(10-08-2009 05:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-08-2009 11:03 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...the U.S. has suffered from the fact that tyrants dislike us and democracies disrespect us. Fortunately, Obama is well on his way to ensuring that the reverse is true.

you mean that tyrants disrespect us and democracies dislike us?

I thought it would be clear that that that's exactly what I meant. I figured one giveaway is that my comment is a play on the old adage: "In capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."

But I guess words don't read quite as sarcastically on the screen as they sound in my mind when I'm typing.

Sorry George... I ruined your joke by being stupid

Well, apparently Chavez likes us now. Sometimes you are known by your friends. I still cringe at Obama accepting that book from him.

As for Ahmadinejad, I had a discussion with an Obama supporter during the campaign in which he said that he thought O's oratorical ability would make the difference in negotiating with Ahmadinejad, Russia, North Korea, etc. I said that negotiations are done over a table, not by reading a speech to ten thousand adoring fans complete with fainters. I am not seeing the results yet.

Obama was elected on expectations, and so far he is disappointing a lot of the people who elected him. I heard a gay activist say that Obama had delivered hope, now it was time to deliver change. He was tired of waiting. I think that covers a lot of people - where's the change?

For any Obama supporter,

Do you really think anything that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact? If so, how and why?

I don't, and I'd really like for someone who does to explain how it can work. I'm talking about issues, not "at least he's better than Bush."

Take health care. Providing universal access to quality, affordable health care is a reasonable objective. France probably comes closer to that objective than any other country in the world. Their system looks nothing like any of the health care "reform" proposals currently on the table. They have less government involvement, and their government spends less per capita on health care, than we do NOW, before Obamacare. The proposals currently on the table will create new government bureaucracies which will necessitate higher taxes, but they will not achieve universality, quality, or cost savings. I see a huge opportunity for republicans to link up with the blue dogs and get the French plan onto the table (republicans + blue dogs = enough votes to get it out of the house). But it is not happening.

Take energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is an economic, environmental, and foreign policy/military nightmare. The Obama energy "plan" will have us importing more oil in 2015 than we do today. Paris f'ing Hilton has a better energy plan than either republicans or democrats. Drill here, drill now, tax it up to parity with alternatives, offset with tax cuts elsewhere to minimize strain on the economy, and use net revenues from the tax to boost conservation efforts.

Take the economy. Our problem is too much consumption (driven by too much greed) and too much resulting debt. The Keynesian approach of spurring consumption by tax-and-spend is the equivalent of giving heroin to an addict (but I suppose when your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat every problem as a nail). We need to quit being the world's largest debtor, or we are headed for inevitable collapse. We need to:
1. Balance the federal budget and reduce the national debt.
2. Reduce our imports (and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the best way to do this).
3. Increase our exports by attracting, rather than driving away, investment in value-added, productive enterprises that provide quality jobs.
I see nothing that Obama is proposing that will contribute to the accomplishment of ANY of those goals. In fact I see nothing that he is proposing that will fail to make us WORSE off with respect to any of those goals.

Take foreign policy. I'm a huge believer in the idea that we should treat our friends better than we treat our enemies. Shrub thought we should run over everyone who disagreed, and accordingly treated many of our friends like crap. Obama is treating our enemies better than Shrub treated our friends. In much of the world, and particularly those parts of the world where lots of people hate us, his apologies are taken as signs of weakness. This will not end well.

Take military policy. Never fight a war you don't intend to win. If you can't achieve your objectives and get out in two years, then the military option is a bad plan. By that criterion, Shrub had bad plans for both Iraq and Afghanistan. By that criterion, so does Obama. This will not end well.

I think it's pretty obvious from the positions enunciated above that I'm approaching this from a centrist perspective--neither hard right nor hard left. I'm guessing I'll take some flak from posters at both extremes.

I can see that the republicans are not addressing these issues. I keep hearing Obama supporters claim that he is addressing them, but I just don't see it. Right now we are circling the bowl, clearly due as much to mistakes by the republicans as by the democrats. Could someone explain what is going to keep us from getting flushed?

(10-08-2009 07:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I had a discussion with an Obama supporter during the campaign in which he said that he thought O's oratorical ability would make the difference in negotiating with Ahmadinejad, Russia, North Korea, etc.

That tells you a lot about the acuity of that particular supporter.

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For any Obama supporter,

Do you really think anything that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact? If so, how and why?

I don't, and I'd really like for someone who does to explain how it can work. I'm talking about issues, not "at least he's better than Bush."

Take health care. Providing universal access to quality, affordable health care is a reasonable objective. France probably comes closer to that objective than any other country in the world. Their system looks nothing like any of the health care "reform" proposals currently on the table. They have less government involvement, and their government spends less per capita on health care, than we do NOW, before Obamacare. The proposals currently on the table will create new government bureaucracies which will necessitate higher taxes, but they will not achieve universality, quality, or cost savings. I see a huge opportunity for republicans to link up with the blue dogs and get the French plan onto the table (republicans + blue dogs = enough votes to get it out of the house). But it is not happening.

