Yet another encroachment on our freedoms

[Jester]

The net effect of Smoot-Hawley, however small its macroeconomic effect, was to worsen an already weak economy and depress the GDP.

In other words, Smoot-Hawley isn't like these other things in any real sense at all, but it makes a neat boogeyman to compare to things you think are bad ideas.

The worlds demands for goods and services are like one big pie. With the US self selecting to curb its economic power by siphoning off productivity and diverting capital to projects with no profitable impact. I mean seriously, what do you think the net effect will be of suddenly reducing energy consumption in the US to 80% of the 1990 level (as promised by Obama)? Yes, a cleaner environment and less CO2 emissions until people start burning their trees for heat and cooking.

Sounds long overdue.

However, you're being quite misleading about what Obama has promised. First, the 80% figure refers to carbon emissions, not energy consumption. This means switching to nuclear, solar, wind, and other low-carbon technology, *not* reducing energy consumption to 4/5ths. Second, this target is for 2050. You have forty-one years to get there; for now, the best that can be hoped for, even under the most optimistic plans, is to stabilize carbon emissions levels. I suspect the US (nor any major industrial power) is not going to meet even that target. But to not even try would be environmentally suicidal.

By these types of actions (socialist neo-Luddite pipe dreams), we are in essence choosing to be less competitive. This is economic carnage to quickly implement what some people believe to be an environmental nirvana. Who will pick up the productivity slack? China?

By these types of actions, you would be joining the rest of the modern world in facing the concerns of the future: rising inequality and global climate change. Nobody serious is talking about "environmental nirvana". Just something a little more sane than "drill, baby, drill."

It's ok, I've lived off the land before in my life, so me and mine will survive this. But, I fear for the millions who will die due to lack of heat and food. In the world food chain, this has typically been Africa and South Asia, but who knows.

Sometimes I seriously wonder how you come up with these things. Live off the land? In the United States? How bad to expect this to get, exactly? Even in the case of a cataclysmic 90% drop in GDP, you could still do better than retreating to the hills to hunt and forage.

What is the "Cap in Trade" plan of the EU and how well does it work?

You'd rather not do cap and trade, and do something more rigorous instead? Sounds great to me. You think cap and trade, weak as it is, is already too much? Sounds like the ostrich approach to climate change.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In other words, Smoot-Hawley isn't like these other things in any real sense at all, but it makes a neat boogeyman to compare to things you think are bad ideas.

It's not just me. It's also the Congressional Budget Office. But, hey, its the Dems who are lauding Obama as the next FDR, and condemning Bush as the new Hoover. So, Pelosi and Reid must be the new Smoot and Hawley.

However, you're being quite misleading about what Obama has promised. First, the 80% figure refers to carbon emissions, not energy consumption. This means switching to nuclear, solar, wind, and other low-carbon technology, *not* reducing energy consumption to 4/5ths. Second, this target is for 2050. You have forty-one years to get there; for now, the best that can be hoped for, even under the most optimistic plans, is to stabilize carbon emissions levels. I suspect the US (nor any major industrial power) is not going to meet even that target. But to not even try would be environmentally suicidal.

Ok, so lets make sure we have the horse in front of the cart. I don't see a horse yet. Let's focus on getting a horse.

By these types of actions, you would be joining the rest of the modern world in facing the concerns of the future: rising inequality and global climate change. Nobody serious is talking about "environmental nirvana". Just something a little more sane than "drill, baby, drill."

Thats all well and good if *everyone* plays by the same set of self limiting rules. If China, however, decides to burn coal, go nuclear, build wind mills, and drill baby drill they will become the 800 lb gorilla in the world, while the rest of us breath their dirty air and buy their manufactured goods.

Sometimes I seriously wonder how you come up with these things. Live off the land? In the United States? How bad to expect this to get, exactly? Even in the case of a cataclysmic 90% drop in GDP, you could still do better than retreating to the hills to hunt and forage.

I lived through the 70's, and that was not as bad as the current economic crisis might shape out to be. I remember it was a time when the paycheck no longer covered the fuel we needed to run our farm, get my dad to work, and pay for groceries. My mom needed to go out and also earn money to cover expenses, and we spent our summers weeding a 5 acre garden to grow and preserve our own food.

You'd rather not do cap and trade, and do something more rigorous instead? Sounds great to me. You think cap and trade, weak as it is, is already too much? Sounds like the ostrich approach to climate change.

No, I want wind, solar, nuclear, and whatever else to offset the need for petroleum. That would be putting the horse before the cart.

[Jester]

It's not just me. It's also the Congressional Budget Office. But, hey, its the Dems who are lauding Obama as the next FDR, and condemning Bush as the new Hoover. So, Pelosi and Reid must be the new Smoot and Hawley.

The CBO is comparing cap-and trade and health care reform to Smoot-Hawley? Wow. That seems less coherent than their usual down-to-earth analysis. Where do they do this?

