|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 1:46:57 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3973
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451.
Regulation is like medicine. When it's needed, it's good. When unnecessary, it's bad. And, there are often some degrees of side effects.
I must disagree on one minor point; governmental regulations always raises taxes to pay for the regulators and the effects of that regulation.
Thanks
RC
You mean people won't work for free ???????????????? Nobody said the medicine has to taste good, either.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 2:30:57 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Why is more regulation necessarily a bad thing? It was the removal of a piece of regulation that allowed speculators to go wild in the first place.
-Dan.
The problem is that there's an even bigger loophole. It's the Cayman Islands loophole. In the US, we can at least regulate their activities in most of the other markets. However, if we stop this activity in the country, we're not going to stop it- we're just going to move it offshore where we certainly can't control it.
A better compromise would be to work with exchanges to increase margin requirements and require more disclosure of trading positions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 2:35:04 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451.
Regulation is like medicine. When it's needed, it's good. When unnecessary, it's bad. And, there are often some degrees of side effects.
I must disagree on one minor point; governmental regulations always raises taxes to pay for the regulators and the effects of that regulation.
Thanks
RC
What if we added more people to enforcement at the IRS? Would that raise taxes? Or would it simply increase the tax base by reducing tax fraud, thus offsetting any tax increase?
Government activity doesn't necessarily always raise taxes. The Postal service is a perfect example; not a single dime has gone from taxpayers to the USPS in the past 30 years, and they can still reliably deliver express mail for 2/3 the cost of FedEx and UPS.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 2:53:19 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Yet another answer from Obama: Emergency Economic Plan
Notice the "rebate" comes from the Oil companies. This amounts to an additional tax on the private sector. On the surface it looks great - an extra $500 per individual/ $1000 per family - but how does this solve any "crisis"?
Basic economics says that if you want to curtail growth raise taxes. If we are in a recession, how does this help. Seems to me to be the wrong strategy. If growth is curtailed, how will Obama fund all of his new programs? How will the budget ever be balanced? Does Obama even care? Seems to me the only thing he cares about is getting elected.
Obama says this would offset additional energy costs for the next four months. What happens within four month? The election, maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 3:11:54 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Yet another answer from Obama: Emergency Economic Plan
Notice the "rebate" comes from the Oil companies. This amounts to an additional tax on the private sector. On the surface it looks great - an extra $500 per individual/ $1000 per family - but how does this solve any "crisis"?
This will have a comparable impact to the one that price controls had back in the '70s. I don't think it's a wise move, but I think it's better for us to try it temporarily on a small scale to show that it doesn't work than to try it everywhere.
However, I will say that this "recession" has a lot to do with future growth expectations. Investors are looking at the federal deficit, social security, and the massive pile of debt that consumers and government have accumulated, and are starting to wonder how we will pay it back.
The ultimate reason we are in this stagflationary economy is because of debt. And the only way to get out of it sustainably is to both raise taxes (fiscal policy), and eventually, raise interest rates (monetary policy).
quote:
Basic economics says that if you want to curtail growth raise taxes. If we are in a recession, how does this help. Seems to me to be the wrong strategy. If growth is curtailed, how will Obama fund all of his new programs? How will the budget ever be balanced? Does Obama even care? Seems to me the only thing he cares about is getting elected.
We aren't in a cyclical recession. We are in a stagflationary recession. When you have stagflation, the traditional wisdom is to control inflation first- and then worry about growth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 3:16:27 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3973
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Yet another answer from Obama: Emergency Economic Plan
Notice the "rebate" comes from the Oil companies. This amounts to an additional tax on the private sector. On the surface it looks great - an extra $500 per individual/ $1000 per family - but how does this solve any "crisis"?
Basic economics says that if you want to curtail growth raise taxes. If we are in a recession, how does this help. Seems to me to be the wrong strategy. If growth is curtailed, how will Obama fund all of his new programs? How will the budget ever be balanced? Does Obama even care? Seems to me the only thing he cares about is getting elected.
Obama says this would offset additional energy costs for the next four months. What happens within four month? The election, maybe?
It's basically a variation on the "tax rebate" idea. Throw some money at the masses and hope they quiet down awhile. I'd rather take that money and see it go toward funding R and D on alternative energy.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 3:34:45 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Meanwhile, have we forgotten John McCain's energy plan ?:
Let's have a contest and whoever can invent the bestest battery, gets a $300 million prize.
But y'all laughed at Obama suggesting people to take better care of their vehicles.
