The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 185941 reads
Subprime meltdown over; now comes the bad news
- 105908 reads
"Take Care That the Laws be Faithfully Executed"
- 15261 reads
And How Does Globalization Benefit Us?
- 33750 reads
Post Nuclear Japan, Pre Disaster United States
- 86289 reads
User login
Recent comments
Poll
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 185941 reads
Subprime meltdown over; now comes the bad news
- 105908 reads
"Take Care That the Laws be Faithfully Executed"
- 15261 reads
And How Does Globalization Benefit Us?
- 33750 reads
Post Nuclear Japan, Pre Disaster United States
- 86289 reads
The Golden Rule
- 1826279 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1216370 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 950964 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 362111 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 345743 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 321210 reads
The war on the middle class
- 315809 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 314709 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 279784 reads
.
reference in his commentary. Most interesting he quoted Bhagwati, for he's one of those cats I call creators of economic fiction, but he is a main architect of these bad trade deals (Bhagwati).
This time on the President's criticism of the tariff provision in the Cap and Trade bill.
And he believes that such a provision would be OK with the WTO.
I cannot think of all of the good environmental bloggers at the moment, except Jerome A Paris and oil drum, but whether there something is technologically feasible as well as cost effective is really important. There has been so much smoke and mirrors behind technology. I'm thinking of everything from hydrogen to Enron's "selling of bandwidth" market (note the creation of a "market" from nothing again theme), to I believe at one time Qwest was trying to claim they could stream any movie at any time to hotels (someone was)...
there is a host of technological fiction basically and it needs to be analyzed.
In your other sites visits if you see someone who really can analyze the truth behind the fiction from this angle, invite them to cross post.
there has to be a catch on this one or have they figured out if someone has lost their job, they aren't gonna sit around and be homeless if at all possible, just to keep a matching Washer & Dryer set.
Here's one thing about all of this that bothers me....when it comes to the self-employed, they are just left out in the cold. I don't know the percentage of self-employed vs. W2, i.e. those who can qualify for unemployment but that's something to examine in our "permatemp" society.
The Dirty War Against Clean Coal
GE claims to have technology that will reduce the carbon footprint of coal burning plants. I don't know how true it is.
I supported and voted for the lesser of two evils. The original decision by Bush's OCC was absolutely ridicules and only served the financial conglomerates. But then to have the Obama Administration defend Bush's decision and the OCC say they are disappointed is even more ridicules coming from a supposed Democratic administration.
Many states had very tough consumer protection laws which were rendered useless during the height of the subprime lending boom. OCC needs to account for that. I am adding this to list.
and his final analysis was cap and trade worked only because technology led the way.
I am a believer that science leads the way not the other way around.
Civilization advanced from the wood burning smoke laden London long before cap and trade. The smoke belching coal fired locomotives advanced long before cap and trade. And it was all lead not by the politicians but through that person wanting to build a better mouse trap.
Personally I find magnets fascinating and I feel within the next 100 years they will find new and exciting uses for magnets. But politicians in 2009 can crow, can cry, can whine that we should utilize magnetic power but it won't happen until that person thinks up the new idea.
So if the technology is not available and to allow the holier than thou politicians, with their cultist groups to screw with
my time on earth, my little enjoyments in life is a crock of u know what.
This is very good news for consumers and I for one, had no idea the Obama administration would oppose the ruling.
Aren't you glad we are focused on all things econ instead of being a political blog? Some of the facts/stats we're digging up at this point I think would get us kicked out from certain sites!
didn't say it was wishful thinking. I did. While CR calls it out and says this estimate is incorrect, what is driving me nuts is this constant focus on public relations and public perception instead of sound policy with sound statistics.
Seriously, this is a DLC/Rubins/Summers kind of trick and has been going on for a long, long time...they focus in on media/PR/marketing instead of simply writing and enacting the kind of policy that bears itself out from analysis.
I mean seriously, they are still using this "thumb in the air" 1% of GDP Stimulus implies 1 million jobs...
well, that's pure bullshit frankly. They firstly did not limit Stimulus to domestic expenditure only (i.e. hire U.S. citizens, etc.) and also due to these MNCs operating around the globe plus enabling some of them to obtain Stimulus contracts, that rule of thumb also isn't valid.