Take energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is an economic, environmental, and foreign policy/military nightmare. The Obama energy "plan" will have us importing more oil in 2015 than we do today. Paris f'ing Hilton has a better energy plan than either republicans or democrats. Drill here, drill now, tax it up to parity with alternatives, offset with tax cuts elsewhere to minimize strain on the economy, and use net revenues from the tax to boost conservation efforts.

Take the economy. Our problem is too much consumption (driven by too much greed) and too much resulting debt. The Keynesian approach of spurring consumption by tax-and-spend is the equivalent of giving heroin to an addict (but I suppose when your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat every problem as a nail). We need to quit being the world's largest debtor, or we are headed for inevitable collapse. We need to:
1. Balance the federal budget and reduce the national debt.
2. Reduce our imports (and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is the best way to do this).
3. Increase our exports by attracting, rather than driving away, investment in value-added, productive enterprises that provide quality jobs.
I see nothing that Obama is proposing that will contribute to the accomplishment of ANY of those goals. In fact I see nothing that he is proposing that will fail to make us WORSE off with respect to any of those goals.

Take foreign policy. I'm a huge believer in the idea that we should treat our friends better than we treat our enemies. Shrub thought we should run over everyone who disagreed, and accordingly treated many of our friends like crap. Obama is treating our enemies better than Shrub treated our friends. In much of the world, and particularly those parts of the world where lots of people hate us, his apologies are taken as signs of weakness. This will not end well.

Take military policy. Never fight a war you don't intend to win. If you can't achieve your objectives and get out in two years, then the military option is a bad plan. By that criterion, Shrub had bad plans for both Iraq and Afghanistan. By that criterion, so does Obama. This will not end well.

I think it's pretty obvious from the positions enunciated above that I'm approaching this from a centrist perspective--neither hard right nor hard left. I'm guessing I'll take some flak from posters at both extremes.

I can see that the republicans are not addressing these issues. I keep hearing Obama supporters claim that he is addressing them, but I just don't see it. Right now we are circling the bowl, clearly due as much to mistakes by the republicans as by the democrats. Could someone explain what is going to keep us from getting flushed?

I don't think you will get a response from an Obama supporter here. What could they say?

This thread is hilarious. It sounds an awful lot like the semi-informed commentary at the Corner written by people of general intelligence but little specific expertise. Nonetheless, I’ll bump it and respond, just to show that Obama supporters do exist (imagine that!) and believe that some of his policies will have the "positive impacts" that many of fellow alums clearly doubt.

Other supporters, help me out! Do not be intimidated by the lengthy posts above. They attempt to win the argument through the overwhelming force of seemingly sensible factoids that, in the end, do not add up to much. I do not suggest that you address every point –- it's exhausting and impossible! –- but rather recommend that you focus on the one or two areas you know something about.

Just like I’m going to do now.

My fellow alum writes:

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Take energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is an economic, environmental, and foreign policy/military nightmare.

The first sign that this argument is, um, lacking is its very mention of the concept of "dependence on foreign oil." As economists (like me!) try to patiently point out to our friends, family, and anyone who will listen to our blathering, there is no such thing as "dependence on foreign oil." Oil is a fungible commodity, traded on the world market at a world price. A shock to oil prices anywhere in the world is reflected everywhere in the world. The United States would not be immune to these price shocks -– and the macroeconomic harm they cause –- even if we produced all our own oil. Hence it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference where we get our oil. The problem we face is not one of dependence on foreign oil but rather one of dependence on oil.

My fellow alum continues:

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Obama energy "plan" will have us importing more oil in 2015 than we do today. Paris f'ing Hilton has a better energy plan than either republicans or democrats.

I saw that Paris f’ing Hilton video, and it was pretty f’ing hilarious! And you know what? I agree with Owl 69/70/75 that a good plan would be to:

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Drill here, drill now, tax it up to parity with alternatives, offset with tax cuts elsewhere to minimize strain on the economy, and use net revenues from the tax to boost conservation efforts.

You know what else? This is exactly what’s in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009. It’s exactly what’s in the Kerry-Boxer climate bill introduced last month in the Senate. It’s exactly what Obama has said he wants to sign.

Now, it may be hard to believe that legislation sponsored by people with such odious names as "Waxman," "Markey," "Boxer," and (ugh!) "Kerry" could do the things that Owl 69/70/75 would like to see happen. But, guess what, folks, it does. See for yourself:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
http://kerry.senate.gov/cleanenergyjobsa...f/bill.pdf

The cap-and-trade program in these bills essentially imposes the tax that my fellow alum would like. Many of the emissions allowances will be provided for free for the benefit of consumers, easing the strain on the economy. Moreover, some of the emission allowances will be auctioned, and the government will use the revenue to fund conservation efforts and reduce the deficit. (Am I correct that some of the posters here would like to reduce the deficit? Yes?) Now, current legislation doesn't explicitly include a section called "Subtitle F: Drilling Here and Now," but the cap-and-trade program, if enacted, will create a crystal-clear market-based incentive to drill for more natural gas, because natural gas is far less GHG-intensive than many of its alternatives. (Surely many of the posters here trust the marketplace to provide more natural gas if economic conditions are right, no? Do they think the government needs to tell the market what to do here?)