Imagine if the "$300 million dollar battery bounty" had been Obama's proposal.
Actually this is not a new idea and it is a very good idea. This will encourage the private sector to do the research, testing, trial and errors and take all the risk in developing new technology. It encourages competition which is always good in bringing a viable product to market quicker.
This way the government doesn't waste money on failed attempts but rather rewards the company who succeeds. The money is then used to further their research and to help bring the product to market.
It keeps the government from wasteful spending and helps it to invest in a sure thing. Sounds like smart money management to me.
I guess you've never heard of the X-Prize?
MOJAVE, Calif. - SpaceShipOne crossed the finish line in an 8-year, $10 million space race Monday, winning the Ansari X Prize with its second spaceflight in less than a week. Along the way, the world's first privately developed spacecraft also broke a 41-year-old altitude record and created a new astronaut.
The Ansari X Prize, established in 1996, is modeled after the $25,000 Orteig Prize that was won by trans-Atlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh in 1927. Erik Lindbergh, a member of the X Prize Foundation's board, said his grandfather would have been "really excited" about the achievement.
SpaceShipOne wins $10 million X Prize
Or how about NASA's little contest?
Science editor
MSNBC
updated 2:04 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 10, 2006
Alan Boyle
Science editor
In an exercise reminiscent of the "American Idol" TV show, NASA on Tuesday told several companies they are going on to the next round of negotiations in a $500 million program to commercialize transport to the international space station.
The COTS program has been largely shrouded in secrecy to this point, due to its entrepreneurial nature. It was set up as a backstop for resupplying the space station — particularly in the period between 2010, when the space shuttle fleet is due to be phased out, and the 2011-2014 time frame, when NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV, is to enter service.
Finalists picked in NASA's private space race
Oh and let's not overlook the military's silly idea:
More than 100 teams have applied to enter a robotic-car contest sponsored by the research wing of the Defense Department, prompting the agency to extend some deadlines.
The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency said Thursday that 106 teams have applied to participate in the Grand Challenge, an off-road race for unmanned vehicles slated to take place in March 2004, and that 86 teams have submitted technical papers describing their proposed robots.
The competition grew out of a Defense Department mandate to increase the use of technology in the field. The agency wants one third of all combat vehicles to be able to operate unmanned by 2015, said Don Shipley, a spokesman for the DARPA Grand Challenge, earlier this year.
DARPA will award $1 million to the team of inventors that comes up with a robotic car that can drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on an off-road course in 10 hours. DARPA, ideally, will then be able to cull ideas tried in the race for its own purposes.
The 250-mile course--which won't be completely revealed until two hours before the start--will require the computerized vehicles to drive through or around sand, mud, boulders, ditches, barbed wire, mountains and at least one overpass where onboard GPS (Global Positioning System) navigation setups won't work. Except to send commands for an emergency stop and restart, humans can't interfere--the cars must drive themselves.
Grateful for army robot contest, entrants give tanks
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 3:37:00 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Yet another answer from Obama: Emergency Economic Plan
Notice the "rebate" comes from the Oil companies. This amounts to an additional tax on the private sector. On the surface it looks great - an extra $500 per individual/ $1000 per family - but how does this solve any "crisis"?
This will have a comparable impact to the one that price controls had back in the '70s. I don't think it's a wise move, but I think it's better for us to try it temporarily on a small scale to show that it doesn't work than to try it everywhere.
However, I will say that this "recession" has a lot to do with future growth expectations. Investors are looking at the federal deficit, social security, and the massive pile of debt that consumers and government have accumulated, and are starting to wonder how we will pay it back.
The ultimate reason we are in this stagflationary economy is because of debt. And the only way to get out of it sustainably is to both raise taxes (fiscal policy), and eventually, raise interest rates (monetary policy).
quote:
Basic economics says that if you want to curtail growth raise taxes. If we are in a recession, how does this help. Seems to me to be the wrong strategy. If growth is curtailed, how will Obama fund all of his new programs? How will the budget ever be balanced? Does Obama even care? Seems to me the only thing he cares about is getting elected.
We aren't in a cyclical recession. We are in a stagflationary recession. When you have stagflation, the traditional wisdom is to control inflation first- and then worry about growth.
I agree with just about everything you said.
I am not convinced that it is a good idea to temporarily try this on a small scale or any other scale. The "windfall profits tax" was a bad idea then and it is bad now - in any form.
