Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Zonkerbl]

Sigh. Right, no one has ever heard Krugman's opinion on green energy, because it's not like he writes a column, blog and is on tv continually. I'm guessing his opinion and talking out of my ass...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magaz ... wanted=all

Tell me how backing a pollution tax, advocating against oil subsidies, and advocating for green energy tech research isn't "picking a winner?"

And I didn't "make it sound like" they wrote the legislation. What I made it sound like is the President went around the country highlighting how investing in green tech was a part of the stimulus. That was one of the main selling points (not some portion snuck in under the radar). And that stimulus package many economists agreed with.

And, btw, the argument was not whether it was better to bail out the auto industry or not. The argument was whether all economists in unison agreed that we shouldn't -- and that certainly is not the case.

I'm certainly not an economist. And obviously there are certain principles which you believe must be held to without wavering. It is only my contention that, in practice, not every economist agrees with always following said principles. At least, not as I have seen.

A pollution tax is a pigouvian tax to correct an externality. That's not providing a subsidy to specific, favored sector. Advocating against oil subsidies IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, HAVE YOU NOT READ WHAT I WROTE AT ALL?????? And again, advocating for green tech research is not the same as providing a subsidy to a specific company like Solyndra.

Argh! So frustrating! I feel like I've been super clear, what am I doing wrong that what I am saying is not getting through to you? You claim to understand the issues well enough to state that there are economists who are willing to contradict the basic findings of the field, but you haven't read my posts carefully enough to see that I have made a distinction between basic research and sector specific subsidies at least three times?

[Zonkerbl]

And speaking of bad precedents, The Morgan Shakedown is not a good precedent either. The conversation went something like this...

So... looks like Bear Stearns is going under and it is going to cost us a bundle to bail them out, actually it may cause a huge run that we can't control. We need you guys to buy them out.

OK, but the potential civil liabilities are huge if you don't cover us.

We got it covered (fingers crossed behind the back).

What bank in their right mind will bail another bank out now? Just let them go under... which is not a smart precedent. What are they thinking?

Exactly right. Interesting conversation - Somehow we've evolved to a point where the political class can raid the federal treasury at will to reward friends, punish enemies and fund myriad causes, large and small. I don't think authority for that type of behavior can be found in the constitution, at least not the copy I have.

A significant number of Americans cannot even name the VP much less read and appreciate the law of the land. As a result, the law will continue to give way until it becomes little more than clay constantly re-molded, without consent from the governed, by those in power to achieve and maintain even more power. It's human nature I guess.

Right. The rule of law is our solution to the credible commitment problem. The whole idea is that you have to take the hard road even when you don't want to, otherwise no one believes you when you say the government will not bail you out.

[Zonkerbl]

Gas dropped to 3.36

Obama is kicking rss.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Where are all those republicans on Fox that blamed him for the high priced gas. I'll have to tune in to catch them headlining the lower gas prices and giving him props. Be right back.

Wow! It's essentially the same price drop equivalent in Canada and much of Western Europe. Can't POSSIBLY be OPEC policies, new Iranian president, sluggish first world economies, Libya, Syria, international instability caused by the US financial standoffs.....it's all the magic of Obama.

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it?

[dobrojim]

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

good post indu

but I do have one question...

I don't recall you describing the French as particularly hard working in the past.
Has something changed over there?

[Induveca]

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

good post indu

but I do have one question...

I don't recall you describing the French as particularly hard working in the past.
Has something changed over there?

Haha good point, was going to use the Dutch or Irish leaders.....but figured wouldn't resonate as much. Most know Hollande.

[Induveca]

Gas dropped to 3.36

Obama is kicking rss.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Where are all those republicans on Fox that blamed him for the high priced gas. I'll have to tune in to catch them headlining the lower gas prices and giving him props. Be right back.

Wow! It's essentially the same price drop equivalent in Canada and much of Western Europe. Can't POSSIBLY be OPEC policies, new Iranian president, sluggish first world economies, Libya, Syria, international instability caused by the US financial standoffs.....it's all the magic of Obama.

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it?

The sarcastic portion about him tuning in?

Or believing someone of hands unwavering/blind loyalty to a politician/party believing Obama could single handedly impact global gas prices?

[dckingsfan]

And speaking of bad precedents, The Morgan Shakedown is not a good precedent either. The conversation went something like this...

So... looks like Bear Stearns is going under and it is going to cost us a bundle to bail them out, actually it may cause a huge run that we can't control. We need you guys to buy them out.

OK, but the potential civil liabilities are huge if you don't cover us.

We got it covered (fingers crossed behind the back).

What bank in their right mind will bail another bank out now? Just let them go under... which is not a smart precedent. What are they thinking?

