every state but Texas and NY.)

California being the largest economy may also have something to do with its simply being the most populous state by far. (150% more than the next nearest state, over twice that of every state but Texas and NY.)

The economy is slowing down. Industry is building less. People are driving to work less, because they are unemployed.

“And carmakers who’d bet the house on our prior appetite for SUVs are — appropriately — taking it in the shorts. sumption. And the biggest thing the government has done to promote saving gas — raising the CAFE standards — won’t kick in for years.”

And drilling will take a decade. Right now you can get an SUV with fuel efficiency better than most cars have in the United States. You just have to buy it from Europe.

“I disagree. The absolute best health care is provided by the private sector.”

No, the most expensive come from the private sector. You want a healthy nation, you want socialized, universal health care.

“The Department of Energy produces zero energy.”

Canada has government run energy companies. They are run better than private companies. Additionally, because they run by the government, they can take a loss during times of high energy prices, which means the economy is not as negatively impacted.

“National security is a Constitutional mandate, and therefore there is no comparison.”

… You realize there are more countries out there. The United States is not the only point of comparison.

“As far as education… as above, the Department of Education teaches no one. The public education system is hostage to government bureaucrats and teachers’ unions in an unholy alliance that strives to deliver the absolute minimum at the absolute highest cost — and both terms are constantly being redefined to their advantage.”

You sound like a paranoid freak when you say stuff like this.

“You want proof? Compare the results of private schools and home schoolers with public schools.”

Sure. …

felixsalmon.com/000492.html

Your fear of government is based on lies.

“But back to oil… cutting demand here in the US simply won’t cut it. As you noted, demand around the world is rising.”

Right, which is why you need to get off oil. Drilling for more will NEVER keep up with demand. Creating massive wind farms and solar farms will. Creating better energy efficient cars industry, etc. can then be sold to China and India to further reduce demand while improving the economy.

There is literally no downside.

“Reducing the number of “boutique blends” of gasoline would be a good start…”

The best way to do that is to have a national standard. But who will agree to that? There’s no way the Republicans will agree to a standard California will agree to, and they are the largest economy in the States. (On a side note, they are also the most energy efficient. This is not a coincidence.)

Maybe so, but its policies ensure a coherent energy policy and delivery to the people. Electricity delivery without the Department of Energy would be a fearsome prospect. One could argue that it is essentially subcontracting the job to the private sector.

For one they regulate what are called (if I remember correctly) natural monopolies – i.e. we don’t want dozens of companies’ lines running across the power lines, or dozens of pipes delivering natural gas, so governments generally restrict the companies that can operate in their area.

Jay Tea – I disagree. The absolute best health care is provided by the private sector. Public health care gives us such examples as the VA and Walter Reed and Canada and England, not Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic or the absolutely world-class hospitals around Boston. Or, in my back yard, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

This just depends, in a lot of ways. If we’re talking about the highest quality, no matter the cost, yes, that’s probably true. But CSS didn’t say ‘best,’ he said ‘efficient.’ Assuming we’re talking about not just an isolated hospital that offers Lexus services when the vast majority of customers are down in the Kia price range, and instead an overarching system to deliver health care to a citizenry of 300 million people of all incomes, CSS is absolutely correct – governments do it better. If necessary, I can repeat links to the familiar statistics that suggest exactly this.

Even that depends on what system you look at. Australia’s, for instance, makes everyone else look like amateurs. They’ve got a dual public/private system, and the government actively uses its power as a buyer to drive down drug prices for its people. Those who can afford it can use the private system. I spoke to a doctor a few years ago that ran both a public and private practice, thereby disproving the idea that its not the worth the money for doctors to train all those years to work in a public system.

Just the way public education had the effect of democratizing literacy and other basic knowledge, so too does a public health system democratize health care. It may not be a better service, but it is certainly more efficient.

Jay Tea, you are evil. Simply put, you have a pool of blackness where your ’soul’ should be (for the lack of a better term). No one who could laugh at the prospect of causing someone’s death simply because they disagree with you political is anything but evil.

I SO have to get that embroidered on a throw pillow or something…

J.

I actually enjoyed reading all that. Thanks for the calm, clear description. Several good points, some food for thought. And not an insult in the whole thing. I wish the incendiaries would be left out more often as (what you may think of me aside) you make much better points without them.