I do agree that precautions need to be taken quickly to curb inflation. When oil prices rose in the early seventies inflation really took off. I disagree that raising taxes is wise. A better policy is to increase revenue. This may sound the same - but it is not. Across the board tax increases causes a drop in investment which will surely slow the economy further. A better approach is to have a tax policy which encourages economic growth. If the economy grows, revenues increase at a faster rate than an across the board tax increase.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 3:46:18 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
inthysite,
R&D is always a good thing. That is not my complaint about McCain's battery proposal. My objection is that this kind of thing should not be touted as a short-term soultion for our current energy crisis.
The Energy Department under President Carter had a very broad R&D budget. Several alternative energy sources were being funded. That was a good thing. Unfortunately, all of those programs were shelved later because they were considered too expensive compared with oil. It is unfortunate. It would be good to have an on-going research policy but unfortunately, given the politics, no one can decide what should get the most funding or even what should be researched.
The quickest way out of the high energy cost crisis is to increase sources of energy quickly and cheaply. The quickest way is to increase oil production.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 4:11:17 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1589
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Notice the "rebate" comes from the Oil companies. This amounts to an additional tax on the private sector. On the surface it looks great - an extra $500 per individual/ $1000 per family - but how does this solve any "crisis"?
I agree. This is an election year red herring.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 4:11:54 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
That is not my complaint about McCain's battery proposal. My objection is that this kind of thing should not be touted as a short-term soultion for our current energy crisis.
I don't think McCain is suggesting this is a short term solution. Here is an article published by MIT regarding this:
Earlier this week, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, proposed a $300 million federally funded prize to spur the development of a vastly improved battery for electric cars and plug-in hybrids. While McCain offered few specifics, industry experts say that in targeting battery costs, he has identified a major obstacle to reducing fuel consumption in cars.
"Current vehicle-battery developers all recognize that reducing battery cost is instrumental in the adoption of hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles" that recharge from the power grid, says Yet-Ming Chiang, founder of A123 Systems, a Watertown, MA, company that develops advanced lithium-ion batteries and is working with several carmakers on plug-in hybrids. "Offering this prize is a great way to focus attention on the problem and get the dialogue going on how we will solve it. I would love to compete for this prize, and the wheels are turning in my mind."
McCain said that new batteries should "leapfrog" the size, capacity, and power of commercially available models, and at 30 percent of current costs. But since plug-in hybrids are not on the market yet, there is no clear basis for estimating a cost savings. "It's hard to measure without a benchmark," says Gerbrand Ceder, a professor of materials science and engineering at MIT. Ceder calls the McCain statement a "political stunt" and says that the money would be better invested in R&D than in an after-the-fact prize. The McCain campaign did not return a phone call seeking more specifics.
Ceder estimates that it will cost around $5,000 to manufacture a plug-in-hybrid battery that holds 10 kilowatt-hours of electricity. But 10 kilowatt-hours doesn't get you very far; the Volt, a plug-in hybrid being developed by Chevrolet, lists an electric-drive range of 40 miles on a battery that holds 16 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Cutting battery costs by 70 percent--while further boosting capacity and range in a battery of manageable size--"will require a serious amount of innovation, new materials, and new manufacturing procedures," Ceder says.
The sum that McCain cited would, however, represent a substantial increase in federal investment in battery technology. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) devoted nearly $50 million to research and development for vehicle-related energy storage. James Barnes, a program manager for the DOE, says that $300 million would fund ample battery R&D with enough left over to set up an actual manufacturing plant.
John McCain, Battery Booster
Naturally there are mixed feelings about his plan, some call it a stunt some are excited about it. My point is that stated in this article, that it will get more people interested in the idea and bring more public attention to the matter.
Of course there is no one single solution, as I have stated over several threads I'm of the "all of the above" camp. Try everything, solar, wind, drilling, electric, nuclear, conservation, etc. With everything combined we meet our needs, both long term and short term.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 4:14:50 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1589
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
Japan is already way ahead in this sort of research, esp in relation to hydrogen fuel cells.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 4:25:47 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
Of course there is no one single solution, as I have stated over several threads I'm of the "all of the above" camp. Try everything, solar, wind, drilling, electric, nuclear, conservation, etc. With everything combined we meet our needs, both long term and short term.
I am in agreement with you on this, in general.
I believe, however, that considering the current economy and federal budget, it will take a great deal of imagination to re-arrange budget items in order achieve what you propose and reduce the deficit. It seems to me that these options need to be evaluated on their potential near-term return - what will return the most bang for the buck.