Exactly right. Interesting conversation - Somehow we've evolved to a point where the political class can raid the federal treasury at will to reward friends, punish enemies and fund myriad causes, large and small. I don't think authority for that type of behavior can be found in the constitution, at least not the copy I have.

A significant number of Americans cannot even name the VP much less read and appreciate the law of the land. As a result, the law will continue to give way until it becomes little more than clay constantly re-molded, without consent from the governed, by those in power to achieve and maintain even more power. It's human nature I guess.

Right. The rule of law is our solution to the credible commitment problem. The whole idea is that you have to take the hard road even when you don't want to, otherwise no one believes you when you say the government will not bail you out.

Actually, my points are:
1) at this point you can't trust the government - you need to get those things in writing.
2) no bank is going to work with the government on an issue like this in the future - and we as tax payers will be even more on the hook

Maybe that is what you are saying in a different way? Or are you saying, we should have let Bear Stern fail?

[barelyawake]

"Argh! So frustrating! I feel like I've been super clear, what am I doing wrong that what I am saying is not getting through to you? You claim to understand the issues well enough to state that there are economists who are willing to contradict the basic findings of the field, but you haven't read my posts carefully enough to see that I have made a distinction between basic research and sector specific subsidies at least three times?"

Lol First, you need to calm down. I asked you a question earlier, and you did not answer it. I asked you considering all energy subsidies fall under R&D, what is the difference between funding research from a green tech company and funding the company? Solyndra developed new solar tech. If you give the company money to develop new tech is that not a subsidy?

And further, is it not semantics to say you aren't funding an industry when you are shifting the economy to defund one sector of the economy (and punishing its existence via tax), while funding advancements in its opposition? And isn't all of that "picking a winner?"

PS I didn't claim anything. In fact, I said I was no economist. I do read Krugman though and I know his opinion on green energy. I asked you questions about things I know to be the case and you went nutty.

[barelyawake]

Wow! It's essentially the same price drop equivalent in Canada and much of Western Europe. Can't POSSIBLY be OPEC policies, new Iranian president, sluggish first world economies, Libya, Syria, international instability caused by the US financial standoffs.....it's all the magic of Obama.

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it?

The sarcastic portion about him tuning in?

Or believing someone of hands unwavering/blind loyalty to a politician/party believing Obama could single handedly impact global gas prices?

Hands' point was you can neither blame nor applaud Obama for gas prices, though Fox tries to do one and not the other.

[dckingsfan]

And further, is it not semantics to say you aren't funding an industry when you are shifting the economy to defund one sector of the economy (and punishing its existence via tax), while funding advancements in its opposition? And isn't all of that "picking a winner?"

I would argue no.

1) When you fund research and that research can be used by any company, forward looking companies will use the new technology to build their pipelines for the future.

2) When you have tax incentives to get above technologies moving, any company can take advantage of those tax incentives.

Caveats: You shouldn't tax (and punish) current technologies so much as giving tax subsidies to further future technologies. And those tax subsidies should time out... not be never ending. And of course that is where reality strikes - most programs that get put in place never end - even way after their useful life.

Regardless, that is much different than funding ABC company directly.

[dobrojim]

http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction

very provocative findings

[barelyawake]

And further, is it not semantics to say you aren't funding an industry when you are shifting the economy to defund one sector of the economy (and punishing its existence via tax), while funding advancements in its opposition? And isn't all of that "picking a winner?"

I would argue no.

1) When you fund research and that research can be used by any company, forward looking companies will use the new technology to build their pipelines for the future.

2) When you have tax incentives to get above technologies moving, any company can take advantage of those tax incentives.

Caveats: You shouldn't tax (and punish) current technologies so much as giving tax subsidies to further future technologies. And those tax subsidies should time out... not be never ending. And of course that is where reality strikes - most programs that get put in place never end - even way after their useful life.

Regardless, that is much different than funding ABC company directly.

Ok. But, Solyndra was the company doing the research. I understand we gave them more money than they needed to just research (we gave them money for production). However, if we merely gave them money for research, wouldn't that count as subsidizing that company?

And although any company can use the tax incentives, the company has to be producing or using green energy to receive the incentive (and are punished for using or producing fossil fuels). How is that not funding an industry? How is that not a backdoor way of subsidizing the companies that produce green tech?

[montestewart]

http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction

very provocative findings

It's funny how kids' conventional wisdom is eventually mirrored by laboratory findings. They're rats locked up in cages! Of course they want to get high!

I would expand the model to include general misery of all types, since there are plenty of drug addicts that are not poor, but as a group they dodge the effects of the war on drugs much more easily.

