Log in

View Full Version : Current Fed Policy - For how long ?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Melonie
02-21-2012, 09:05 AM
The U.S. is now an oil and gas EXPORTER. Did you know that ? We have plenty of oil and gas and demand is stable.

Actually US oil production is increasing ( thanks to improved 'stripping' technology providing a new lease on life to older US onshore wells ), while US demand for oil / diesel / gasoline is DECLINING ( thanks to higher efficiency engines / vehicles ). Yet the price of US heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are all rising toward record levels. This is obviously contrary to the 'cargo cult' supply and demand theory.

I'll state the point again ... since the 1990's ... and since the mid 2000's in earnest ... the USA has gradually become a full participant in the global economy. Where overall supply and demand is concerned, we now have to acknowledge the fact that China, India etc. are the dominant demand side factors. We also have to acknowledge that the days of US dollar dominance for world trade ( i.e. Bretton Woods ) are now effectively over, meaning that all global commodities are now effectively priced based on a basket of different currencies.

As such, with absolutely no change in US supply versus US demand, or even with a contrary change in US supply versus US demand, the cost of global commodities will be linked to global supply versus global demand. And the US dollar denominated price of said global commodities will in turn be linked to the US dollar's 'purchasing power' = exchange rate versus Rupees, Yuan, Rubles, Euros etc. that comprise the global basket of currencies to which global commodity prices are linked. When the FED 'prints' additional US dollars out of thin air, the US dollar's 'purchasing power' = exchange rate goes down, and the US dollar denominated price of commodities goes up, in direct proportion. It's that friggin simple !

As also mentioned before, the only exceptions are commodities / goods that cannot be globally traded ... with a recent example being US natural gas, which cannot be globally traded in volume due to environmental protests restricting the building of new US LNG shipping terminals.

Now the FED can control the total supply of US dollars, based on how much 'printing out of thin air' it chooses to do. The FED can also control US dollar interest rates to a limited degree, based on how much US Treasury bond / private sector bond buying and selling it chooses to do. But the FED can no longer control the third leg of the triangle, i.e. the US dollar's resulting 'purchasing power' = exchange rate because Bretton Woods is 'dead' thus the US is now in the role of being just one of many global producers / consumers.

Eric Stoner
02-21-2012, 09:59 AM
Melonie is right. U.S. demand has DECLINED. I was referring to world demand for oil which has been relatively stable.

U.S. oil companies are making and exporting jet fuel along with some gasoline and heating oil to Japan and other Asian countries because they can make more money by doing so.

eagle2
02-21-2012, 10:38 AM
Actually US oil production is increasing ( thanks to improved 'stripping' technology providing a new lease on life to older US onshore wells ), while US demand for oil / diesel / gasoline is DECLINING ( thanks to higher efficiency engines / vehicles ). Yet the price of US heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are all rising toward record levels. This is obviously contrary to the 'cargo cult' supply and demand theory.


As always, you're being dishonest and making stuff up. Nobody said that.

eagle2
02-21-2012, 10:41 AM
The only problem is, we never do. We borrow and spend but when the time comes to pay it down, Congress always chickens out. Along the same lines, one person's economic recovery is never robust enough to satisfy someone else who didn't get enough put on their plate.

You confuse "understanding" Keynsianism with agreement. I understand John Maynard Keynes all to well and have never agreed with his policies. Just like the Bible was written by desert dwelling primitives with a genuine fear of women and a total lack of scientific knowledge, Keynes worked and wrote in a world where money was backed by gold. And as I have repeatedly proved, his policies did not , never have and will NOT work.

Supply and demand does not operate in a vaccuum. The U.S. is now an oil and gas EXPORTER. Did you know that ? We have plenty of oil and gas and demand is stable. The political worry over Iran is cancelled out by Saudi assurances that they will pump enough oil to make up any disrupted supply. Libyan oil is coming back on line. The Russians are pumping and exporting like crazy. Something else is at work besides just supply and demand. For some reason you just have a mental block when it comes to how foreign exchange works and how our weak dollar affects commodity prices.

No, you simply don't understand economics.

eagle2
02-21-2012, 10:43 AM
OK. OK . I give up. We'll just have to let you use your own self written history book.

Yes , Reagan cut taxes STARTING in 1982 but remember tha the cuts were PHASED in and did not take full effect until 1983.
Volcker started raising rates in 1979 but the recession did not hit until 1981 AFTER Reagan had been elected.
Neither policy was like making instant coffee. No economic policy ever is. Both took time to work their way through the system and take effect.
Btw, you're not one of those people who thinks that umbrella usage causes it to rain, are you ? Just curious.

Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1982, yet the economy tanked. We had stronger economic growth and lower unemployment in the 1960's when the top tax rate was 70%, than we did in the 1980's after Reagan's tax cuts. As always, the facts contradict your ideology.

eagle2
02-21-2012, 10:49 AM
Seems that the countries that kept up government spending; China, Argentina, and Brazil; are experience strong economic growth, while for Great Britain, which has implemented austerity measures, economic growth is non-existent. As always, what happens in the real world contradicts Melonie and Eric's right-wing ideology.

Eric Stoner
02-21-2012, 11:39 AM
Seems that the countries that kept up government spending; China, Argentina, and Brazil; are experience strong economic growth, while for Great Britain, which has implemented austerity measures, economic growth is non-existent. As always, what happens in the real world contradicts Melonie and Eric's right-wing ideology.

Oh O.K. But Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy go on YOUR side of the ideological ledger.

China has a huge surplus and manipulates its currency. Brazil and Argentina both learned their lessons and are now practicing fiscal responsibility. More or less.

As for Britain, the jury is out. Nobody said that they didn't have to take painful medicine i.e. short term pain for long term gain. Just wait until it is our turn.

Eric Stoner
02-21-2012, 11:46 AM
Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1982, yet the economy tanked. We had stronger economic growth and lower unemployment in the 1960's when the top tax rate was 70%, than we did in the 1980's after Reagan's tax cuts. As always, the facts contradict your ideology.

So what's your point ? You're not trying to prove that tax cuts caused the '81-83 Recession again, are you ? Did JFK's tax cuts cause a recession ? Did the Mellon/ Harding/ Coolidge tax cuts cause a recession ? Did Clinton's tax cuts cause the 2000-1 Recession ? I've already proven that FDR's tax increases helped cause the Great Recession of 1938.

I'm sorry but who is it who doesn't understand economics ?

eagle2
02-22-2012, 11:20 PM
Oh O.K. But Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy go on YOUR side of the ideological ledger.


No they're not. Greece implemented austerity measures and it's been a disaster for them. Argentina chose to default on their debt and break the link between their currency and the dollar, rather than go on austerity Their economy recovered a lot faster than Greece, which isn't anywhere close to recovery.

eagle2
02-22-2012, 11:29 PM
So what's your point ? You're not trying to prove that tax cuts caused the '81-83 Recession again, are you ? Did JFK's tax cuts cause a recession ? Did the Mellon/ Harding/ Coolidge tax cuts cause a recession ? Did Clinton's tax cuts cause the 2000-1 Recession ? I've already proven that FDR's tax increases helped cause the Great Recession of 1938.