Are you claiming his opinion of the outcome is wrong? Doesn’t that suggest that you believe the outcome will be something different than he thinks? Doesn’t that mean you, too, are claiming to know what the outcome of Obama’s plan will be?

Your bias against me will allow you, I’m sure, to not see this as a legitimate question. But I would be interested in seeing if you could explain how there is a difference between what you accuse him of (knowing what the outcome will be) and what you are doing (knowing what the outcome will not be).

First, I didn’t see the post in which he supposedly said it. Second, apparently you did and, I imagine, took him to task for it so even if I had seen it why should I post what would amount to a “Yeah, what he said” comment. You not comfortable attacking someone unless you get a posse to back you up? And third, “Oh, wah. Stop picking on me.” doesn’t look good on you.

CSS: That’s proof of bias.

I’d say you’re ably demontrating your bias against me, but let’s not let facts get in the way of your double standard.

CSS: That’s proof that you are not worth dealing with.

And yet, you continue to do so.

First up, we are in agreement on the root cause of the oil price, we just phrased it differently. When I said it was a problem of supply, that was a shorthand version of “supply isn’t keeping up with demand.” We agree that it’s the simplest of market forces at play here, not some grand conspiracy.

Demand is already falling here in the US, as — once again — market forces are coming into play. People are driving less, and buying more fuel-efficient vehicles. And carmakers who’d bet the house on our prior appetite for SUVs are — appropriately — taking it in the shorts. sumption. And the biggest thing the government has done to promote saving gas — raising the CAFE standards — won’t kick in for years.

I’d be leery about cutting tax breaks for oil companies. I don’t have the precise numbers, but I’d bet a good chunk of them are for the sorts of things you (and I) want — alternative energy research, exploration, and the like. Also, do you honestly think that they WON’T find a way to pass on their increased costs to consumers?

I hadn’t thought about your “crown corporation” idea before, but I instinctively don’t like it. Such things end up being havens for featherbedding, political cronyism, and corruption. For me, all I have to do is look south to Massachusetts and their “Big Dig.” For you, I’m sure you have a laundry list of federal agencies and Bush appointees.

Mortgages? Well, a lot of the horses have already fled the barn. Maybe a “holding period” where lenders have to keep the loans for a certain period before they can sell them — “let them eat their own dog food” and all that. But putting freezes on foreclosures — that’ll most likely trigger a similar freeze on new mortgages, where only the absolutely lowest risk loans will be granted. It will be an overreaction, and it will do far, far more harm than good.

Finally, you said that “Despite what you will hear from some libertarians, the government can do some things more efficiently than the private sector. Health care, energy, national security, education can all be done better and cheaper than the private sector. Basically any sector where you can’t increase profits simply by creating repeat customers.”

I disagree. The absolute best health care is provided by the private sector. Public health care gives us such examples as the VA and Walter Reed and Canada and England, not Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic or the absolutely world-class hospitals around Boston. Or, in my back yard, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

The Department of Energy produces zero energy.

National security is a Constitutional mandate, and therefore there is no comparison.

As far as education… as above, the Department of Education teaches no one. The public education system is hostage to government bureaucrats and teachers’ unions in an unholy alliance that strives to deliver the absolute minimum at the absolute highest cost — and both terms are constantly being redefined to their advantage.

You want proof? Compare the results of private schools and home schoolers with public schools. Washington, DC spends the most per student of any district in the nation, and they suck beyond belief. Meanwhile, home schoolers and private school students consistently score at the top ranks of pretty much every standard of measure.

My distrust of government efficiency has been well earned, thank you very much. In fact, there’s a credo I embrace: “god save us from an efficient government.”

But back to oil… cutting demand here in the US simply won’t cut it. As you noted, demand around the world is rising. Supply has to be increased as well, and in ways that will directly benefit us. That means increasing our own production, our own refining capacity, and getting rid of some of the obstacles that hinder our market. Reducing the number of “boutique blends” of gasoline would be a good start — that would make the gas supply more flexible, and effectively lowering the price by increasing the supply.

Another one, as you noted, would be to STOP BURNING FOOD FOR FUEL. The idiots who thought THAT one up ought to be doused in crude oil, covered in seagull feathers, and ridden out of town on an oil pipeline.

J.