Edit: Also, there is the minor problem that Smoot and Hawley were Republicans who passed their tariff under Hoover, not Dems under FDR.

Thats all well and good if *everyone* plays by the same set of self limiting rules. If China, however, decides to burn coal, go nuclear, build wind mills, and drill baby drill they will become the 800 lb gorilla in the world, while the rest of us breath their dirty air and buy their manufactured goods.

Fine. Then China will be the problem. But for now, the West is the problem, and has been for a hundred years. If we don't step up to the plate, what incentive, moral or otherwise, would China have to *ever* do it? They would just turn your argument on its head, and ask what possible right the West has to keep China's standard of living down with pollution controls, when they have neither polluted as much, nor enjoyed the benefits of recklessly polluting. That argument seems to lead to global environmental suicide, but it at least seems a hell of a lot more sensible than the American version, that the *future* threat of Chinese pollution somehow justifies the *current* failure of the US to do a damn thing about it. Repeat argument for any pair of first and third world countries.

I lived through the 70's, and that was not as bad as the current economic crisis might shape out to be. I remember it was a time when the paycheck no longer covered the fuel we needed to run our farm, get my dad to work, and pay for groceries. My mom needed to go out and also earn money to cover expenses, and we spent our summers weeding a 5 acre garden to grow and preserve our own food.

Not to belittle your economic troubles from the 1970s, but if you have a farm, and someone extra in the household who can enter the labour force to earn money, then you're a rather long way from "living off the land". This is a deep recession, maybe even a depression; it isn't a return to the bronze age.

Ok, so lets make sure we have the horse in front of the cart. I don't see a horse yet. Let's focus on getting a horse. (...) I want wind, solar, nuclear, and whatever else to offset the need for petroleum. That would be putting the horse before the cart.

These goals are congruent with carbon reductions, and the actions needed are more or less identical. If you institute a cap-and-trade scheme, that creates a direct economic incentive to do exactly what you're looking for: swap off a petroleum-based economy to something more sustainable. What's the issue?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What's the issue?

You've heard of the carrot and the stick? Implementing it by artificially inflating the price of energy that emits CO2 is a "stick". Rather than, promote the alternative energies first being the "carrot". I associate the "stick" approach with tyranny, while the "carrot" approach seems more like incentives. We are all out of carrots, I'm afraid.

Why wouldn't it be better to have the government leading by prompting a surplus of *clean* cheap energy? You know, employ a bunch of out of work people by helping to plan and build the infrastructure. Why (in the midst of a recession/depression) would you think that punishing energy consumption would be the right way to start reducing CO2 emissions? This can only lead to even higher inflation, higher than I already whined about in the other thread. Cap in trade is economic suicide if it is implemented now.

[Jester]

You've heard of the carrot and the stick? Implementing it by artificially inflating the price of energy that emits CO2 is a "stick". Rather than, promote the alternative energies first being the "carrot". I associate the "stick" approach with tyranny, while the "carrot" approach seems more like incentives. We are all out of carrots, I'm afraid.

So, you're all out of carrots, and the stick is tyrannous. Therefore, you're utterly unable to fix your pollution problem, even if it's the world's poorest who will end up suffering for it. Rather convenient, really.

Why wouldn't it be better to have the government leading by prompting a surplus of *clean* cheap energy? You know, employ a bunch of out of work people by helping to plan and build the infrastructure. Why (in the midst of a recession/depression) would you think that punishing energy consumption would be the right way to start reducing CO2 emissions? This can only lead to even higher inflation, higher than I already whined about in the other thread.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some kind of provision in the stimulus package for clean energy. They could have put that money towards weatherizing houses. Or researching clean energy. Or modernizing the electrical grid. Or developing battery technology. Man, wouldn't that have been great.

Cap in trade is economic suicide if it is implemented now.

As they say over here, bollocks. The CBO estimates 22 billion a year by 2020. That's not peanuts, but if your economy's back is going to be broken by this, what the heck are you still doing spending twenty-five times that much on the world's most powerful military? This is simply not an impractically large amount of money, let alone "economic suicide". The current stimulus package, were you to just set it aside and use it to pay that cost, would last you from now until 2050.

-Jester

[Nastie_Bowie]

And, yet, in an age of media whoredom... As David Zurawik writes in the Baltimore Sun, Time for TV press to quit being used by Obama<blockquote>Given all the reckless and irresponsible words uttered by the likes Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, I hesitate to write these words, but good for Fox. It must be doing something right, if it has the president complaining about the tiny bit of scrutiny he gets on TV.

On the other hand, if Fox News is our last, best TV watchdog on the White House, then the TV press, as well as media critics like me, should be profoundly embarassed, and vow to start doing a better job -- immediately."</blockquote>

One can only hope the media starts doing a better job. Have you watched or read CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS lately?

Obama whining about FOX is hilarious, "W" had every network kicking his butt. When is BO gonna realize the election is over and not everyone is going to approve of what he does, especially if he is doing his job correctly.