No you didn't. Just because you or Melonie says something, it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. FDR increased taxes again in 1940, and he also increased spending. According to conservative ideology, we should have experienced a major economic downturn. Instead we had tremendous growth. As I said before, if you want strong economic growth, do the opposite of conservative ideology.

My point is, Reagan's tax cuts didn't cause the recovery. Raising interest rates caused the recession. Lowering interest rates caused the recovery.

Melonie
02-23-2012, 12:07 AM
FDR increased taxes again in 1940, and he also increased spending. According to conservative ideology, we should have experienced a major economic downturn. Instead we had tremendous growth.

Again with staring at he 'bark' ... and this time it's also a special case of 'moss growing on the south side of the tree'.

(snip)"As war spread throughout Europe and Asia between 1939 and 1941, nowhere was the federal government's leadership more important than in the realm of "preparedness" — the national project to ready for war by enlarging the military, strengthening certain allies such as Great Britain, and above all converting America's industrial base to produce armaments and other war materiel rather than civilian goods. "Conversion" was the key issue in American economic life in 1940-1942. In many industries, company executives resisted converting to military production because they did not want to lose consumer market share to competitors who did not convert. Conversion thus became a goal pursued by public officials and labor leaders. In 1940, Walter Reuther, a high-ranking officer in the United Auto Workers labor union, provided impetus for conversion by advocating that the major automakers convert to aircraft production. Though initially rejected by car-company executives and many federal officials, the Reuther Plan effectively called the public's attention to America's lagging preparedness for war. Still, the auto companies only fully converted to war production in 1942 and only began substantially contributing to aircraft production in 1943.

Even for contemporary observers, not all industries seemed to be lagging as badly as autos, though. Merchant shipbuilding mobilized early and effectively. The industry was overseen by the U.S. Maritime Commission (USMC), a New Deal agency established in 1936 to revive the moribund shipbuilding industry, which had been in a depression since 1921, and to ensure that American shipyards would be capable of meeting wartime demands. With the USMC supporting and funding the establishment and expansion of shipyards around the country, including especially the Gulf and Pacific coasts, merchant shipbuilding took off. The entire industry had produced only 71 ships between 1930 and 1936, but from 1938 to 1940, commission-sponsored shipyards turned out 106 ships, and then almost that many in 1941 alone (Fischer, 41). The industry's position in the vanguard of American preparedness grew from its strategic import — ever more ships were needed to transport American goods to Great Britain and France, among other American allies — and from the Maritime Commission's ability to administer the industry through means as varied as construction contracts, shipyard inspectors, and raw goading of contractors by commission officials."(snip) from

In other words, in 1940, Britain, France, Nationalist China etc. demanded wartime products, and the US gov't in conjunction with labor unions 'coerced' private industries to convert to the production of war materials. Those private industries were in turn 'guaranteed' a profit by the inflated prices paid under US gov't contracts ... and the gov't in turn was able to pay for those 'guaranteed profits' via massively increased gov't debt levels. Almost sounds similar to today's Crony Capitalism ... except for the fact that the 1940 'consumers' were guaranteed to have a continuing demand for ( replacement ) ships, planes, tanks etc. as earlier purchased units were destroyed. In a modern day scenario, there IS no continuing demand for products sanctioned by the gov't and labor unions ... well, unless you count Chevy Volts burning up in garages, or GE employees being given the 'choice' of the company providing 100% reimbursement for Chevy Volts as company vehicles ( a byproduct of GE being allowed to pay zero US corporate income tax ? ) versus zero reimbursement for any other vehicles. See . And it certainly didn't work in regard to US 'green energy' a la Solyndra et al.


The important point of course is that the vastly increased gov't spending levels of 1940 would not have produced the same economic growth in the absence of massive temporary 'demand' for US export military products ( i.e. planes, ships, tanks ). Vastly increased gov't spending in the absence of that massive demand, as has occurred in recent years, doesn't achieve the same result beyond the FED printing up ever taller piles of green paper and the US taxpayer racking up ever higher levels of gov't debt. As was stated previously, today the US gov't cannot control global demand.

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 08:12 AM
No they're not. Greece implemented austerity measures and it's been a disaster for them. Argentina chose to default on their debt and break the link between their currency and the dollar, rather than go on austerity Their economy recovered a lot faster than Greece, which isn't anywhere close to recovery.

Rotflmao ! You are a scream ! Greece's alternative was what ? More spending ? More borrowing ? From whom ? Certain gentlemen in Sicily ? At what interest rate ? 50% ? 100% ? For how long ?

Melonie has already explained why your Argentine example is way off base.

I hope I am wrong but Greece will probably never recover. It will probably become the European version of Haiti. A perennial economic basket case.

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 08:18 AM
No you didn't. Just because you or Melonie says something, it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. FDR increased taxes again in 1940, and he also increased spending. According to conservative ideology, we should have experienced a major economic downturn. Instead we had tremendous growth. As I said before, if you want strong economic growth, do the opposite of conservative ideology.

My point is, Reagan's tax cuts didn't cause the recovery. Raising interest rates caused the recession. Lowering interest rates caused the recovery.

You are going beyond silly by repeating the same nonsense that has been explained and corrected for you over and over again. In 1940 we were also rearming AND arming Britain and France. We were also climbing out of the 1938 Recession and the Fed had loosened on credit.

Reagan's tax cuts gave us a 20 year run ( some say 25 ) of prosperity despite what interest rates were doing. Clinton never went close to restoring 70% rates or even 50%. More than once he privately admitted he raised taxes too much and too broadly. What happened after he cut business and capital gains taxes ?

mikef
02-23-2012, 10:11 AM
Rotflmao ! You are a scream ! Greece's alternative was what ? More spending ? More borrowing ? From whom ? Certain gentlemen in Sicily ? At what interest rate ? 50% ? 100% ? For how long ?

Melonie has already explained why your Argentine example is way off base.

I hope I am wrong but Greece will probably never recover. It will probably become the European version of Haiti. A perennial economic basket case.

While no two situations are identical, certainly when discussing the finances and options of whole countries..... I say Greece would be better off defaulting.... Reintroducing the Drachma, at a much lower exchange rate and starting over..... The Euro does not help Greece now..... The only help it provided was with borrowing.... And we know how that worked out.

A lot of debt is in the hands of hedge funds now anyway.... The kick the can down the road has worked... Allowing many European banks to divest themselves of the junk..... Austerity is comming either way.... Better to be the master of your own destiny...... As to all the CDS....... This is the real problem IMO..... Let those who gambled take their losses..... I grow fatigued of hearing how the sky will fall.

Iceland showed the way.

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 11:22 AM
While no two situations are identical, certainly when discussing the finances and options of whole countries..... I say Greece would be better off defaulting.... Reintroducing the Drachma, at a much lower exchange rate and starting over..... The Euro does not help Greece now..... The only help it provided was with borrowing.... And we know how that worked out.

A lot of debt is in the hands of hedge funds now anyway.... The kick the can down the road has worked... Allowing many European banks to divest themselves of the junk..... Austerity is comming either way.... Better to be the master of your own destiny...... As to all the CDS....... This is the real problem IMO..... Let those who gambled take their losses..... I grow fatigued of hearing how the sky will fall.

Iceland showed the way.

That's right. That is the inevitable reality that nobody in Europe is prepared to face. Greece out of the EU (that they lied to join in the first place). That will put them back on the Drachma which they will print like crazy to pay off their debt with virtually worthless paper. Just like Argentina did. And Brazil. It's working wonders in Zimbabwe, isn't it ?