Liar.

I have pointed out numerous times that recession has a definition, something you keep ignoring and then lying about. I have also pointed out that arguing about the technical term is political suicide. If you have addressed that point, I must have missed it.

“You want a non-troll answer why I take the misuse of the term so seriously?”

So you admit you’ve been trolling. Thank you for that.

“Because what Obama’s proposing as a “cure” will DEVASTATE the already-messed-up economy.”

…

“When it comes to economics, Stroke, I don’t know a hell of a lot. ”

Yet you are willing to put forth a argument on the subject. You are willing to claim you know what the outcome of Obama’s plan will be.

“But I admit it…”

And I took economics in university, so I can’t admit I don’t know a hell of a lot about the subject without lying.

I do agree with your assessment of the major problems in the economy, more or less. However, there is a huge problem with the causes and the solutions.

Oil is not high because of a lack of supply. It’s high because a rapid increase in demand. (Some of this has to do with India and China, but the United States is still the largest consumer in the world.) The quickest way to reduce oil costs is to reduce demand. The easiest way to do that, is to conserve. The second easiest way is to find alternative fuel sources. (NOT FUCKIN’ CORN!) Increasing the supply of oil would not decrease the cost of fuel because refineries are not running at capacity now. (Oil companies are the weak link in the supply chain, not OPEC suppliers. In fact, OPEC is nearing their capacity limits.)

Personally, I would take the $18 billion in tax breaks oil companies are getting (Side note, giving tax breaks to companies making record profits during war and during record high deficits (in non-inflation adjusted terms) is fucking criminal. (Not literally.)) and instead set up a crown corporation to develop and distribute clean energy. Buying energy from people who hate, hate, hate you is stupid. And by people, I mean Canadians. (Joke. But we do supply you guys with more energy than any other country.) Becoming energy independent, which you could with wind & solar, is not just an economic issue, but a national security issue, and national security is an issue most people will agree is within the scope of the federal government.
“and to put a massive slowdown on the foreclosure part of the home-buying business — which will naturally lead to lenders deciding that they will make a lot fewer loans,”

Or to make smarter loans. Did you know that you don’t have to have an income to get a loan? Seriously. People without incomes were getting loans, because the people loaning the money were not at risk since they knew they could bundle those loans and sell them to someone else. And eventually, when the system inevitably collapsed, the government would bail them out because too much money was at state. Welfare for billion dollar corporations that could have been avoided with a little bit of regulation. (Some of which was there and just not enforced, which is defacto deregulation, at least in my mind.)

As an aside, this is not an accident. Keeping easy money going was part of the Bush plan to make the economy look stronger than it was. If you buy a $20,000 car with no money down, the GDP goes up by $20,000 immediately, even if you don’t start paying for it for a year. If you use the equity in your house to buy a $40,000 car you can’t afford, the GDP goes up $40,000. The plan was to keep the economy going on easy, borrowed money and hope that nothing went wrong. But as you said, the long-overdue correction came in the housing market, and it all went to hell.

Personally, I would help those who made loans to buy their first home, or their first home in a few years. The shouldn’t be punished for trying to become part of the American dream. However, if you were a bank that make a lot loans to people who clearly had no chance at paying them back, or you were buying and flipping homes, then fuck you. You’re part of the problem, you shouldn’t get a bail out. Additionally, there should be tighter regulations on the banking industry, because when they get greedy and try to make money for nothing, it is the taxpayers who end up paying. Taxpayers, in effect, are creating an insurance policy for the banks, and as such have the right to make sure the banks do not act in a way that is too risky.

“sucking money out of people’s pockets and into the least productive sector — the government.”

Actually, no. Despite what you will hear from some libertarians, the government can do some things more efficiently than the private sector. Health care, energy, national security, education can all be done better and cheaper than the private sector. Basically any sector where you can’t increase profits simply by creating repeat customers.

On a side note, I would like to point out that when you discuss the facts in a reasonable manner, I can match you point for point. However, you have gotten into the habit of calling me ‘Stoke’ no matter what my attitude is.

Sean: “Actually, you are right, although I wouldn’t spend days on it. But I would certainly point out your hypocrisy in that that you were actively enjoying another’s misfortune and demonstrating exactly the disregard for lives that you have called others “subhuman” for.”