[dobrojim]

http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction

very provocative findings

It's funny how kids' conventional wisdom is eventually mirrored by laboratory findings. They're rats locked up in cages! Of course they want to get high!

I would expand the model to include general misery of all types, since there are plenty of drug addicts that are not poor, but as a group they dodge the effects of the war on drugs much more easily.

from the article

Perhaps it's time the war on drugs becomes a war on the existence of poverty? (edit: Poverty of our relationships to family, community, and nation too, not merely monetary. As commenters have pointed out, there are plenty of people who have plenty of money who may well be the most poverty-ridden in other respects.)

It's not about the drugs. It's about the social environment in which we live.

bravo

[Induveca]

http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction

very provocative findings

It's funny how kids' conventional wisdom is eventually mirrored by laboratory findings. They're rats locked up in cages! Of course they want to get high!

I would expand the model to include general misery of all types, since there are plenty of drug addicts that are not poor, but as a group they dodge the effects of the war on drugs much more easily.

from the article

Perhaps it's time the war on drugs becomes a war on the existence of poverty? (edit: Poverty of our relationships to family, community, and nation too, not merely monetary. As commenters have pointed out, there are plenty of people who have plenty of money who may well be the most poverty-ridden in other respects.)

It's not about the drugs. It's about the social environment in which we live.

bravo

The netherlands had the best approach, hands down. Their entire drug "experience" is almost never seen outside of the main Amsterdam tourist area (about 15 blocks), of course packed with Brits and American 18-25 year olds.

Make an adult Disneyworld vibe and its quickly "uncool", especially when packed with overweight, loud tennis shoe wearing tourists. Local Amsterdam residents literally will travel 10 or more blocks to avoid Leidseplein and its high concentration of coffee shops/obnoxious "experience" tourists and drug prone locals.

[hands11]

Gas dropped to 3.36

Obama is kicking rss.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Where are all those republicans on Fox that blamed him for the high priced gas. I'll have to tune in to catch them headlining the lower gas prices and giving him props. Be right back.

Wow! It's essentially the same price drop equivalent in Canada and much of Western Europe. Can't POSSIBLY be OPEC policies, new Iranian president, sluggish first world economies, Libya, Syria, international instability caused by the US financial standoffs.....it's all the magic of Obama.

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

Indu.. That was the point of my post. Its wasn't Obama's fault the prices where high when Rs railed on him about how he came into an gas was 1.66 but the evil Obama came into office and gas is over 4.00 a gallon after two years. That was a favorite Fox and R talking point ( half truth propaganda ) It was only 1.66 because it feel like a rock in the financial crash from over 4.00 just 3 month before it hit that bottom. But they left that part out. I don't mind nuanced spin, but what they do it outside that guideline. They knowingly create outrage by telling half trues that make things look terrible when they aren't.

I'm not saying what a president does doesn't have any effect ever. Specially if they choice to go to war with an oil nation or the do some kind of embargo, but oil prices are a world thing and there are plenty of other factors involved.

My point was, Fox and the Rs relentlessly blamed him when gas was over 4.00. So are they lining up to reward him now that the prices are dropping ? No.. They aren't. Because that would be fair and balanced even using their logic.

[Induveca]

Gas dropped to 3.36

Obama is kicking rss.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Where are all those republicans on Fox that blamed him for the high priced gas. I'll have to tune in to catch them headlining the lower gas prices and giving him props. Be right back.

Wow! It's essentially the same price drop equivalent in Canada and much of Western Europe. Can't POSSIBLY be OPEC policies, new Iranian president, sluggish first world economies, Libya, Syria, international instability caused by the US financial standoffs.....it's all the magic of Obama.

I suspect many French supporters of President Hollande are mistakenly singing his praises as they fill up on petrol, oblivious that it was actually Obama who saved them their hard earned euros.

Indu.. That was the point of my post. Its wasn't Obama's fault the prices where high when Rs railed on him about how he came into an gas was 1.66 but the evil Obama came into office and gas is over 4.00 a gallon after two years. That was a favorite Fox and R talking point ( half truth propaganda ) It was only 1.66 because it feel like a rock in the financial crash from over 4.00 just 3 month before it hit that bottom. But they left that part out. I don't mind nuanced spin, but what they do it outside that guideline. They knowingly create outrage by telling half trues that make things look terrible when they aren't.

I'm not saying what a president does doesn't have any effect ever. Specially if they choice to go to war with an oil nation or the do some kind of embargo, but oil prices are a world thing and there are plenty of other factors involved.

My point was, Fox and the Rs relentlessly blamed him when gas was over 4.00. So are they lining up to reward him now that the prices are dropping ? No.. They aren't. Because that would be fair and balanced even using their logic.