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 11:38 AM
No they're not. Greece implemented austerity measures and it's been a disaster for them. Argentina chose to default on their debt and break the link between their currency and the dollar, rather than go on austerity Their economy recovered a lot faster than Greece, which isn't anywhere close to recovery.

You have LOOKED at how bad things got in Argentina haven't you ? At it's worst, more than half the country lived in poverty. More than 25% lived in extreme poverty. Their currency collapsed. They were told not to but followed Chile's example and pegged the peso to the U.S. dollar despite the fact that Chile regretted having done so.
And what has been the prime driver of their recovery ? High world food prices. Especially for soy.

mikef
02-23-2012, 12:25 PM
That's right. That is the inevitable reality that nobody in Europe is prepared to face. Greece out of the EU (that they lied to join in the first place). That will put them back on the Drachma which they will print like crazy to pay off their debt with virtually worthless paper. Just like Argentina did. And Brazil. It's working wonders in Zimbabwe, isn't it ?

No.... Greece should default on the foreign debt..... If Argentina teaches us anything.... It's that you can return quickly to the world bond market..... Now I'm not saying everything will be fine in the short run..... But as I said before..... The Greeks are going to get austerity one way or another..... Better to keep some control.

Melonie
02-23-2012, 12:52 PM
Not wanting to focus on 'trees' instead of the 'forest' ... but this is worth mentioning.

Both Iceland and Argentina are net exporters. Iceland exports a huge amount of seafood, while Argentina exports a huge amount of soy and beef. Iceland exports a large amount of aluminum, while Argentina exports a large amount of mineral fuels. Both also are net exporters of manufactured goods, Iceland exports fishing industry products while Argentina exports farming industry products. Thus both Iceland and Argentina were able to 'dig their way out' of post-default economic depressions on the 'back' of export earnings.

In contrast, Greece ( and to a great extent the USA ) is a net importer. Thus if a default were to occur, the credit to purchase net imports would immediately disappear. On a 'cash' basis, Greece cannot survive at any 'acceptable' standard of living if it is limited to trading olive oil for diesel oil. Greece's current standard of living ( and to a great extent the US standard of living ) has been based on the spending of ever increasing amounts of borrowed money for at least the past 20 years. And Greece ( as well as the US ) does not have the capacity to produce any high demand world traded commodities in sufficient quantity at a competitive price that, like Iceland and/or Argentina, could potentially provide sufficient 'value' to offset the cost of the imports it vitally needs.

So unlike Iceland and/or Argentina, a debt default by Greece ( or the USA for that matter ) would result in a significant permanent reduction in the country's standard of living i.e. 'permanent' third world status. THIS is the reason that Greek leaders have agreed to the austerity measures required to receive additional bailout loans. They know that being forced onto a 'cash' basis for world trade as the result of a debt default, they would be even WORSE off.

This point has an 'official' terminology in economics ... Say's Law ... from Wiki ...

(snip)"Say's Law is the principle that supply constitutes demand. Or, in the words of economist Jean Baptiste Say, "...a product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." (A TREATISE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, Chapter 15).

J.B.Say (1767-1832) is the French economist who coined the word entrepreneur to describe an economic agent independent from the landlord, worker or even capitalist (since the entrepreneur may secure financing from others). Say wrote his treatist to counter the Mercantilist doctrine that money is the source of wealth. According to Say, goods buy goods, and money mediates the transaction: "It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales." James Mill expanded on Say's argument in his book COMMERCE DEFENDED to counter the belief that underconsumption is the cause of economic recession — and to counter the belief that increased consumption is the remedy for recession. Say incorporated Mill's ideas in subsequent editions of his treatise. Say was emphatic that consumption destroys wealth and that only production creates wealth. "(snip)

At any rate, there are more than a few 'cargo cult' economists who associate the debt default and subsequent recovery by Iceland and Argentina with the expectation of similar success should Greece ( or the USA ) default on debt as well. Unfortunately, they overlook the critical component of 'cash' export revenues being able to exceed 'cash' costs of necessary imports, which Iceland and Argentina had going for them but which Greece ( or the USA ) does not.

eagle2
02-23-2012, 01:03 PM
You are going beyond silly by repeating the same nonsense that has been explained and corrected for you over and over again. In 1940 we were also rearming AND arming Britain and France. We were also climbing out of the 1938 Recession and the Fed had loosened on credit.



Again, just because you "explain something" doesn't make it true. It usual means it isn't, since you know practically nothing about economics. You just don't like that the facts contradict your failed ideology. Government spending increased and so did economic growth. "Rearming" is government spending. Duh

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 01:05 PM
Not wanting to focus on 'trees' instead of the 'forest' ... but this is worth mentioning.

Both Iceland and Greece are net exporters. Iceland exports a huge amount of seafood, while Argentina exports a huge amount of soy and beef. Iceland exports a large amount of aluminum, while Argentina exports a large amount of mineral fuels. Both also are net exporters of manufactured goods, Iceland exports fishing industry products while Argentina exports farming industry products. Thus both Iceland and Argentina were able to 'dig their way out' of post-default economic depressions on the 'back' of export earnings.

In contrast, Greece ( and to a great extent the USA ) is a net importer. Thus if a default were to occur, the credit to purchase net imports would immediately disappear. On a 'cash' basis, Greece cannot survive at any 'acceptable' standard of living if it is limited to trading olive oil for diesel oil. Greece's current standard of living ( and to a great extent the US standard of living ) has been based on the spending of ever increasing amounts of borrowed money for at least the past 20 years. And Greece ( as well as the US ) does not have the capacity to produce any high demand world traded commodities in sufficient quantity at a competitive price that, like Iceland and/or Argentina, could potentially provide sufficient 'value' to offset the cost of the imports it vitally needs.

Mel. Please re-read your last post. "Greece is a net exporter" ?

When Argentina defaulted it was NOT a net exporter. In fact, their troubles caused many countries ( including the U.S. ) to increase inspection requirements and limit imports of Argentinian goods for fear of being provided with low grade or even dangerous merchandise. Argentina did stabilize its economy after YEARS of hyperinflation and then severe recession and exports played a major role. Especially food exports; primarily beef, soy and wheat.

Eric Stoner
02-23-2012, 01:09 PM
Again, just because you "explain something" doesn't make it true. It usual means it isn't, since you know practically nothing about economics. You just don't like that the facts contradict your failed ideology. Government spending increased and so did economic growth. "Rearming" is government spending. Duh

Who said it wasn't ? Duh.

My "ideology" has created more wealth and alleviated more poverty for more people, while providing them with FREEDOM than any other system ever devised.

Let me ask you something : Have ever read Hayek ? Friedman ? Adam Smith ? Try it. God forbid YOU should learn something.