So it seems that Owl 69/70/75 has answered his or her own question. Yes, in fact, something that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact. Obama's climate change policy, reflected in the evolving legislation in Congress, will do exactly what Owl 69/70/75 would like. It will do exactly what I would like, as it turns out. Hip hip hooray!

My area of expertise is in environmental and energy economics and policy. Though I have general training in other areas of economics and policy, am married to an expert in health care policy (another Rice grad!), and am full of opinions on everything ranging from military affairs to CDC's departure, I do not feel particularly well equipped to comment on the many other issues raised in this thread. (Plus, I am an infrequent poster, obviously, and I surely have offended enough respected members of this community that I should shut up now.) But surely there are others out there who can chime in and help me out.

Please???

Nice spin job, Boston.

You're so wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. And I really don't care to engage in the p*$$*ng contest that will almost certainly result if I try.

So I'll take a different tack. What does your wife think about the French health care model as an alternative to Obamacare (whatever it is, in whichever version)? In case you overlooked in your rush to marginalize me as some far-right wingnut, I'm in favor of it.

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nice spin job, Boston.

I should have predicted that would be coming my way.

You asked for this:

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do you really think anything that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact? If so, how and why?

I don't, and I'd really like for someone who does to explain how it can work. I'm talking about issues, not "at least he's better than Bush."

And I gave it to you. I did not footnote my facts, but I can! That's not engaging in a "p*$$*ng contest." That's stepping up to your challenge.

It seems as though you did not appreciate my efforts to contribute to this discussion. From my perspective, that's too bad. You are, of course, entitled to believe what you want about the issue I wrote about, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So I'll take a different tack. What does your wife think about the French health care model as an alternative to Obamacare (whatever it is, in whichever version)?

You'll have to ask her! I know too little about it to represent her opinion accurately.

Of course, as an unabashed, knee-jerk Obama supporter, I am in favor of whatever bill my Dear Leader signs into law. If it looks like France's model, great! If not, great too!

(10-22-2009 08:44 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nice spin job, Boston.

I should have predicted that would be coming my way.
You asked for this:

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do you really think anything that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact? If so, how and why?
I don't, and I'd really like for someone who does to explain how it can work. I'm talking about issues, not "at least he's better than Bush."

And I gave it to you. I did not footnote my facts, but I can! That's not engaging in a "p*$$*ng contest." That's stepping up to your challenge.
It seems as though you did not appreciate my efforts to contribute to this discussion. From my perspective, that's too bad. You are, of course, entitled to believe what you want about the issue I wrote about, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So I'll take a different tack. What does your wife think about the French health care model as an alternative to Obamacare (whatever it is, in whichever version)?

You'll have to ask her! I know too little about it to represent her opinion accurately.
Of course, as an unabashed, knee-jerk Obama supporter, I am in favor of whatever bill my Dear Leader signs into law. If it looks like France's model, great! If not, great too!

OK, I'll play along a little bit.

I agree with you that oil is a fungible good and that even if we got 100% of our supply from domestic sources we would still be subject to price shocks. What I don't buy is the leap from there to the conclusion that depending on foreign sources is not a problem. There are some risks that we'd face no matter where we got our oil (like price shocks), and others that we face because we depend on foreign sources (like body counts). And there are some universal risks that are greater because of the foreign dependence (like environmental). We could actually use some price shock. We're not paying nearly enough for oil or gasoline to drive rational energy choices by consumers.

I agree with you that we need to eliminate, or at least reduce, our dependence on oil. But part of moving away from oil is moving to something else, and that something else, and how to get there without destroying our economy, are huge challenges that I believe are not being adequately addressed. I think we could learn a lot from Brasil's approach, and have outlined those lessons in great detail in earlier posts, so no need to repeat.

I applaud your optimism in expecting Waxman-Markey to propel us to a solution. I hope you are right, because I think something like that is very likely to become law. My own expectation is that it will do far more harm than good. I don't think there's any way to prove either one of us right or wrong until the future, so I'll just say let's check back in a few years and see who was right.

I'll do your petty dirty work 69/70

(10-22-2009 07:27 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  This thread is hilarious. It sounds an awful lot like the semi-informed commentary at the Corner written by people of general intelligence but little specific expertise.

Quote:

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Take energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is an economic, environmental, and foreign policy/military nightmare.

