OT: Dean Goes Nuts last night

[Swish]

Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Now, about this economic boom . . . Economic boom times for major corporations to be sure . . . while virtually every small business owner I know is starving. I know SO many people suffering layoffs and wage cuts right now, it's appalling that anyone can call these economic boom times. Ludicrous. The rich getting richer is all this regime is about.

Somebody explain to me about "victory" in Iraq please?

Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

[Troy]

Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

Oh, is it really over? Has the deathtoll stopped? Maybe it's slowed, give it another few weeks.

Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. Who's profits are way, WAY up? Same guys. Yet, who's constantly on the grope for government handouts and tax exemptions and getting them? Same guys again. It's gonna take this country 1000 years to pay for this mess . . . if it stopped now. But it shows no sign of stoping.

How W (well, his handlers, he's just a corporate tool) turned basically the whole world against us in the space of 3 years, especially after we had virtually the entire bunch of 'em (even many Arab and Muslim states) on our side after 9/11 just shows how far greed will push some people.

The whole thing was, and continues to be, about money.

[poneal]

Yeah, I haven't made up my mind which to choose but I know its not going to be Bush. As far as I am concerned Bush has lined the pockets of the rich and has done nothing for me. That tax package he touts did nothing for me - the middle class white collar worker. Did I mention that Bush and Ken Lay (Enron) were buddies and look where Enron is now. Same with Dick Cheny and Haliburton, bunch of crooks as far as I am concerned. Well, enough ranting.

[dld]

Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. .

Hey Troy, I think you're a pretty intelligent dude and I would never question your opinions, Debates over war, religion,, and politics often lead to polarization so I don't really like opining about them myself. But I do like correcting factual misstatements, when i've got the cred to do so. So lets get this goddam straight right now,

OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).

So repeat with me, LOW oil prices = bad for oil companies, layoffs, bankruptcies, no drilling, worse for service companies and contractors. High prices = good for oil companies. hi profits, new hires, new wells (which eventually lead to low prices but thats another story of the boom and bust cycle of extractive industries) yada yada yada.

One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration. (you did catch the "wink" after ignorant slut I hope)

Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

[-Jar-]

Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

Most people don't/won't see the big picture like this. They lose a job they've held for 20 years because they moved the factory to Mexico.. they don't wanna hear no friggin lecture on World Trade Theory. And they'll probably blame the President. The bleeding of factory and tech jobs overseas is going to happen regardless of who's in office, but, again, when you're desperate to put food on the table for your family, someone has to pay. If some guy is 60 years old and has made furniture all his life, and suddenly loses his job to someone in China, it's small consolation that "everybuddy wins" - sure, he should have prepared better, should have saved more, we all need to do that.. but realisticly, it just doesn't happen. He's got a few years until Social Sec kicks in.. guess he'd better get down to Wal-Mart.

-jar

[dld]

Hey Jar, I feel for em. I lost a job too at Mobil when the crunch hit in '98-'99. Took a job in government. Its happened before and it'll happen again. Workers in Mexico have the same problems, only worse. Why do they immigrate to the states by the millions a year? Why do Asians immigrate to BC by the droves? By the way, I feel Troy was due a little ECO 101 for that falling prices = profits for big energy bullsheet. Just couldn't help my self. Trust me, I would never and have never laid that theory crap on anyone whose job has been sheetcanned for whatever reason. But thats an entirely different matter when it comes to internet discussion chat boards......

[jack70]

Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)

Originally Posted by Mr MidFi: The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark. I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards.

I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.

One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration.

That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel, someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

[dennis]

undefined

Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)





I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.





That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel, someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

[Troy]

OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).

You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. A settled and westwernized Middle East means easier (ie: cheaper) operating conditions for big oil. Continued high demand in the US also means higher profits. The Bush administration WANTS the US to depend heavily on oil because W is owned by the big oil lobby.

As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom. Ever notice that? That old saying applies here: "The fish stinks from the head".