But Jay Tea says it and you don’t say a thing. Not a fucking thing.

That’s proof of bias. That’s proof that you are not worth dealing with.

Actually, you are right, although I wouldn’t spend days on it. But I would certainly point out your hypocrisy in that that you were actively enjoying another’s misfortune and demonstrating exactly the disregard for lives that you have called others “subhuman” for.

Stroke: why are you so eager to cater to the ignorant? Is it out of sympathy and identification?

If you’re going to ignore that words have actual meanings and definitions, why stop at “recession?” Why not call it “Bush’s Depression?”

I have never denied that some portions of the economy are in rough shape. But here’s an analogy — if someone’s sick, it’s kind of important to know whether they had a heart attack or a stroke or cancer or AIDS or a sucking chest wound.

You want a non-troll answer why I take the misuse of the term so seriously? Because what Obama’s proposing as a “cure” will DEVASTATE the already-messed-up economy.

Our two biggest problems right now are rampant inflation in a single sector (energy) and a long-overdue correction and deflation in another (housing). Obama’s “solutions” are to punish not the source of the rapid inflation (the oil pruducers), but the middlemen (the oil companies) and hope like hell they don’t pass those increased taxes on to the consumers (yeah, RIGHT) and to put a massive slowdown on the foreclosure part of the home-buying business — which will naturally lead to lenders deciding that they will make a lot fewer loans, because there’s too good a chance they’ll get screwed in the end when they can’t foreclose on people.

Also, his plan to expand government by leaps and bounds (including a “service corps” that’s “at least as powerful as the Department of Defense”) will result in massive, massive increases in government spending. That, naturally, will necessitate massive, massive increases in taxation, sucking money out of people’s pockets and into the least productive sector — the government.

When it comes to economics, Stroke, I don’t know a hell of a lot. But I admit it, and I make a point of not messing with it. You, on the other hand, actively embrace and proudly proclaim your ignorance, insist that we all cater to your ignorance, and not be so gauche as to point out that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

It takes a very, very special kind of “troll” to make the argument that “I’m wrong, but so are a lot of other people too, so you just better not keep pointing out that I’m wrong.”

J.

I respond to points made by many people, Jay included. Don’t you respond to Jay and Jay Tea far more often than you reply to, say, QiB or Duros? Presumably that’s because they are the ones who say things you feel merit a response.

Note, BTW, that you didn’t actually reply to my point. Instead you changed the subject and turned it into an attack. Now who is it that accuses people of running away when they can’t back up what they said…?

Why don’t you point out all the shit Jay Tea’s been doing in this thread? If you don’t, you are just proving your bias.

You look for opportunities to attack me, but you completely ignore the shit Jay Tea does. If I said I would laugh at his death, you would spends days attacking me.

That’s cause you are a troll. You like to think you are better than other people, but you are not. Anyone reading this thread can see that if you you that rants and raves while I’ve been the one putting forth arguments in the level headed manner.

In short, you are exactly what you claim to hate about me. In other words, the truth is, you hate yourself.

“So, stroke, what do YOU propose as the new definitions of ‘recession’”

Hmmm… I’m not sure I can explain this in any other way to help you understand, but I will try, again.

1.) When the average person thinks about a recession, they are not using the technical definition economists use.

Do you understand? Laymen don’t use technical terms. Got it?

2.) For the average person, they define ‘recession’ as a decrease in buying power. This is not technically correct, but it is a political reality.

Do you understand? Most people make the mistake thinking that declining buying power marks the beginning of a recession and not a declining GDP.

3.) It is political suicide to argue that people are whining because #2 is correct but #1 is not.

Do you understand?

I ask three times because when you even bother to address this point, you have lied about what I have said, repeatedly. I am not changing the definition of ‘recession’, I am merely pointing out differences between the actual definition and common usage and the political folly in mocking those that use the latter over the former.

“and ‘bigamy?’”

Was I even in that thread? Nope. Never made a single post in that thread, so you are obviously confusing me with someone else.

“Since you obviously don’t agree with the current definitions…”

And another lie.

As I have point out, repeatedly, there is a definition between the technical definition and the common usage definition. While the former is correct, you can’t ignore the latter and not expect to suffer some political price.

I strongly suspect that he would have said much the same thing, but considerably less coherently and civilly.

J.