The first sign that this argument is, um, lacking is its very mention of the concept of "dependence on foreign oil." As economists (like me!) try to patiently point out to our friends, family, and anyone who will listen to our blathering, there is no such thing as "dependence on foreign oil." Oil is a fungible commodity, traded on the world market at a world price. A shock to oil prices anywhere in the world is reflected everywhere in the world. The United States would not be immune to these price shocks -– and the macroeconomic harm they cause –- even if we produced all our own oil. Hence it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference where we get our oil. The problem we face is not one of dependence on foreign oil but rather one of dependence on oil.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. People on this thread must be more intelligent than the people you economists speak to. We know that we mean having a need for a specific fuel source beyond our ability to produce it for ourselves... we are dependent upon foreign sources... many of whom don't like us... for something vital. That is a problem... To return the caustic and unnecessarily insulting comments you began with... reading your explanation of this seems to show a complete lack of understanding of how intelligent people actually discuss the issue... reading words instead of getting meaning.

Quote:

(10-10-2009 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Obama energy "plan" will have us importing more oil in 2015 than we do today. Paris f'ing Hilton has a better energy plan than either republicans or democrats.

I saw that Paris f’ing Hilton video, and it was pretty f’ing hilarious! And you know what? I agree with Owl 69/70/75 that a good plan would be to:

[quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='4702579' dateline='1255192642']

Drill here, drill now, tax it up to parity with alternatives, offset with tax cuts elsewhere to minimize strain on the economy, and use net revenues from the tax to boost conservation efforts.

You know what else? This is exactly what’s in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009. It’s exactly what’s in the Kerry-Boxer climate bill introduced last month in the Senate. It’s exactly what Obama has said he wants to sign.
Now, it may be hard to believe that legislation sponsored by people with such odious names as "Waxman," "Markey," "Boxer," and (ugh!) "Kerry" could do the things that Owl 69/70/75 would like to see happen. But, guess what, folks, it does. See for yourself:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
http://kerry.senate.gov/cleanenergyjobsa...f/bill.pdf

yada yada

We're talking about reducing our need for imported oil and you bring up these two bills that really have very little to do with reducing oil consumption... and absolutely nothing about finding more domestically whatsoever... even your argument only talks about natural gas... and you expect to be taken seriously as an expert by this group?? Even Paris Hilton seemed to get it more than you. Betting on the development of technlogy that doesn't currently exist is a pipe dream not a plan. While it is good to invest in that technology, there is no guarantee that it will EVER help, much less help soon or significantly. You drill here and now FOR OIL to help alleviate the immediate problem using existing technology. You don't propose tons of taxes on the use of oil before there is a reasonable or viable alternative for the vast majority of the population... BECAUSE THAT KILLS THE ECONOMY... which is essentially what these bills do.

Quote:My area of expertise is in environmental and energy economics and policy. Though I have general training in other areas of economics and policy, am married to an expert in health care policy (another Rice grad!), and am full of opinions on everything ranging from military affairs to CDC's departure, I do not feel particularly well equipped to comment on the many other issues raised in this thread. (Plus, I am an infrequent poster, obviously, and I surely have offended enough respected members of this community that I should shut up now.) But surely there are others out there who can chime in and help me out.

Please???

I'm going to be a bit less cordial than normal because you haven't extended that courtesy yourself.

If you are the expert you claim to be... why do you need numbers? We're a pretty smart bunch on here as well, having attained AT LEAST the same degree you did... and while we certainly have our leanings... many of us aren't married to a political party. If you have a compelling argument... present it... and don't worry about numbers... If you're right... we'll know it. This isn't compelling. AT ALL. Go ahead and post your thoughts... but if this is the area where you are the most competent?? WOW.... This thread may sound semi-informed to you... but you sound completely uninformed to me.

Are you by any chance a professor with little real world experience in the area where you consider yourself an expert, or alternatively, are you very young with limited real world experience?? (not a knock on young people... but knowledge knows no age... while experience generally does... and not a knock on professors... many of whom HAVE real-world experience, or at least realize that what works on paper frequently doesn't work in the world)

My experience with people like that is that they have great ideas, and may ultimately be on the right track, but lose completely the sense of timing and its impact on plans and projects. Things work perfectly on paper... but the world usually has its own ideas. These bills you mention are a perfect example of taxes/penalties now... with future benefits based upon technology that doesn't currently exist and the replacement of equipment that is not currenlty scheduled or budgeted to be replaced. Offering a 30% tax credit for something that isn't scheduled or budgeted to be replaced while taxing/penalizing the use of that item will certainly speed up its replacement... but I'll probably cut other expenses that this bill hasn't considered first to offset the tax until I can aford to replace the item... you know, like jobs...

(10-22-2009 08:44 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nice spin job, Boston.

I should have predicted that would be coming my way.

You asked for this:

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do you really think anything that Obama is proposing will have a positive impact? If so, how and why?

I don't, and I'd really like for someone who does to explain how it can work. I'm talking about issues, not "at least he's better than Bush."

And I gave it to you. I did not footnote my facts, but I can! That's not engaging in a "p*$$*ng contest." That's stepping up to your challenge.