I see it that the president sets the tone for the country. He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well. Clinton was owned by high tech and medical, Bush is owned by oil.

Moving on:
In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different. The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians. God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

[dld]

You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. .

Low prices mean they Can't and Don't recover drilling costs. End of story. Profit is made on the E & P side. I know this for a fact. This is not a political issue and its not one thats even debated by democrats, greens, liberals, tree huggers, etc. Refineries operate at a more or less given profit margin. If their aquisition costs are lower, then their raw markup amount is lower. their still gonna contribute profits in downtimes, sure, thats what keeps the company afloat. But those profits PALE in comp-arison to profits that E & P makes for sales of oil at the wellhead or at market centers. thats where the bucks are and thats that.

[dld]

[Troy]You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits.

Can't deny that. This year. Check out 1998 and 1999 tho. Pee-uuuuu! But lets agree its becaue of higher, not lower prices, OK? Checked yer price at the pump lately? But I digress.

I also agree that a stable Middle East leads to better operating conditions. I don't agree it has to be Westernized tho. Look at Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Canada (ha ha, our largest source of imports is pretty Westernized). I thought stability was a good thing.

As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom.

I think we agree here. That perception is totally wrong. The economy moves independent of political thought and actions. Thats a two edged sword politicians swing when they claim credit for the boom eh?.

I see it that the president sets the tone for the country.

Agreed

He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.

Moving on:
In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different.

Hope yer wrong. Time will tell.

The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek) .

God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.

The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.


[

[Troy]

He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.

OK, hows this: "He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby paid him the most money in campaign conbtributions". These payments come with the implicit understanding that he create this climate. The more the dough, the better the climate. If that's not being owned, then i don't know what is.

[I]
The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek).

My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.

God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?

Oh hey, I never said Clinton did! The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in teh back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.

Well, between O'Neil's book explaining how W and Co. already planned on invaiding Iraq before 9/11 and Cheney's obvious conflict of interest it sure seems obvious. I'm going to ignore your generalized Nor Cal comment.

The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.

Ah, but see, if fuel prices trippled in this country because the oil companies would have to pay taxes comensurate with their earnings, the government would have an incredible surplus of money which would lower Joe Citizen's taxes to almost nothing. We'd have more money to spend on fuel.

Until we can break the connection between corporate lobbying and the government we will continue to have a governmet run with corporate profits first on their minds rather than the good of the people.

Now I'm the one being a Pollyanna. It'll never happen, but I like throwing the idea out there.

[Swish]

My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.

"W'" talked about investing in research for alternative fuels so we aren't so dependent on foreign oil, but many presidents before him have said the same thing. We've faced all kinds of problems with OPEC and oil shortages, but we're still in the same predicament because of our own selfishness. Face it, we love our big, fast cars, and some of us love big, slow, gas-guzzling SUVs, so the problem starts with US. Most European countries, faced with much higher fuel costs, are driving the tiniest, most fuel-efficient cars they can find, while we come up with the Hummer 2? WTF is that all about? I agree that we could do a lot of things better, but Americans, at least most of us, are apathetic and don't worry about such things until the well has run dry. Then it's "OH MY GOD, WHAT HAPPENED??!! That's our society. We have it very good, but things could take a turn for the worse if we don't change our ways.

Swish (how am I gonna sleep tonight with all this on my mind?)

[dld]

Hey Troy, although we obviously disagree in a number of areas, when you "recontexted" some of your comments, I'm a lot more comfortable with them. One comment and then I'm dropping out of this thread. Your point about increasing taxes on oil companies is well taken. With the understanding that it will be passed on to the consumer with the taxes collected going to R & D for alternative fuels, Personally I got no problem with that, if the govt handles the money responsibly. But putting govt in charge of doloing out that money to legit reasearch efforts is scary at best. At the least, a three fold increase in gasoline taxes will force a consumer move to more fuel efficient vehicles.