There are many problems with battery technology which the article you cited indicates. Remember that batteries are merely energy storage devices. The energy must still be generated from another source. Also, batteries wear out. What do we do with depleted batteries? This brings an environmental problem which has far more potential impact than crude oil.
It is exciting to think about the possibilities, but remember that this is not a primary energy source. Improved battery technology will still require a primary source of energy in order to recharge the batteries. Ultimately, this is not a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 4:35:27 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
I agree with just about everything you said.
I am not convinced that it is a good idea to temporarily try this on a small scale or any other scale. The "windfall profits tax" was a bad idea then and it is bad now - in any form.
I agree with you that a windfall profits tax is a terrible idea. However, a pragmatic strategy might not be a bad idea.
Despite all of my convincing fellow Democrats otherwise, they all seem bent on a windfall profits tax. Those who are over 43 (were 16 back in 1981) remember how well the windfall profits tax worked, but 25 years worth of voting-age folks have no idea.
So I'm suggesting that the Bush administration could agree to implement an experiment on a state that would be up for it- say California. We could increase oil taxes there, give the proceeds to the state, and see how their economy goes.
First thing that would happen would be that Chevron would relocate to Arizona. The state would lose roughly $1 Billion/year in tax revenues. People would stop investing in any sort of energy infrastructure there, and ultimately, the state would be taking in less tax four years after it implemented the tax than before.
If we went this route, we could spare the rest of the country from the damage a windfall profits tax would do.
quote:
I do agree that precautions need to be taken quickly to curb inflation. When oil prices rose in the early seventies inflation really took off. I disagree that raising taxes is wise. A better policy is to increase revenue. This may sound the same - but it is not.
Here's the thing, though. Inflation drives revenue. If you want more revenue, you want more inflation. Sure, we can take care of the deficit by cutting the value of the dollar in half, but Rome also tried that strategy from about 150 AD all the way until 476. A better approach might be to help cool the economy by raising taxes and paying down the debt- thus killing two birds with one stone.
Perhaps an alternative approach that many conservatives would like would be to cut spending. And I'm totally cool with that, too. Either way, though, the government can help cut inflation by reducing the deficit or even running a surplus to pay down debt. Either way, it means going on a financial diet by cutting food (spending) and increasing exercise (taxes).
quote:
Across the board tax increases causes a drop in investment which will surely slow the economy further. A better approach is to have a tax policy which encourages economic growth. If the economy grows, revenues increase at a faster rate than an across the board tax increase.
The traditional view of inflation is that it is driven by growth. I know everybody loves growth, but there is such a thing as too much for too long. A recession is natural, necessary, and healthy at this point. Think of it as a way to confess our nation's collective financial sins.
In any case, a short-term recession will probably make for a higher GDP in three years than we'd otherwise have.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 5:28:35 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
I do agree that precautions need to be taken quickly to curb inflation. When oil prices rose in the early seventies inflation really took off. I disagree that raising taxes is wise. A better policy is to increase revenue. This may sound the same - but it is not.
Here's the thing, though. Inflation drives revenue. If you want more revenue, you want more inflation. Sure, we can take care of the deficit by cutting the value of the dollar in half, but Rome also tried that strategy from about 150 AD all the way until 476. A better approach might be to help cool the economy by raising taxes and paying down the debt- thus killing two birds with one stone.
On this we disagree.
Inflation does not drive growth nor does growth develop inflation. They are two completely separate issues.
quote:
The traditional view of inflation is that it is driven by growth. I know everybody loves growth, but there is such a thing as too much for too long. A recession is natural, necessary, and healthy at this point. Think of it as a way to confess our nation's collective financial sins.
In any case, a short-term recession will probably make for a higher GDP in three years than we'd otherwise have.
A recession is never good or called for.
Economic growth is driven by production. As the country produces more there is more money but this in NOT inflation. This is real wealth being generated.
When the cost of production goes up (because of increased fuel costs for example) but production rate stays constant - then you have inflation. The same goods and services cost more today than yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 6:04:48 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
On this we disagree.
Inflation does not drive growth nor does growth develop inflation. They are two completely separate issues.
Inflation doesn't drive growth; growth drives inflation. Stop the growth, and you stop inflation.
quote:
Economic growth is driven by production. As the country produces more there is more money but this in NOT inflation. This is real wealth being generated.
But as the country produces more, it demands more scarce resources, thus driving up their prices. These resources might include labor, natural resources, infrastructure, or anything else. A recession gives these resources an opportunity to catch up with demand, thus slowing their growth in price. This reduces inflation.