It seems as though you did not appreciate my efforts to contribute to this discussion. From my perspective, that's too bad. You are, of course, entitled to believe what you want about the issue I wrote about, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So I'll take a different tack. What does your wife think about the French health care model as an alternative to Obamacare (whatever it is, in whichever version)?

You'll have to ask her! I know too little about it to represent her opinion accurately.

Of course, as an unabashed, knee-jerk Obama supporter, I am in favor of whatever bill my Dear Leader signs into law. If it looks like France's model, great! If not, great too!

I'm wondering where the explanation is. You've provided some insults and a few links... but no explanation of how it can work that I can see. If your explanation is "read the bill... It's all in there"... then I'll go back to important things.

You represented that you were married to a healthcare expert, and when asked to explain that... you sidestepped as well.

Or am I to take from the last line that you're just yanking chains??

Wow.

I won't address everything now. But a few things.

On the "dependence on foreign oil" argument:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  we are dependent upon foreign sources... many of whom don't like us... for something vital. That is a problem...

Even if the United States produced enough of its own oil, we would still be subject to the risks that something could happen to oil production in the Middle East, Russia, etc., that would make the price of oil spike worldwide and harm us greatly. It doesn't matter how much oil we actually import from foreign sources that are hostile to us. In this sense, yes, we are "dependent on foreign oil," but our dependence is independent of our level or share of domestic production. This is a subtle distinction, but it is important in debates on this issue, because reducing our imports from hostile countries will not actually help us solve this problem. The "dependence on foreign oil" line of argument that others (not necessarily you) espouse, while obviously ubiquitous, is actually unhelpful here, and that's why I brought it up originally.

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We're talking about reducing our need for imported oil and you bring up these two bills that really have very little to do with reducing oil consumption...

Actually, they have everything to do with it. Cap-and-trade programs are about placing a price on GHG emissions, which will have the dual effect of reducing demand for more GHG-intensive products (including oil) and increasing the supply of less GHG-intensive products (an example of which is natural gas, which is why I brought it up in my post).

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...BECAUSE THAT KILLS THE ECONOMY... which is essentially what these bills do.

They may. There is uncertainty about the overall economic cost of cap-and-trade, to be sure. It will not be cheap. The best estimates by experts (not me) are that it will cost 0.25 to 3.5 percent of GDP each year, with a central tendency around 1.0 percent each year. Is that a lot? I don't know. Judgment call, I suppose. What do you think?

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This isn't compelling. AT ALL. Go ahead and post your thoughts... but if this is the area where you are the most competent?? WOW.... This thread may sound semi-informed to you... but you sound completely uninformed to me.

OK. To the others on the board: Is there a permissible response to this?

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you by any chance a professor with little real world experience in the area where you consider yourself an expert, or alternatively, are you very young with limited real world experience??

No. No. If I were, would it be easier to dismiss what I wrote?

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You represented that you were married to a healthcare expert, and when asked to explain that... you sidestepped as well.

Or am I to take from the last line that you're just yanking chains??

Am I obligated to provide more details about my wife's background and profession? I thought one of the joys of internet posting is the (relative) anonymity!

And, yes, the last line was a joke, but the rest wasn't. It's deadly serious stuff, right? I devote a considerable portion of my professional life to trying to help others (including industries for whom I work) understand cap-and-trade and manage it. I care about it. And I happen to think Obama's proposal is a good one, which is why I posted in the first place in response to members' request to defend an Obama policy.

(10-22-2009 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I applaud your optimism in expecting Waxman-Markey to propel us to a solution. I hope you are right, because I think something like that is very likely to become law. My own expectation is that it will do far more harm than good. I don't think there's any way to prove either one of us right or wrong until the future, so I'll just say let's check back in a few years and see who was right.

This is kind, Owl. Yes, we will check back in a few years, maybe 2015 or 2020? That's about the frequency with which I post anyway.

(10-22-2009 10:35 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Wow.

I won't address everything now. But a few things.

On the "dependence on foreign oil" argument:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  we are dependent upon foreign sources... many of whom don't like us... for something vital. That is a problem...

Even if the United States produced enough of its own oil, we would still be subject to the risks that something could happen to oil production in the Middle East, Russia, etc., that would make the price of oil spike worldwide and harm us greatly. It doesn't matter how much oil we actually import from foreign sources that are hostile to us. In this sense, yes, we are "dependent on foreign oil," but our dependence is independent of our level or share of domestic production. This is a subtle distinction, but it is important in debates on this issue, because reducing our imports from hostile countries will not actually help us solve this problem. The "dependence on foreign oil" line of argument that others (not necessarily you) espouse, while obviously ubiquitous, is actually unhelpful here, and that's why I brought it up originally.

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This isn't compelling. AT ALL. Go ahead and post your thoughts... but if this is the area where you are the most competent?? WOW.... This thread may sound semi-informed to you... but you sound completely uninformed to me.

OK. To the others on the board: Is there a permissible response to this?