The little winky thing didn't work with the bay area "Dumb Comments" line I left. Surely you know it was said tongue planted somewhat firmly in cheek.

OK, I'm done. British Sea Power is on in the background and the Mavericks are whipping the girly boy Lakers on TNT, life is good....

[jack70]

Troy, I think you share some very common misunderstandings about economic forces. That impression seems wrapped up in a view that big business is evil, and the government is good. It's not that black & white though, and often just the opposite. This same thinking predicted that the first gulf war was a conspiracy by the oil companies to control the oil fields and increase prices. What happened? ...prices went down.

Business doesn't like unpredictability or stress (9-11). They want stability. Government today interferes with business in so many ways (huge legal staffs of expensive lawyers for the incredibly complex tax-code(IRS), for the legal liability because of outta-control suing & legal actions, and for lobbying). You think any CEO likes paying for any of those expenses any more than you or I like paying car or house insurance? Those are all costs that go way beyond sensible regulation and it constipates the economy. Go to India if you wanna see governmental meddling at it's worst.... and the awful constipation that results.

God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.


...I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars


...The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in the back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .

You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology? Trouble is, government can't do these things... it's a form of flawed thinking that many people seem to have... of what government is, (& what it isn't.) Government is there to keep domestic tranquilly so that commerce, trade, technological inovation, and human culture can thrive... that's it.

The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy... they think that government should not only referee competition, but that those referees should fix the games. I agree with you that business is often corrupt, but a free marketplace will fix itself. When government becomes too involved, it corrupts the system.

The fact is the oil industries have spent billions researching alternative fuels... they've also invested billions in solar technologies. They started doing this in the early 70's when gas prices had a rise. (BTW, gas has increased in real prices LESS than inflation since the 1920's, even with the added cost of taxes in there, which is about half the real price today). But until economic forces (prices & costs) make oil too expensive, oil will continue to drive most industries. You simply can't pull a revolutionary new energy technology out of the hat, anymore than electricity could be pulled outta the hat in the mid 1700's.

BTW, all the recent hoopla about hydrogen & fuel cells being the big energy technology of the future was recently thrown a wet towel with research findings that indicate a disturbing possibility that they could disrupt the chemical balance of the atmosphere much more severely than todays worries about greenhouse gasses and global warming.

(and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program).

Well, the truth is quite a lot of technological advances came out of those things. It's not a particularly good way to do it, but it's true. Work with radar, aircraft technologies, mathematical algorithms, engineering techniques, are just a few of the things that pushed the later half of the 1900's into the future faster than would have happened without WW2.

But I hope you're not talking about putting the government in charge of R&D (instead of profit-motivated private business). Like the dept of education, dept of transportation, IRS, Medicare, etc... the government has little fiscal responsibility or oversight... is rampant with graft, waste, corruption and bureaucratic nightmares. When internal audits find billions of dollars illegally spent, stolen & wasted, no one is ever held responsible. You want another governmental rathole (R&D) to throw tax money down? Let the government protect us... let business and regular people do the thinking and researching part.


Additional notes on Howard Dean (wasn't that the original topic? ...LOL)

- I didn't see his outburst as that bad myself... off the wall a bit, sure, but not considering it's time & place. It just didn't translate on the TV screen when taken out of that dynamic.
- Dean actually said some things later on in that speech that were more over the top... don't know why those were ignored.
- Deans' wife, who was interviewed last night is a total sweetheart... smart, attractive, caring, sensible. Dean could do much worse than losing the white house, and getting to spend the rest of his life with her, out of that circus in DC.
- Dean has run as someone who built a fiscal responsible budget in VT. Trouble is, he succeeded a republican governor who died... and it was the republican gov who passed that restrained budget that Dean now trumpets. It's true Dean didn't completely wreck it, but he did start raising taxes to ridiculous levels, which has been very destructive to the state.
- I have a cousin in VT. The property taxes have doubled in the last 5 years alone. The education-funding allocation has been taken over by the state and it's a total mess because of that.