Inflation discourages savings and investment. Why invest in a factory when I can invest in a lamp that will be worth 10% more next year? Thus, a recession that cuts inflation is healthy and necessary.
quote:
When the cost of production goes up (because of increased fuel costs for example) but production rate stays constant - then you have inflation. The same goods and services cost more today than yesterday.
Why are these fuel costs higher? One answer is that demand is too high.
quote:
A recession is never good or called for.
Whether you are a Chicagoan/Austrian or not, I think you'll agree with me that at the very least, they are natural. We have had plenty of recessions in the past.
Being somewhere between the Austrian and Chicago economic schools, I will go further to say that this recession was caused by the popping of a real-estate bubble that was driven by poor federal policy. The correct course of action would be to raise taxes back to a normal level and increase interest rates. It will hurt, but it is the only sustainable choice.
I also think this recession needs to happen. We have borrowed just too much money, and a recession will help clean up this mess the right way.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 8/1/2008 6:14:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 6:09:33 PM
|
|
|
saved9201
Posts: 712
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
Actually this is not a new idea and it is a very good idea.
I didn't mean to scoff at McCain's idea. The OP as well as the talking heads on the right were clowning Obama's suggestion claiming that was his "energy plan," when it in reality there was much more to it. I know there was much more to McCain's idea, but there's a way you can spin something, leave out pertinent details, and make the other guy look like a fool.
- Julius
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 7:14:16 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
On this we disagree.
Inflation does not drive growth nor does growth develop inflation. They are two completely separate issues.
Inflation doesn't drive growth; growth drives inflation. Stop the growth, and you stop inflation.
Like I said above - growth does NOT drive inflation. Stop the growth and you have stagnation and you are on your way to a recession (which is what I think you are saying). The current definition for a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
quote:
quote:
Economic growth is driven by production. As the country produces more there is more money but this in NOT inflation. This is real wealth being generated.
But as the country produces more, it demands more scarce resources, thus driving up their prices. These resources might include labor, natural resources, infrastructure, or anything else. A recession gives these resources an opportunity to catch up with demand, thus slowing their growth in price. This reduces inflation.
Your assumption is that there is no more of those scarce resources to be had and I disagree. Our current situation is because there is an artificially low supply of crude oil caused by Congress's resistance to increased domestic production. It doesn't need to be this way.
Resources do not "catch up" with demand unless they are produced - this requires increased production. The growth in price is not really a bad thing. It is simply equilibrium - if supply goes up price will come down - if supply drops the price will increase - this does not necessarily define inflation. A recession merely causes a pent up demand which cannot be satisfied. This is not a good thing.
quote:
Inflation discourages savings and investment. Why invest in a factory when I can invest in a lamp that will be worth 10% more next year? Thus, a recession that cuts inflation is healthy and necessary.
quote:
When the cost of production goes up (because of increased fuel costs for example) but production rate stays constant - then you have inflation. The same goods and services cost more today than yesterday.
Why are these fuel costs higher? One answer is that demand is too high.
Maybe - but the real answer is that supply is too low.
quote:
quote:
A recession is never good or called for.
Whether you are a Chicagoan/Austrian or not, I think you'll agree with me that at the very least, they are natural. We have had plenty of recessions in the past.
Being somewhere between the Austrian and Chicago economic schools, I will go further to say that this recession was caused by the popping of a real-estate bubble that was driven by poor federal policy. The correct course of action would be to raise taxes back to a normal level and increase interest rates. It will hurt, but it is the only sustainable choice.
What in the world is a "normal level" of taxation? This does not make sense.
quote:
I also think this recession needs to happen. We have borrowed just too much money, and a recession will help clean up this mess the right way.
How will a recession cure the debt? With a smaller economy there will be less money to pay the debt.
I believe the "real-estate bubble" is localized. I do not feel the impact where I am living. I know my relatives in California are deeply affected by it.
Raising taxes is not the right answer unless is raises real revenue to the government. The way that happens is through economic growth. Tax policy that is good for everyone is one which increases revenue. The Tax policy discussed by Obama which raises taxes is a punitive one in which upper income groups pay a disproportionate share. The money which those people were investing in the economy will now go to the government - an that will certainly not help the economy grow. History has shown that this does not increase revenue to the treasury. It is simply a way of making people feel like they are "getting even with the rich".
The goal of the tax policy should be to maximize revenue to the government while promoting full employment and steady economic growth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 9:24:35 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
continue to pay for leases on which no oil exists?
and just what don't you understand about a lease? can someone just walk away from an apartment he has rented saying it no longer meets his needs.