Before you go, Boston, I have some questions. I am not an economist, just a simple businessman, so have a little patience with me.

Assumming we have a greater share of worldwide oil production, the equivalent i think of less foreign dependence, wouldn't we benefit more when those nasty foreigners decide to raise the price? Sure, we would be paying more, but we would be paying most of it to ourselves, not Saudis or Venzuelans. Seems good to me. Especially since more domestic production increases means more domestic jobs with more domestic income taxes paid, in short, better for U.S. Wouldn't that minimize the damages that other countries could inflict on us, effectively minimizing the risk? I think the problem with the price risk is the volume of US dollars leaving our country, and drill now, should minimize that by minimizing the percentage of foreign oil we need to buy.
What am I missing?

As to your second question, yes. A lot of your liberal friends that you have been begging for help left this board because they could not handle the rough and tumble of someone not agreeing with them - kind of like Dear Leader's response to Fox. So please stay, put in your opinions, just be prepared for a vigorous discussion.

(10-22-2009 10:35 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  I devote a considerable portion of my professional life to trying to help others (including industries for whom I work) understand cap-and-trade and manage it. I care about it. And I happen to think Obama's proposal is a good one, which is why I posted in the first place in response to members' request to defend an Obama policy.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

"Obama's policy is a good one because it's going to make me a whole bunch of money. If it screws up the economy that's somebody else's problem."

(10-22-2009 10:35 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  On the "dependence on foreign oil" argument:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  we are dependent upon foreign sources... many of whom don't like us... for something vital. That is a problem...

Even if the United States produced enough of its own oil, we would still be subject to the risks that something could happen to oil production in the Middle East, Russia, etc., that would make the price of oil spike worldwide and harm us greatly. It doesn't matter how much oil we actually import from foreign sources that are hostile to us. In this sense, yes, we are "dependent on foreign oil," but our dependence is independent of our level or share of domestic production. This is a subtle distinction, but it is important in debates on this issue, because reducing our imports from hostile countries will not actually help us solve this problem. The "dependence on foreign oil" line of argument that others (not necessarily you) espouse, while obviously ubiquitous, is actually unhelpful here, and that's why I brought it up originally.

As someone who has traded commodities including oil for 20+ years... I am certain I know more about pricing issues/risks than you... There is a difference betwen having problematic trade partners who you NEED them, and having them because you WANT them. If I am producing as much/more than I need... Can they decrease production and raise the price?? Sure... but I can then become a seller and take advantage of it. If they decide to open the spigots and dump oil, then I become a buyer. As it is, we're a buyer... and can only beg them, bribe them, bomb them or offer them arms to keep them from raising the price. If this doesn't make sense to you then I give up.

Quote:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We're talking about reducing our need for imported oil and you bring up these two bills that really have very little to do with reducing oil consumption...

Actually, they have everything to do with it. Cap-and-trade programs are about placing a price on GHG emissions, which will have the dual effect of reducing demand for more GHG-intensive products (including oil) and increasing the supply of less GHG-intensive products (an example of which is natural gas, which is why I brought it up in my post).

You make the flawed argument that taxing something today reduces demand today... yet when gas was $4 instead of $2 last year, demand wasn't substantially lower... and it hurt the people who could least afford it the most. It is simply an expense when there is no alternative... and natural gas isn't an option for cars, trucks, trains, planes or ships without significant investment. As far as consumers are concerned, it is only really an alternative to heating oil... and even then requires investment that isn't in most people's budgets.

Quote:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...BECAUSE THAT KILLS THE ECONOMY... which is essentially what these bills do.

They may. There is uncertainty about the overall economic cost of cap-and-trade, to be sure. It will not be cheap. The best estimates by experts (not me) are that it will cost 0.25 to 3.5 percent of GDP each year, with a central tendency around 1.0 percent each year. Is that a lot? I don't know. Judgment call, I suppose. What do you think?

If this is a serious question, then the answer lies in what benefit we get for our 1%. That's an AWFUL lot of money to lose.... but as I said, the more important issue is that most of the proposed benefits from cap and trade come in the future while the expense comes today, when we can least afford it... so while I support SOME of this... without taking the other steps, this is just a further hit to an already fragile/weak economy... so yeah, it's bad. Make it part of the Paris Hilton approach and it is significantly less bad. As an expert, it should make you mad that Paris gets it and Washington doesn't.... EITHER party...

Quote:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you by any chance a professor with little real world experience in the area where you consider yourself an expert, or alternatively, are you very young with limited real world experience??

No. No. If I were, would it be easier to dismiss what I wrote?

Not at all. If you were, then you'd simply be an idealist or inexperienced... and there is nothing wrong with that. It's easier to dismiss someone who calls themself an expert so as to belittle people I know for a fact to be educated, experienced and intelligent, but doesn't offer any evidence of their expertise. I don't want your pedigree, I'd simply like to see you write something that made your knowledge obvious.

Quote:

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You represented that you were married to a healthcare expert, and when asked to explain that... you sidestepped as well.