I don't like personalizing. I've tried to turn the other cheek and deflect your hostility and sense of superiority with humor and good grace. So has Melonie to her everlasting credit. I've repeatedly asked that everybody just focus on the ideas and info posted and NOT the person posting. Everybody else seems to be making the effort except you. Nobody else accuses those with whom they disagree of "making things up " or being ignorant or being a slave to some "ideology" except YOU ! Who the fuck are you ? What entitles you to look down your nose and insult anyone else ? Now I actually like engaging with you most of the time. Most of your views are certainly well within the mainstream of intelligent thought and most of the time you have at least some factual support. But your vicious and condescending attitude of late is getting quite tedious and you are wearing me out. There is supposed to be a POLITICS BAN and the kind of garbage you've been posting is obviously exactly what Pryce preferred NOT to see when he imposed it. So either knock it off with EVERYBODY going back to trying to avoid same or maybe find yourself somewhere else to post.

eagle2
02-23-2012, 01:14 PM
Your ideology has been a total failure. The only thing we have to show for it is $15 trillion debt and the greatest income/wealth disparity in close to a century.

Melonie
02-23-2012, 01:29 PM
I already caught my initial typo ... for a fact Greece is a net importer. Understood that both Iceland and to an even greater degree Argentina experienced a bunch of 'pain' as the result of converting to export driven economies which eventually allowed them to 'dig out from under'. But because these countries had the natural resources to become net exporters, 'digging out' was made possible. Greece ( and arguably the USA ) don't have the same natural resources ( or won't allow those natural resources to be deployed ).



Your ideology has been a total failure. The only thing we have to show for it is $15 trillion debt and the greatest income/wealth disparity in close to a century.

While this is flirting with the SW politics ban, you might want to do some additional fact checking. An official change in economic ideology in the USA was put into effect in January of 2007, with the swearing in of a democratic congress. Have a look at any type of economic measure you like, and tell me again the US economy has improved since then. Also please explain to me again how $15 trillion in US debt is the result of 'my' ideology, when US debt levels were less than $5 trillion the last time ( 2006 ) that 'my' economic ideology partially prevailed. Also have a look at which ideology the top 0.1% of American earners adhere to ... Hollywood celebrities, professional sports players, the hereditary 'uber-rich', tech boom billionaires etc. For the most part they are the ones throwing $35,000 a plate fund-raisers for Obama, while legally avoiding millions of dollars in tax liability thanks to green energy tax loopholes, tax free muni bonds, leaving untaxed offshore earnings offshore, lower taxed capital gains, etc. !!!

Arguably it is 'your' economic ideology that keeps the poor being poor, and which further enriches the already rich, while at the same time not only restricting the ability of the middle class to 'rise' toward richness via the fruits of their own labors, but also making it difficult for the middle class to just remain middle class !

With that said, is there now some possibility of returning to 'intelligent' and 'civil' discussion of the thread's main topic i.e. FED policy ?

eagle2
02-23-2012, 04:52 PM
Who said it wasn't ? Duh.

My "ideology" has created more wealth, for more people, while providing them with FREEDOM than any other system ever devised.

Let me ask you something : Have ever read Hayek ? Friedman ? Adam Smith ? Try it. God forbid YOU should learn something.

I don't like personalizing. I've tried to turn the other cheek and deflect your hostility and sense of superiority with humor and good grace. So has Melonie to her everlasting credit. I've repeatedly asked that everybody just focus on the ideas and info posted and NOT the person posting. Everybody else seems to be making the effort except you. Nobody else accuses those with whom they disagree of "making things up " or being ignorant or being a slave to some "ideology" except YOU ! Who the fuck are you ? What entitles you to look down your nose and insult anyone else ? Now I actually like engaging with you most of the time. Most of your views are certainly well within the mainstream of intelligent thought and most of the time you have at least some factual support. But your vicious and condescending attitude of late is getting quite tedious and you are wearing me out. There is supposed to be a POLITICS BAN and the kind of garbage you've been posting is obviously exactly what Pryce preferred NOT to see when he imposed it. So either knock it off with EVERYBODY going back to trying to avoid same or maybe find yourself somewhere else to post.

No, you are being condescending and disrespectful, just because you don't like the facts that I post. Here's your comment I responded to:

"You are going beyond silly by repeating the same nonsense that has been explained and corrected for you over and over again. In 1940 we were also rearming AND arming Britain and France. We were also climbing out of the 1938 Recession and the Fed had loosened on credit."

All I did was state the fact that when government dramatically increased spending in 1940, we had strong economic growth, which is true.

Because you don't like this fact, you make a very condescending comment telling me I'm "going beyond silly", and "repeating the same nonsense", and say it's been corrected "over and over again", as if only your point of view is correct.

If you want to be treated respectfully, try doing the same for others. If you're going to make condescending, disrespectful remarks to others, don't be surprised when you're not treated very nicely yourself.

Eric Stoner
02-24-2012, 08:36 AM
No, you are being condescending and disrespectful, just because you don't like the facts that I post. Here's your comment I responded to:

"You are going beyond silly by repeating the same nonsense that has been explained and corrected for you over and over again. In 1940 we were also rearming AND arming Britain and France. We were also climbing out of the 1938 Recession and the Fed had loosened on credit."

All I did was state the fact that when government dramatically increased spending in 1940, we had strong economic growth, which is true.

Because you don't like this fact, you make a very condescending comment telling me I'm "going beyond silly", and "repeating the same nonsense", and say it's been corrected "over and over again", as if only your point of view is correct.

If you want to be treated respectfully, try doing the same for others. If you're going to make condescending, disrespectful remarks to others, don't be surprised when you're not treated very nicely yourself.

Time was I would happily take the first step and extend the hand of conciliation. I've done it before. But I am not the one who calls those with whom he disagrees "ignorant". YOU are the one who is so quick to accuse others ( usually Melonie ) of "making things up" when she of course has done no such thing. Why don't YOU try practicing what you preach ?

And yes, Melonie and I have continually trotted after you correcting your factual errors but mostly filling in those facts you conveniently leave out.

We have shown a LOT more tolerance for your views than you have for free-market capitalism. We've attacked your ideas based on the factual and historical record. In contrast, you are the one who continually resorts to personalizing and insult and then turns around and complains about the slightest rhetorical pinprick. It's not unique to you. Many statists are willing to endure personal barbs but Heaven Help anyone who goes after one of their ideas ! Nothing seems more sacred these days than the CW.

All that being said, I will try harder to avoid anything that might offend you. Except the truth.When THAT bothers you, as it sometimes seems to do, there is nothing I can do about it. We can all do better when it comes to getting along and playing well with others. I assume you enjoy participating in the discussions. Otherwise why would you post ? So let's ALL try to see that the sandbox remains open for everyone and try not to ruin a good thing by personalizing or rhetorical excess.

eagle2
02-29-2012, 10:02 PM
Time was I would happily take the first step and extend the hand of conciliation. I've done it before. But I am not the one who calls those with whom he disagrees "ignorant". YOU are the one who is so quick to accuse others ( usually Melonie ) of "making things up" when she of course has done no such thing. Why don't YOU try practicing what you preach ?

I never called anyone "ignorant".

Here's a recent statement by Melonie:

"Well, if the FED goes for broke on QE3, printing up new US dollar bills at warp speed, it's not inconceivable that future $40 an hour union auto wages won't be too far ahead of a future $30 US minimum wage. Of course, this would also mean that a gallon of gasoline would cost $20, a loaf of bread would cost $8, and an ounce of gold would cost $10,000, and a bargain basement new car would cost $50,000 ! "

Can you or Melonie please provide me the numbers and calculations Melonie used to come up with these figures, if she didn't make them up?