But instead of realizing that and fine tuning stimulus acccordingly, i.e. getting in line with true Keynesian policy...
we just get muddled spin and PR.
I don't think we can rely on the inventory cycle as much as the past because we just don't manufacture stuff.
I agree with Calculated Risk. This is all wishful thinking until residential investment and personal consumption expenditures come back. That won't happen for a while - in my guesstimation.
"you are in favor of putting the boot to the neck of people for something that "may" or may not happen?"
No, but I'm *strongly* in favor of reducing our usage of fossil fuels. The earth becoming uninhabitable is just a side state, the truth is that *regardless* of what theory you look at, we're currently using fossil fuels faster than nature creates them.
It's the same reason you should never spend capital. Because you can spend it faster than it is created, and that way yields negative territory.
More than that, increasingly our sources of fossil fuels are in areas that are hard to get to for political or sheer environmental reasons. That alone should encourage ambient energy sources instead.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
That causes me to, as a default, either fully accept or fully reject "evidence"- with not much in between.
From my point of view, almost all the evidence in economics is invented; the very units we measure economics in are nothing more than imaginary shared myth arising out of tradition. It's hard for me to say "I accept the existence of federal reserve notes, but not the importance of tangibles and a local economy in respect to globalization"- because for me, they're both based on the same level of evidence; slim to none.
Cap & Trade not working for carbon, when it did work for sulfur, is similar. Yes, I see that it is derivative- so what? Almost everything we have past the barter system is derivative of something else.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Reuters.
Fairly good assessment and I also agree that Taibbi is going "way too out there" on the Dot Con bubble. There were a lot of players in that racket, not just Goldman Sachs.
This is not CT because if one bothered to read the post, I pulled up the relevant clauses from the legislation that just passed the house.
Once again, CT means it cannot be proved and/or "evidence" is more of conjecture and is actually not "evidence".
there is definitely a recovery coming by the end of year. Just past has shown that it is coming.
that climate change is happening. So, we do nothing and face extinction.
Reducing carbon emissions is going to cost money and it will along with everything else require adjustments in household costs. But in the long run maybe it change behaviors maybe people will realize that its better to buy that fuel efficient vehicle instead of that SUV or drive the speed limit instead of cruising 85 in 55 zone.
I agree that some corps. will make money off this - that is capitalism. I hope they are American companies that create American jobs.
you are in favor of putting the boot to the neck of people for something that "may" or may not happen? It is about people, not the earth. The earth will not die but in the theory, people could die.
So we will harm the poor to feed the appetite of the theory?
Ok...got it. Now you tell those poor folk, you tell the elderly widow that If the bill's current reduction goals were implemented, electricity costs would rise by 5% to 20% around the U.S., with costs going up more in areas heavily dependent on coal-powered generations. That could cost the average household $100 to $150 a year. Gasoline prices could rise by 20 cents a gallon, costing the typical household $150 a year.
Many of the people mentioned don't have the extra annual $300. Ok, so they can go back to living standards of the 1950's. No summer AC, etc. Maybe you should have the job of telling them.
I just have the stinky, funny feeling that there are some corps that are behind this and are ready to rake up the money. GE may come to mind.
I find it very interesting that I read about this on a Survivalist CT blog after getting reamed here about listening to survivalist CT theories- only to see Robert Oak post this here. Does that mean this isn't CT?
Cap and trade did work for sulfur production. It *might* work for carbon production. But I, personally, would like to see some regulatory firewall pricing it in something other than US $. ANYTHING other than US$.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
We may be extinct before we get 100% certainty.
that there is a problem.
I'm damn glad these people aren't my doctor. I can hear it now, "we aren't absolute that you have a gallstone but we'll yank it just because of the preponderance of truth.
From the movie...........
"Why do my eyes hurt." Morpheus, " Because you never use them."
The sheep buy far too much as truth without considering it may only be an illusion. I mean for goodness sakes, there are some people that think we are so close to the brink of destruction that they want to put apparatus in orbits that will change our climate. Scientists trying to tweak my sky scares me more than any IPCC report. Which BTW I have read and talk about bboring reading!
Pages