Or am I to take from the last line that you're just yanking chains??

Am I obligated to provide more details about my wife's background and profession? I thought one of the joys of internet posting is the (relative) anonymity!

I could care less about her background... You were the one that offered her background up... You claimed to be an expert in economics and would "explain" how Obama's plan made sense... and yet all you did was give a link to a bill. Then you claimed to be married to a healthcare expert and when asked what she (in her expert opinion) thought of the French system, you declined to answer that either...

Politicians are experts in making policy... but that doesn't mean that the policy they make is effective. You may well be an expert in cap and trade and its impact on industry... but you don't appear to be an expert in its effect on the economy as a whole.

(10-22-2009 11:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

"Obama's policy is a good one because it's going to make me a whole bunch of money. If it screws up the economy that's somebody else's problem."

Ha! More like: "At least if this cap-and-trade thing dies a slow death in Congress, I can spend the buckets of money I made working on it drowning my disappointment with pompous microbrews, French wines, and piles of arugula."

No socialist am I. I like my money very, very much.

(10-23-2009 12:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There is a difference betwen having problematic trade partners who you NEED them, and having them because you WANT them. If I am producing as much/more than I need... Can they decrease production and raise the price?? Sure... but I can then become a seller and take advantage of it. If they decide to open the spigots and dump oil, then I become a buyer. As it is, we're a buyer... and can only beg them, bribe them, bomb them or offer them arms to keep them from raising the price. If this doesn't make sense to you then I give up.

It sort of does make sense to me, although I don't know who "I" is (you, Hambone? The United States?). On the other hand, it doesn't really address the issue I raised on this relatively minor point, which is that the exact source of the oil that the United States consumes is not really relevant to our vulnerability as a nation to oil price shocks. Whether we (the U.S.) buy oil from Canada, Russia, the Middle East, or produce it ourselves, we are still subject to the risks of an unexpected global price shock, which is really what we're worried about, I think. Is it fair for me to say that if this doesn't make sense you, then I give up?

(10-23-2009 12:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You make the flawed argument that taxing something today reduces demand today... yet when gas was $4 instead of $2 last year, demand wasn't substantially lower... and it hurt the people who could least afford it the most. It is simply an expense when there is no alternative... and natural gas isn't an option for cars, trucks, trains, planes or ships without significant investment. As far as consumers are concerned, it is only really an alternative to heating oil... and even then requires investment that isn't in most people's budgets.

You introduced the notion of time here, which is of course relevant. We all know, from our education and experience, that individuals and businesses do not adjust instantly to price changes. Over time, of course they do, but the process of getting there can be painful, especially among those with limited means. Which is why I support the many provisions in Waxman-Markey that provide years of transition assistance to households and vulnerable industries (and hence the economy as a whole) as they adapt to climate regulation. This assistance includes provisions to mitigate rising electricity and home heating costs. There's also a hefty dose of support to develop the alternatives that we all agree will need to be developed. I mean, the provisions are in the bills. Some may disagree with them -- maybe someone thinks they focus on the wrong things, or are too generous, or are too paltry -- but you really can't deny that the provisions are there. Well, you can deny it, I suppose! But their inclusion in the Democratic proposals is a matter of fact, not opinion.

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If this is a serious question, then the answer lies in what benefit we get for our 1%. That's an AWFUL lot of money to lose.... but as I said, the more important issue is that most of the proposed benefits from cap and trade come in the future while the expense comes today, when we can least afford it...

Both excellent points. It will come as no surprise to you that I think the benefits are worth it and that the current bills adequately mitigate the short-term costs to a fragile economy (through the transition provisions I mentioned above). But these are the debates worth having, right? How large are the benefits? Do they justify the costs? How do we think about -- and make decisions in light of -- the considerable uncertainties in these estimates?

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As an expert, it should make you mad that Paris gets it and Washington doesn't.... EITHER party...

Well, not that I don't love Paris or anything, but it's pretty easy to "get it" at the high level she does. The devil's in the details.

As it happens, I recently spent some time on Capitol Hill meeting with some decision makers on these issues. (This is not normally what I do.) There is certainly a lack of basic knowledge, which is of course frustrating. But I have always admired the ugliness of the democratic process, and -- not to get all philosophical on y'all -- I think we usually get the answers right. At some point.

(10-22-2009 09:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As someone who has traded commodities including oil for 20+ years... I am certain I know more about pricing issues/risks than you...

I don't want your pedigree, I'd simply like to see you write something that made your knowledge obvious...

You may well be an expert in cap and trade and its impact on industry... but you don't appear to be an expert in its effect on the economy as a whole.

Let me end by commenting on these quotations, which, if I'm honest, do exasperate me a little. You reached all these conclusions from reading, what, a few hundred words I wrote on a Thursday night? Of course, I am an infrequent poster, so it's probably natural that I need to earn the respect of those that have been around here for longer. Nonetheless: Really?