We've had QE1 and QE2, and the minimum wage is still $7.25, wages are still pretty much the same, a gallon of gas has been fluctuating between $3 and $4 a gallon, a bargain basement new car is still around $14,000. I would be very interested to see Melonie's figures and calculations that determined wages and prices are going to increase 400 - 500 percent if the Fed were to have a QE3.



We have shown a LOT more tolerance for your views than you have for free-market capitalism. We've attacked your ideas based on the factual and historical record. In contrast, you are the one who continually resorts to personalizing and insult and then turns around and complains about the slightest rhetorical pinprick. It's not unique to you. Many statists are willing to endure personal barbs but Heaven Help anyone who goes after one of their ideas ! Nothing seems more sacred these days than the CW.

I haven't been critical of free-market capitalism. I have been critical of conservatism, which I see as having caused much harm to many people. I am against unfettered free-market capitalism, where you have children working 60 hours a week in sweatshops, and factories poisoning the air and water. I am in favor of regulated capitalism where child labor is outlawed, workers are paid decent wages and have good working conditions, and factories aren't free to destroy the environment.

I am not a statist. Conservatives seem to have this idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a "statist", "socialist", or "marxist". I have never advocated complete government control of the economy.





All that being said,I will try harder to avoid anything that might offend you. Except the truth.When THAT bothers you, as it sometimes seems to do, there is nothing I can do about it. We can all do better when it comes to getting along and playing well with others. I assume you enjoy participating in the discussions. Otherwise why would you post ? So let's ALL try to see that the sandbox remains open for everyone and try not to ruin a good thing by personalizing or rhetorical excess.

I enjoy participating in these discussions when people are being honest, respectful, and not ridiculing others.

Melonie
03-01-2012, 03:34 AM
Can you or Melonie please provide me the numbers and calculations Melonie used to come up with these figures, if she didn't make them up?

As already stated, this was conjecture of the future results of a 4:1 loss of US dollar 'purchasing power', plus a reaction by US lawmakers to apply a 'cost of living index' to the mandated minimum wage. You said this could never happen. I pointed out that in terms of US dollar price levels for gasoline, bread etc. it was already happening to a noticeable degree over the course of the last couple of years, thus could be a realistic future possibility.



I am against unfettered free-market capitalism, where you have children working 60 hours a week in sweatshops, and factories poisoning the air and water. I am in favor of regulated capitalism where child labor is outlawed, workers are paid decent wages and have good working conditions, and factories aren't free to destroy the environment.

From this we can assume you are a major supporter of 'protectionism' for US industries ? This would of course accelerate price increases for US consumer products.

jimboe7373
03-01-2012, 05:46 AM
We have shown a LOT more tolerance for your views than you have for free-market capitalism. I hope you are not trying to insinuate that we have free-market capitalism in the US. I am all in favor of true free-market capitalism, but what we have is far from that. What we have is a government that is bought off by lobbyists and big business in certain industries that restrict competition, control prices and regulate in many cases to the full benefit of big business and full detriment of the people. Cell phone carriers, internet and tv carriers practice free-market capitalism, when was the last time you saw an oil or healthcare company advertising their prices or discount specials?

Eric Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:24 AM
I hope you are not trying to insinuate that we have free-market capitalism in the US. I am all in favor of true free-market capitalism, but what we have is far from that. What we have is a government that is bought off by lobbyists and big business in certain industries that restrict competition, control prices and regulate in many cases to the full benefit of big business and full detriment of the people. Cell phone carriers, internet and tv carriers practice free-market capitalism, when was the last time you saw an oil or healthcare company advertising their prices or discount specials?

Who has come down harder on "crony capitalism" than Melonie or I ? Who has opposed ALL subsidies , credits , bailouts and tax breaks ? We have. Who has argued for the restoration of our Tax Code to being a revenue raising tool PERIOD ! and not a coloring book for lobbyists ? We have.

Eric Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:30 AM
I never called anyone "ignorant".

Here's a recent statement by Melonie:

"Well, if the FED goes for broke on QE3, printing up new US dollar bills at warp speed, it's not inconceivable that future $40 an hour union auto wages won't be too far ahead of a future $30 US minimum wage. Of course, this would also mean that a gallon of gasoline would cost $20, a loaf of bread would cost $8, and an ounce of gold would cost $10,000, and a bargain basement new car would cost $50,000 ! "

Can you or Melonie please provide me the numbers and calculations Melonie used to come up with these figures, if she didn't make them up?

We've had QE1 and QE2, and the minimum wage is still $7.25, wages are still pretty much the same, a gallon of gas has been fluctuating between $3 and $4 a gallon, a bargain basement new car is still around $14,000. I would be very interested to see Melonie's figures and calculations that determined wages and prices are going to increase 400 - 500 percent if the Fed were to have a QE3.


I haven't been critical of free-market capitalism. I have been critical of conservatism, which I see as having caused much harm to many people. I am against unfettered free-market capitalism, where you have children working 60 hours a week in sweatshops, and factories poisoning the air and water. I am in favor of regulated capitalism where child labor is outlawed, workers are paid decent wages and have good working conditions, and factories aren't free to destroy the environment.

I am not a statist. Conservatives seem to have this idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a "statist", "socialist", or "marxist". I have never advocated complete government control of the economy.





I enjoy participating in these discussions when people are being honest, respectful, and not ridiculing others.

You most certainly have called ME "ignorant". Not with that particular word but in your continual claim that I "don't know anything about economics". With Melonie you usually resort to charges of fabulism.

NOBODY has argued in favor of child labor or against reasonable environmental protections and the like. What we have done is tried to direct your gaze to the real exploiters and polluters which are far more numerous in China and India than in the U.S.

I oppose unreasonable government interference in what should be free markets. You generally support most efforts to do so. Afaic that makes you a statist BUT since it seems to bother you, I will try to avoid that and other labels in the future.

Melonie
03-01-2012, 10:47 AM
Cell phone carriers, internet and tv carriers practice free-market capitalism

^^^ that's a stretch, given the existance of territorial 'protection' provided by gov't sanctioned 'wired' and 'wireless' phone franchises, gov't sanctioned cable tv thus cable modem franchises etc. And we haven't discussed the 'free market' implications of gov't mandated surcharges to finance 'free' phones for low income residents etc.