And who can forget the peanut farmers advice that instead of turning on a light one should just light a candle. The number of house fires skyrocketed. Just more stuff we will get from Jimmy Carter II
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/1/2008 9:27:54 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
Stop the growth, and you stop inflation.
stop growth and you get the rust belt
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/2/2008 11:45:57 AM
|
|
|
revbob4God
Posts: 602
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well it does seem that putting air in your tires in the most sensible part of his plan.
All the rhetoric listed above will do nothing but bring about more regulation, more government, and of course more taxes to pay for it all.
Oh yea he is a demokrat, i must have forgotten for a moment.
I just saw a commercial for McCain that says Obama plans to tax electricity.
Tax and spend.
Sound familiar?
Looks like Sylvie will have to go back to candle making and unpack all of the hurricane lamps again.
_____________________________
For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I the Lord; and none else.
Isaiah 45:18
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/2/2008 11:57:56 AM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1589
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
I just saw a commercial for McCain that says Obama plans to tax electricity.
This is untrue.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_celebrity_cred.html
[CLIP BEGINS BELOW]
McCain's new ad claims that Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity." That's false. Obama says no such thing.
McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once – and only once so far as we can find – suggested taxing "dirty energy," including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or "dirty energy" as part of his platform, and he never has.
It's true that a coal/gas tax would raise electric rates, but so would a cap-and-trade program to restrict carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade is an idea that both McCain and Obama support, in different forms. Neither candidate characterizes cap-and-trade as a "tax."
Further....(from the same FC article):
The McCain campaign sent reporters a set of "ad facts" to accompany the new spot. But the campaign's sole source for its charge that Obama wants to raise taxes on electricity is a short Feb. 19 interview that Obama gave to Carlos Guerra, a reporter with the San Antonio Express-News. Obama does in fact say, "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." But that quote is out of context. Obama and Guerra are discussing possible ways to fund education. Here's the pertinent passage, in full:
Guerra: Have you considered other funding sources, say taxing emerging energy forms, for example, say a penny per kilowatt hour on wind energy?
Obama: Well, that’s clean energy, and we want to drive down the cost of that, not raise it. We need to give them subsidies so they can start developing that. What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. But I think that the real way to fund education is for local communities to step up and say this is important to us. There are no shortcuts. When people say they want to fund education with lotteries, or do this or do that, what they are saying is that this isn’t a top priority. It should be a top priority and people should be saying, we get what we pay for.
As we read Obama's response, he is rejecting a tax on wind energy, saying that taxing "dirty energy" is a better option, and then he is rejecting both notions by saying "the real way" is for local communities to "step up" and pay for education with "no shortcuts." Obama's phrasing does leave room for interpretation, but to our ears this is a feeble peg on which to hang a claim that Obama wants to "raise taxes on electricity."
We asked the McCain campaign if it had any other information on which to base this "taxes on electricity" claim, and we received no response. We looked, but could find no instance of Obama making mention of a tax on electricity or any other reference to a "dirty energy" tax. In any case, no such policy proposals are currently part of his public platform.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/2/2008 12:16:15 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
quote:
Stop the growth, and you stop inflation.
stop growth and you get the rust belt
You'll note that in the rust belt, $100 in 2008 isn't worth $0.01 in 2007 as it was in South America in the '80s and in Zimbabwe today.
We can inflate our way out of a recession, but I'd take the rust belt any day over hyper-inflation. It is the surest sign of the impending end of an empire/civilization.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/2/2008 12:17:19 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: revbob4God
quote:
Well it does seem that putting air in your tires in the most sensible part of his plan.
All the rhetoric listed above will do nothing but bring about more regulation, more government, and of course more taxes to pay for it all.
Oh yea he is a demokrat, i must have forgotten for a moment.
I just saw a commercial for McCain that says Obama plans to tax electricity.
Tax and spend.
Sound familiar?
Looks like Sylvie will have to go back to candle making and unpack all of the hurricane lamps again.
It certainly beats borrow-and-spend.
Personally, I'd prefer tax-and-save, but I'd take tax-and-spend over borrow-and-spend any day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Energy Policy - 8/2/2008 12:28:09 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1589
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Personally, I'd prefer tax-and-save, but I'd take tax-and-spend over borrow-and-spend any day.
The grand irony about the Bush administration using communist China as its personal ATM over the past several years is that were a Dem president to do so, the White House's lackeys on talk radio and on Fox would scream bloody murder.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