Fair enough just remember it always goes both ways. When I lived in the states during the Bush administration I actually had a startup around gas tracking I eventually sold to a larger competitor.

We had streams of RSS feeds around gas prices and there were no shortage of democrats blaming republicans for higher gas prices. And vice versa of course.

Higher gas prices cost me more at the pump, but made me far more with a site VERY similar to Gasbuddy. Built the thing in a week. Thanks for the flashback.

Apologies if I came across too harsh. You're hard to read at times hands.

[hands11]

caught a segment on All In last night by Salon writer Eric Stern.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

he was watching Hannity do a program on how Obamacare is destroying
Amurica. Feeling that what was being said on the program didn't comport
with the law as he understood it, and he was quite well informed about the
law having worked professionally in this area, he did some research. Hannity had
interviewed 3 couples. In each case Stern found that Hannity's show
grossly misrepresented the situation. One couple claimed they cut
back hiring due to O'care's employer mandate. Turned out their
business only had 4 employees so it wasn't subject to the provision.

A second couple claimed O'care caused them to have to pay greatly
increased premiums but Stern discovered they hadn't gone on the
website which they opposed in principle. Stern went on the exchange
and found a plan that would cost them about 60% of what they had
been paying which was high due to pre-existing conditions. He found the
third couple on the program also could potentially save 60%.

Fox basically did a Dick Cheney by getting people who were already
misinformed (likely because they watched Fox) to come on and
'verify' the misinformation that they had previously been receiving.
Cheney leaked stories, more like fairy tales, to the NYT then cited those
same stories in press appearances to bolster the case for war against
Iraq.

Would a real journalist have presented these stories without vetting?
There's the report, you decide.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/fact-checker-finds-hannity-wanting-55306819837

Its called a propaganda machine. Its not news, it noise. What Cheney did was criminal.

The TP (CIP) via Fox Noise is a growing Taliban religious fundamentalist moment. The non religious libertarians are going to be pushed out more and more and replaced with Cruz, Sahah, and Rand Paul type people.

If the R party continues to divide and the TP (Confederate Insurrection Party ) is what remains, I expect Fox will need to do some serious reprogramming because their rating are going to drop. Fox has some big decisions to make. I think they just might be the next bubble to bust. The outrage propaganda bubble.

[dckingsfan]

And further, is it not semantics to say you aren't funding an industry when you are shifting the economy to defund one sector of the economy (and punishing its existence via tax), while funding advancements in its opposition? And isn't all of that "picking a winner?"

I would argue no.

1) When you fund research and that research can be used by any company, forward looking companies will use the new technology to build their pipelines for the future.

2) When you have tax incentives to get above technologies moving, any company can take advantage of those tax incentives.

Caveats: You shouldn't tax (and punish) current technologies so much as giving tax subsidies to further future technologies. And those tax subsidies should time out... not be never ending. And of course that is where reality strikes - most programs that get put in place never end - even way after their useful life.

Regardless, that is much different than funding ABC company directly.

Ok. But, Solyndra was the company doing the research. I understand we gave them more money than they needed to just research (we gave them money for production). However, if we merely gave them money for research, wouldn't that count as subsidizing that company?

And although any company can use the tax incentives, the company has to be producing or using green energy to receive the incentive (and are punished for using or producing fossil fuels). How is that not funding an industry? How is that not a backdoor way of subsidizing the companies that produce green tech?

The money for research was dwarfed by the money for production. Funding for the just the research and not sole sourcing the research dollars is the best way to go.

Yes you are funding green energy and hence an industry. Which is fine if you limit the time for the funding (tax rebates). But any energy company can do the same...

[barelyawake]

"Yes you are funding green energy and hence an industry. Which is fine if you limit the time for the funding (tax rebates). But any energy company can do the same..."

Any green energy company can do it. An oil company can't do it, unless they stopped being an oil company and became a green energy company.

So, we get back to the original argument. Some economists (Krugman being one) have suggested that we ought to give money and customers (in the form of tax breaks and incentives, and the resulting new green energy customers generated by people migrating away from disincentives) to green energy companies, and they wish to take away money and customers from fossil fuel producing companies. That money and those customers would artificially inflate a green energy market (which would not occur as a natural process of the market without the help of the tax and incentives) and only benefit those companies helping to produce green energy. And thus those economists are wishing to help, say, solar reflector manufacturers (with tax breaks, customers and research dollars) to compete against (and ultimately overtake) oil companies. Again, I'm unsure how that wouldn't be described as picking a winner and a loser. That's exactly the outcome they wish to occur -- one sector (and the individual companies in that sector) winning, the other sector being phased out or drastically reduced.