NOBODY has argued in favor of child labor or against reasonable environmental protections and the like. What we have done is tried to direct your gaze to the real exploiters and polluters which are far more numerous in China and India than in the U.S.

precisely ! And we have advanced the premise that expensive environmental compliance costs which apply to US companies but NOT to Chinese and Indian companies, and expensive ( on a world economy basis ) minimum wage and mandatory employee benefit driven labor costs which apply to US companies but NOT to Chinese and Indian companies, actually serve to increase overall global instances of exploitation and pollution on top of 'permanently' eliminating US jobs.

jimboe7373
03-01-2012, 02:22 PM
^^^ that's a stretch, given the existance of territorial 'protection' provided by gov't sanctioned 'wired' and 'wireless' phone franchises, gov't sanctioned cable tv thus cable modem franchises etc. And we haven't discussed the 'free market' implications of gov't mandated surcharges to finance 'free' phones for low income residents etc. It's not a stretch at all, those industries compete between phone, cable and satellite, consumers have options and there is legitimate competition and as a result you see a ton of advertising and specials, discounts and promotions- as well as an incentive for decent service or customers will usually leave when the contract is up. Nobody needs to have a wired phone any longer, people can also use skype, vonage and magic-jack, a lot of tv and movies can be viewed online or through cell phones. In Illinois for example only 12% of the money collected from that gov't mandated surcharge went to poor or rural people, the rest went to hospitals, libraries and schools. You can also avoid that surcharge by using skype, google voice or magic-jack.

jimboe7373
03-01-2012, 05:00 PM
Who has come down harder on "crony capitalism" than Melonie or I ? Who has opposed ALL subsidies , credits , bailouts and tax breaks ? We have. Who has argued for the restoration of our Tax Code to being a revenue raising tool PERIOD ! and not a coloring book for lobbyists ? We have. Subsidies, credits, bailouts and tax breaks benefit the companies and very often (not always) benefit the people and the economy as well. The parts of free-market manipulation I am talking about is big business creating effective monopolies, suppressing technology, creating artificial demand and having laws and regulations written that exclusively benefit them at the detriment to the public. As said, maybe I missed it but I have not seen you rail against that stuff too often.

There are only so many pieces of the individuals and families economic pie, and if fuel, health and insurance expenses take many times what the fair-market price should be the economy will not be sustainable. Because of the items mentioned in the previous paragraph that is exactly what has happened.

eagle2
03-01-2012, 09:54 PM
As already stated, this was conjecture of the future results of a 4:1 loss of US dollar 'purchasing power', plus a reaction by US lawmakers to apply a 'cost of living index' to the mandated minimum wage. You said this could never happen. I pointed out that in terms of US dollar price levels for gasoline, bread etc. it was already happening to a noticeable degree over the course of the last couple of years, thus could be a realistic future possibility.


Nothing has happened that would lead anyone to believe we're on the verge of seeing $20 a gallon gasoline and $50,000 for a bargain basement car.




From this we can assume you are a major supporter of 'protectionism' for US industries ? This would of course accelerate price increases for US consumer products.

What I would like to see is, corporations that manufacture products overseas held to standards, if they want to sell their products in the US. Corporations that manufacture overseas should be required to provide workers with a liveable wage, 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, and should not be hiring children. I would like to see corporations that refuse to meet these standards, not allowed access to the US market.

eagle2
03-01-2012, 10:50 PM
You most certainly have called ME "ignorant". Not with that particular word but in your continual claim that I "don't know anything about economics". With Melonie you usually resort to charges of fabulism.

I said that because you seem to completely disregard the laws of supply and demand, which is the most basic level of economics. You keep blaming low interest rates for the increase in the price of gasoline and other commodities, while you ignore the fact that world-wide demand has been increasing faster than the supply. I will try to be more careful in how I respond to your statements.

Please tell me how you would describe Melonie's statement that we're on the verge of $20 a gallon gasoline and $50,000 for a bargain-basement car.



NOBODY has argued in favor of child labor or against reasonable environmental protections and the like. What we have done is tried to direct your gaze to the real exploiters and polluters which are far more numerous in China and India than in the U.S.


Melonie constantly argues against environmental protections and minimum wage laws. On a per-capita basis, we're a much bigger polluter than China or India. We're just fortunate that we have 1/4 as many people as either country.




I oppose unreasonable government interference in what should be free markets. You generally support most efforts to do so. Afaic that makes you a statist BUT since it seems to bother you, I will try to avoid that and other labels in the future.

I only support significant government "interference" in the market as a last resort. If the economy is about to collapse, I support the government doing something to prevent it, rather than standing by and doing nothing. If 15 percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, I support the government doing something to bring the unemployment rate down. I also support government providing funding for certain programs that are beneficial, but wouldn't be practical for private industry to completely finance on their own, such as our space program or national highway system.

Eric Stoner
03-02-2012, 08:12 AM
Subsidies, credits, bailouts and tax breaks benefit the companies and very often (not always) benefit the people and the economy as well. The parts of free-market manipulation I am talking about is big business creating effective monopolies, suppressing technology, creating artificial demand and having laws and regulations written that exclusively benefit them at the detriment to the public. As said, maybe I missed it but I have not seen you rail against that stuff too often.

There are only so many pieces of the individuals and families economic pie, and if fuel, health and insurance expenses take many times what the fair-market price should be the economy will not be sustainable. Because of the items mentioned in the previous paragraph that is exactly what has happened.

In almost every case, the negative things about big business that neither you nor I like or agree with, cannot be done without the help and cooperation of government. They almost always require legislation or regulation of one sort or another.

As for subsidies, credits, bailouts and tax breaks, that involves the government picking winners and losers. History proves that it is much better to let the free market do that.

Eric Stoner
03-02-2012, 08:24 AM
I said that because you seem to completely disregard the laws of supply and demand, which is the most basic level of economics. You keep blaming low interest rates for the increase in the price of gasoline and other commodities, while you ignore the fact that world-wide demand has been increasing faster than the supply. I will try to be more careful in how I respond to your statements.

Please tell me how you would describe Melonie's statement that we're on the verge of $20 a gallon gasoline and $50,000 for a bargain-basement car.



Melonie constantly argues against environmental protections and minimum wage laws. On a per-capita basis, we're a much bigger polluter than China or India. We're just fortunate that we have 1/4 as many people as either country.




I only support significant government "interference" in the market as a last resort. If the economy is about to collapse, I support the government doing something to prevent it, rather than standing by and doing nothing. If 15 percent of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, I support the government doing something to bring the unemployment rate down. I also support government providing funding for certain programs that are beneficial, but wouldn't be practical for private industry to completely finance on their own, such as our space program or national highway system.

I do not ignore supply and demand. That is one reason why I want to increase supply when it comes to fuels. I do recognize that supply and demand is just part of the picture and that the weak dollar accounts for a healthy piece of the current price of oil.

I disagree with Melonie only in degree. She and I both anticipate and expect a nasty bout of inflation in the near future. Exactly when or how bad it will be, I don't know. However a doubling of food and fuel prices is not out of the question.

Nobody advocated doing nothing. I opposed the Wall St. bailouts based on the method used. For the most part, TARP worked.

I opposed the way GM and Chrysler were bailed out. I thought, and still think, it would have been much better to put them through a fast- track bankruptcy with the Feds providing DIP financing, assuming none was available from the private sector.

In principle you are right about such things as the Interstate Highway System BUT look how well government management has actually worked. Instead of maintaining the existing infrastructure, too much emphasis was out on new projects and local pork resulting in too many "bridges to nowhere". The one in Alaska was just one of these boondoggles.

Melonie
03-02-2012, 10:24 AM
I would also politely and respectfully point out the following. FED policy is arguably working at cross purposes in the real world in much the same way as some of your statements.

For example, you support gov't action to decrease US unemployment rates. At the same time, you support gov't mandates for a high minimum / 'living' wage. In the real world, the two work inversely ... well, as long as the US dollar denominated cost of US unskilled labor is mandated at a level that is 3 times as high versus unskilled labor costs in other parts of the world.

For example, you support gov't action to increase environmental protections. At the same time, you support gov't action to decrease US unemployment rates. In the real world, the two also work inversely ... well as long as some exporting country provides cut-rate electricity from coal fired power plants for its industries, permits the use of highly effective but supposedly dangerous process chemicals by its industries, etc.