Were this not an (quick edit: almost entirely) anonymous forum, it would be possible to locate some of my writings on these issues and determine whether I have any knowledge about oil pricing, economy-wide effects of climate policy, etc. I mean, I don't have an extensive body of work like a Larry Summers, a Greg Mankiw, or a Rob Stavins, but I can assure you that I haven't shared all my material yet. Once I post a few more times, you'll have plenty of evidence for the fraudulence of my "expertise."

(10-23-2009 01:05 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  On the other hand, it doesn't really address the issue I raised on this relatively minor point, which is that the exact source of the oil that the United States consumes is not really relevant to our vulnerability as a nation to oil price shocks. Whether we (the U.S.) buy oil from Canada, Russia, the Middle East, or produce it ourselves, we are still subject to the risks of an unexpected global price shock, which is really what we're worried about, I think. Is it fair for me to say that if this doesn't make sense you, then I give up?

...


Were this not an (quick edit: almost entirely) anonymous forum, it would be possible to locate some of my writings on these issues and determine whether I have any knowledge about oil pricing, economy-wide effects of climate policy, etc.

I'm not sure why you ignored me.

I think the source does matter. The sourcing may not prevent price jumps (or falls), but it can mitigate the damage to our country. If unfriendly sources cause a price increase, and most of our oil comes from ourselves, then most of the exta money we spend stays here instead of going out to our enemies, and the lower our dependence on foreign oil, the lower the $$$ that go overseas. It would also help us in increased jobs here, instead of in the countries of our enemies, and increased tax revenues, from production and employment. So it does matter. The less of our own oil we have, the more vunerable we are.

As for anonymity, it is optional and voluntary. Ask George Webb. I know Hambone's name - and you should too, if you followed the sports part of the Parliament. My name is Buddy Lockwood. I am a 1968 graduate of Rice. Lets see some of your writings.

I am listening with interest to this debate.

Buddy Lockwood
AKA OptimisticOwl

Boston... you continue to show an incomplete understanding of the issues.

Is oil fungible?? yes. Is it subject to manipulation?? yes... OUR problem is, because we consume more than we can produce or control, we have all the downside risks of oil manipulation with none of the upside. We can be manipulated, but cannot manipulate ourselves to any degree. In reality it doesn't matter whether we or I is Hambone or the US.

As to your bill, the best way to describe it is by example:
Bills like this, and really virtually ALL government incentives do things like offering a 30% tax credit for changing your oil furnace to Natural Gas... which means instead of a $5,000 bill, it's $3500... and over the next 5 years, we project that you will save the cost of the furnace. Meanwhile, we place a tax on fuel oil which reduces your payback to 3 years. If you have $3500 lying around, then no problem. If you are going to live in your house for 3-5 years, fine... or if you have good credit and don't mind paying 15% to borrow, or want to leverage your home... then fine...

SO I GET why some of the wealthy like Gore like things like this... they have $3500 and will gladly finance your $3500... plus, because they generally use WAY more than average, their payback is more like 6 months. Democrats do things like eliminating the credit at $250,000 and say there making the Rich pay for it... but the $1500 only means the payback for Oprah or Gore is now 9 months instead of 6.

The middle class and the poor ALSO think this is a great idea... They get a tax credit and the Rich pay for it... AND we clean the environment, AND yada yada yada...

However, if you rent or live in an apartment... or don't have $3500 or credit or equity, then the tax is simply a tax. You can't make the improvement, so you simply pay more. you stop eating out... you put more on your credit cards... you fall into debt... you let your insurance lapse... MIGHT you turn your thermostat down a few degrees?? Sure... Maybe you work overtime... maybe your wife leaves the kids at home and takes a job... and you reduce your consumption a bit because you simply can't afford it. Does consumption go down?? Maybe... but at what price??

Not exactly the bill anyone was sold... and like you are doing here... you fail to mention the realities of what happens TODAY.

It is especially egregious when you factor in the fact that the taxes collected DON'T just fund the tax breaks for the wealthy... but also the research into technologies that those paying the tax can't afford to buy... and can now afford even less... like Hybrid cars...

It goes on and on...

I don't deny those provisions are there... I simply deny that they will do what their salesmen say they will do without doing more damage than they will ever admit to those who need the help the most.

As for Paris... she gets that it's bigger than either of these bills... and in typical government fashion, it starts with a tax on the poor and a credit for the rich, though it is being described as exactly the opposite.

As to your writings and "respect"

You came into this thread with insults... are you REALLY surprised that you are not getting my respect??
You've mentioned on numerous occasions that you are an expert... and now claim some published writings... yet you haven't written anything on here to convince me you are an expert... other than to claim you are an expert. Your "lessons" thus far have been rudimentary at best... you talk of oil being fungible (no kidding) and that having or controlling it doesn't exempt you from risk (again, no kidding) but ignore the fact that there is a difference between oil company actions (driven by markets) and governmental actions (driven by something else)... and because of our consumption > our production, we are the nail and can not be the hammer.