As stated earlier, Fed policy and gov't policy, as well as your own policy, appear to disregard the fact that the USA is now a full participant in the global economy, as well as the fact that the US dollar is increasingly just 'one more currency in the global basket'. Because this global 'exposure' is more or less unprecedented, FED and gov't policies from earlier times simply don't achieve the same results anymore.

mikef
03-02-2012, 10:53 AM
As it stands now..... $20 gas is not going to happen...... The thing to watch out for (Not that there is anything we can really do..... Other than buying gold) is if the world turns against the U.S. Dollar..... You can't tell when world opinion will change..... Massive inflation can come with capital flight.

jimboe7373
03-02-2012, 01:23 PM
As for subsidies, credits, bailouts and tax breaks, that involves the government picking winners and losers. History proves that it is much better to let the free market do that. I agree 100% but in order to let the free market decide, you have to have a free market. What history also proves is that if you remove the protections of the workers and citizens and government teams up with big business, you wind up with a situation like the robber barons in the early 20th century. It kind of feels like we are headed back to that now.

Melonie
03-03-2012, 04:24 AM
What history also proves is that if you remove the protections of the workers and citizens and government teams up with big business, you wind up with a situation like the robber barons in the early 20th century. It kind of feels like we are headed back to that now.

Agreed ... but not within the USA. The USA being a true global participant now allows the workers and gov'ts of OTHER COUNTRIES to 'team up' with nominally US based big businesses, with US worker protections ( and the costs associated with those protections ) still in place but increasingly side-stepped via offshoring / outsourcing, and increasingly irrelevant due to the resulting permanent loss of US jobs. One predictable end result, once the USA's gov't credit and Americans' personal credit are maxxed out, is that of Greece.

jimboe7373
03-03-2012, 11:00 AM
Agreed ... but not within the USA. The USA being a true global participant now allows the workers and gov'ts of OTHER COUNTRIES to 'team up' with nominally US based big businesses, with US worker protections ( and the costs associated with those protections ) still in place but increasingly side-stepped via offshoring / outsourcing, and increasingly irrelevant due to the resulting permanent loss of US jobs. One predictable end result, once the USA's gov't credit and Americans' personal credit are maxxed out, is that of Greece. That's not what I'm talking about at all, what I'm referring to is governments and lobbyists policies of suppressing technology and allowing manipulations of the free market. As far as oil goes, this translates in not allowing other forms of fuel to be implemented- with a relatively inexpensive conversion any diesel car is fully capable of running on used (discarded from restaurants) vegetable oil, it is however illegal to fuel your car in this manner. In addition to oil speculation being permitted, the supply is also controlled which leads to price controls. There is currently a glut of oil in Oklahoma, but we are told supplies are tight and so the price must increase.

As far as health care costs, this takes form the in the blocking of the public option which would instill some competition and force a drag on the never ending price increases we have been experiencing for years. Likewise for pharmaceuticals and other medical options. My friend is a recent chemo recipient, he has found that the guanabana juice he drinks when he visits me in Latin America completely removes his nausea and returns to him his normal appetite. Further research showed that is was also effective as an anti-cancer agent and greatly aided in treating heart-disease, arthritis and other conditions. When he tried to bring some juice back to the US he was stopped at customs and had his supply seized. It turns out it is illegal to posses or distribute guanabana juice in the US. So instead, he is forced to purchase expensive pharmaceutical products which are only partially effective and come with many undesirable side effects.

Until the recent Financial Reform act, banks and credit card companies were permitted to employ all kind of unsavory practices that were worse in practice than those used my organized crime loan-sharks.

Whatever the reasons and with all politics aside, there is no doubt that the financial divide is currently growing exponentially larger and if you follow the money trail it is very easy to determine who the winners and losers are. Whatever your ideology, it is also quite clear to anyone with common sense that the entire situation is unsustainable and that if severe changes aren't implemented everyone will be on the losing end in one way or another.

eagle2
03-04-2012, 02:36 AM
I would also politely and respectfully point out the following. FED policy is arguably working at cross purposes in the real world in much the same way as some of your statements.

For example, you support gov't action to decrease US unemployment rates. At the same time, you support gov't mandates for a high minimum / 'living' wage. In the real world, the two work inversely ... well, as long as the US dollar denominated cost of US unskilled labor is mandated at a level that is 3 times as high versus unskilled labor costs in other parts of the world.


Higher wages will decrease unemployment. Consumer spending accounts for approximately 70 percent of the US economy. When wages are higher, consumers spend more, which grows the economy and decreases unemployment.



For example, you support gov't action to increase environmental protections. At the same time, you support gov't action to decrease US unemployment rates. In the real world, the two also work inversely ... well as long as some exporting country provides cut-rate electricity from coal fired power plants for its industries, permits the use of highly effective but supposedly dangerous process chemicals by its industries, etc.

Strong environmental regulations also decreased the unemployment rate. When you have weak or no environmental regulations, you have much dirtier air and water, which leads to more people with respiratory problems, cancer, and other diseases; which decreases productivity and slows economic growth. It also leads to inefficiency, since more efficient products pollute less. For example, making autos more efficient reduces the pollution they create, and also decreases the amount of fuel they use, which means people end up spending less money on fuel, and have more money to spend on other products.

There is also the matter of civil unrest. If you have stricter environmental regulations, and a cleaner environment, it is much less likely that there will be civil unrest related to pollution. Most people do not want to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2007/12/last-empire-chinas-pollution-problem-goes-global

-snip-
In 2005, there were nearly 1,000 pollution-related protests a week in China, and the numbers have only increased since. The protesters run the social gamut, from impoverished villagers to the urban middle class. The government's response has been similarly varied, ranging from killing and beating protesters to launching investigations into the worst offenders.
-snip-



As stated earlier, Fed policy and gov't policy, as well as your own policy, appear to disregard the fact that the USA is now a full participant in the global economy, as well as the fact that the US dollar is increasingly just 'one more currency in the global basket'. Because this global 'exposure' is more or less unprecedented, FED and gov't policies from earlier times simply don't achieve the same results anymore.

The US is still a sovereign nation and we still have control over our own economy.

Melonie
03-05-2012, 04:24 AM
here we go with the 'bark' again versus the 'trees' or the 'forest'. But as long as you raised these points.

(snip)"a relatively inexpensive conversion any diesel car is fully capable of running on used (discarded from restaurants) vegetable oil, it is however illegal to fuel your car in this manner.(snip)

Actually it's not illegal at all to 'burn' biodiesel any more than burning conventional diesel. What IS illegal in both cases is to avoid payment of road tax on the fuel. The latter is of course an embedded gov't subsidy for electric / hybrid vehicles.



There is currently a glut of oil in Oklahoma, but we are told supplies are tight and so the price must increase.

For the Nth time, the US now exists in a global economy ... and worldwide demand for oil and other commodities is higher than ever. Thus US oil producers, like their counterparts in other countries, are free to sell to the 'highest bidder'. Thus a local oil surplus in Oklahoma is relatively meaningless in terms of global supply and demand. Now if America wanted to truly lower oil prices by influencing the global supply versus demand equation, they would need to increase US oil production in a major way. But this cannot happen under present gov't policy.



The US is still a sovereign nation and we still have control over our own economy

The FED still has control of the number of dollars it can print out of thin air. And the FED has control of choosing what US assets it can purchase ( or cause to be purchased ) with the proceeds of said dollar printing.

As to US gov't control over the economy, that's true to the degree that it has the legal authority to impose quotas and tariffs to 'subsidize' particular US producers by forcing higher prices to be paid for ALL imported competing products. The gov't can also mandate that US unskilled labor will be paid 3 times as much as global unskilled labor. But that certainly doesn't constitute full control of the US economy. Corporations are free to transfer production facilities, US jobs, corporate assets and income overseas. Rich Americans are free to transfer and invest their assets and capital overseas.

jimboe7373
03-05-2012, 08:04 AM
Actually it's not illegal at all to 'burn' biodiesel any more than burning conventional diesel. What IS illegal in both cases is to avoid payment of road tax on the fuel. The latter is of course an embedded gov't subsidy for electric / hybrid vehicles. It is currently illegal to use vegetable oil to fuel your car because of the tax you mention and also EPA enforcement. As to my original point, it would be fairly easy to establish a tax to be paid by vegetable oil users as well as maintain their emissions standards. Taking these actions would provide additional revenue, create jobs and lesson our dependence on foreign oil, all great things. Because it will interfere with the profit margins of the oil lobby, don't look for any progress on these fronts anytime soon. The fact that the tax and EPA issues will likely not be adjusted therefore keeping vegetable oil an illegal commodity is an excellent example of how government and big business conpire to stifle competition and deprive us of a true free-market.




For the Nth time, the US now exists in a global economy ... and worldwide demand for oil and other commodities is higher than ever. Thus US oil producers, like their counterparts in other countries, are free to sell to the 'highest bidder'. Thus a local oil surplus in Oklahoma is relatively meaningless in terms of global supply and demand. Now if America wanted to truly lower oil prices by influencing the global supply versus demand equation, they would need to increase US oil production in a major way. But this cannot happen under present gov't policy. Domestic pumping has nothing to do with it, and there is not just a glut in Oklahoma but in the whole of the US. We are now receiving the majority of our oil from safe, stable, friendly Canada. They have so much of it that we are not able to store it. The problem with prices is manipulated supply/demand and the speculators. It's estimated the average oil contract is traded 39 times from wellhead to refinery.

eagle2
03-06-2012, 11:53 PM
I do niot ignore supply and demand. That is one reason why I want to increase supply when it comes to fuels. I do recognize that supply and demand is just part of the picture and that the weak dollar accounts for a healthy piece of the current price of oil.

Supply and demand is the main reason why the price of oil has increased. Oil consumption is increasing faster than the supply, mostly in India and China, which is what is driving up the price of oil. You and Melonie have attributed low interest rates to the rise in gasoline prices. From 1980 - 1985, interest rates fell dramatically, and so did the price of gas. Here's a chart showing the prime rate history:

http://www.moneycafe.com/library/ratecharts/ratecharts1.gif

Here's a chart of historical gasoline prices:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw364.jpg

From 1980 - 1985, the price of gas fell significantly, while at the same time interest rates fell, as a result of a significant decrease in demand. Vehicles manufactured in the 1980's, on average. were twice as fuel-efficient as vehicles manufactured in the 1970's. That was the main reason the price of gas fell so much. During the 1990's and 2000's, the average fuel-efficiency of vehicles actual was much worse than in the 1980's which caused the price of gas to rise. In addition, oil consumption has increased significantly in China and India, which is also driving up the price of oil. There is no quick, easy fix. It's probably going to take years for high oil prices to lower demand and increase supply enough to start bringing prices down, barring some major economic meltdown, like in 2008. Oil prices starting increasing significantly in 1973, and prices didn't start dropping until the 1980's.



Nobody advocated doing nothing. I opposed the Wall St. bailouts based on the method used. For the most part, TARP worked.

I opposed the way GM and Chrysler were bailed out. I thought, and still think, it would have been much better to put them through a fast- track bankruptcy with the Feds providing DIP financing, assuming none was available from the private sector.

By pretty much every measurement, the GM and Chrysler bailouts were a success. Why would you second guess it?

Melonie
03-07-2012, 02:46 AM
I would question the validity of 'constant dollars' for the comparison. Americans do not get paid in 'constant dollars'. And working class Americans have seen their average earnings decline in real dollars over the past few years. If measured in 'constant dollars', their average earnings sunk like a rock !



By pretty much every measurement, the GM and Chrysler bailouts were a success. Why would you second guess it?

Because I won't ignore the fact that US taxpayers have lost $20+ billion dollars to date on these bailouts ( more if you also count GMAC / Ally Bank TARP repayments or lack thereof ). Because I won't ignore the fact that GM and Chrysler bondholders took near 100% losses as a result of these bailouts. despite their legal position of being 'first in line' for repayment. As stated earlier, FED and gov't interventions in the 'free market' always winds up creating winners and losers.

eagle2
03-07-2012, 08:21 AM
I would question the validity of 'constant dollars' for the comparison.


The chart also shows 'current dollars', and the price of gas also fell in current dollars.

Eric Stoner
03-07-2012, 09:02 AM
Supply and demand is the main reason why the price of oil has increased. Oil consumption is increasing faster than the supply, mostly in India and China, which is what is driving up the price of oil. You and Melonie have attributed low interest rates to the rise in gasoline prices. From 1980 - 1985, interest rates fell dramatically, and so did the price of gas. Here's a chart showing the prime rate history:

http://www.moneycafe.com/library/ratecharts/ratecharts1.gif

Here's a chart of historical gasoline prices:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw364.jpg

From 1980 - 1985, the price of gas fell significantly, while at the same time interest rates fell, as a result of a significant decrease in demand. Vehicles manufactured in the 1980's, on average. were twice as fuel-efficient as vehicles manufactured in the 1970's. That was the main reason the price of gas fell so much. During the 1990's and 2000's, the average fuel-efficiency of vehicles actual was much worse than in the 1980's which caused the price of gas to rise. In addition, oil consumption has increased significantly in China and India, which is also driving up the price of oil. There is no quick, easy fix. It's probably going to take years for high oil prices to lower demand and increase supply enough to start bringing prices down, barring some major economic meltdown, like in 2008. Oil prices starting increasing significantly in 1973, and prices didn't start dropping until the 1980's.


By pretty much every measurement, the GM and Chrysler bailouts were a success. Why would you second guess it?

We have explained the oil price issue over and over again and I am not going to risk boring people by doing it again.

The GM and Chrysler stories are NOT over. The ultimate cost to the taxpayers has yet to be tallied and will not be known for several years. Like many critics of the FIRST Chrysler bailout , I am more concerned with its success for the obvious reason that it encourages bad behavior when any company is "too big to fail".
Who is next ? Boeing ? What if Apple, IBM or Microsoft got into serious trouble ? Should we bail them out too ?

I did not oppose helping GM and Chrysler. I thought then and still think that they both ought to have gone into Bankruptcy Court and that the ONLY role for the Federal Government was to provide DIP financing. And THAT was only necessary because credit was frozen by the Financial Crisis.

eagle2
03-07-2012, 09:20 AM
We have explained the oil price issue over and over again and I am not going to risk boring people by doing it again.


and you've been wrong every time you explained it.