:)

[kandrathe]

One can only hope the media starts doing a better job. Have you watched or read CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS lately?

Obama whining about FOX is hilarious, "W" had every network kicking his butt. When is BO gonna realize the election is over and not everyone is going to approve of what he does, especially if he is doing his job correctly.

:)

Well, to be fair, Fox didn't kick W's butt. They pander to the R's, although, they try to maintain the illusion of "Fair, and Balanced" by inviting the opposition to be shouted down by their partisan hacks.

Whether it is done by the left, or the right, the artificial debates between unequals on these news shows perpetuates a myth that we are engaged in public discourse and argument. "The People" are merely spectators who observe, and then closer to election time, like mindless lemmings, choose which candidate to follow into hell.

[kandrathe]

... you're utterly unable to fix your pollution problem, ...

I don't believe that is true. I also have little faith that a political solution will resolve a scientific problem. It was NASA who put a man on the moon. Where is the NASA of pollution and climate change?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some kind of provision in the stimulus package for clean energy.

Whoa. 70 billion / 763 billion -- and, what has actually been done? Looking in detail at the list, it seems most of these "energy" projects are municipal pork. For example, looking at many of the Minnesota projects, the retrofitting of more energy efficient equipment for ice arena's and down hill ski slopes seems to fit the mold, one must ask if the economy will really prosper from investing in sports facilities for the wealthy. Whereas, I would expect more of the projects to be like the Abengoa Solar designed 100MW solar parabolic trough electric generation plant.

That's not peanuts, but if your economy's back is going to be broken by this, what the heck are you still doing spending twenty-five times that much on the world's most powerful military?

You seem to suffer the myopia that our politicians do. Any perturbation in the price of energy has a multiplicative effect in the economy, since energy inserts its costs in multiple steps in the supply chain. So, I am dead set against any attempts to force the price of energy higher, but whole heartedly support any provisions to replace fossil fuel generation with alternative sources. Adding the infrastructure for cheap renewables will be a GDP booster (both in the construction of the infrastructure, and in adding energy to the production environment), while trying to force change by inflating the price of energy will be a GDP depressor. Once the alternative fuels exceed 50% (even with government funded incentives), then begin the phase out of pollution based sources of energy production.

The bottom line is that if we don't have energy that is as cheap as the energy we have now, it will express itself as a decrease in productivity and employment. The energy does not need to be fossil fuel based, but it does need to exist.

Edit: It seems that one possible project is also set to eat the lions share of the 70 billion. <blockquote> "The population of Cidra, PR is 38,000. The total they are scheduled to receive, including this project is about $18,546,035,000. That works out to almost $500,000 per person for one city."</blockquote>As a testament to how well thought out stimulus is by officials, the 4th ranked project in terms of importance is an animal shelter.

[Zingydex]

Well, to be fair, Fox didn't kick W's butt. They pander to the R's, although, they try to maintain the illusion of "Fair, and Balanced" by inviting the opposition to be shouted down by their partisan hacks.

Whether it is done by the left, or the right, the artificial debates between unequals on these news shows perpetuates a myth that we are engaged in public discourse and argument. "The People" are merely spectators who observe, and then closer to election time, like mindless lemmings, choose which candidate to follow into hell.

Every time I think the Canadian system is totally borked, I only have to look south to realize things are never so bad they couldn't be worse.

[Jester]

dit: It seems that one possible project is also set to eat the lions share of the 70 billion. <blockquote> "The population of Cidra, PR is 38,000. The total they are scheduled to receive, including this project is about $18,546,035,000. That works out to almost $500,000 per person for one city."</blockquote>As a testament to how well thought out stimulus is by officials, the 4th ranked project in terms of importance is an animal shelter.

And I quote:

Below are the "shovel-ready" projects for which this city submitted in the 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors report.

They *could* spend 18 billion dollars, if they got every insane thing their Mayor asked for. They are not *getting* 18 billion dollars.

This stuff is just stupid. I don't know if that's the site's fault, or if the Mayor of Cidra, Puerto Rico has a sick sense of humour, but one hundred million dollars to install security cameras in recreational facilities? Srsly.

-Jester

[Nastie_Bowie]

Well, to be fair, Fox didn't kick W's butt. They pander to the R's, although, they try to maintain the illusion of "Fair, and Balanced" by inviting the opposition to be shouted down by their partisan hacks.

FOX to Bush wasn't the boot-licking cheerleaders constantly performing fellatio to the Dems that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and 90% of the print media are. FOX was not always nice to the former prez.

When I watch FOX, it seems to me the ones shouting are the liberal interviewees that refuse to answer legitimate questions by trying to change the subject avoiding giving a specific answer. Trying to shout down the interviewer.

*shrug*

That's how I see it.

:)

[Jester]

That's how I see it.

This is not a universally shared perspective, to say the least.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is not a universally shared perspective, to say the least.

There is a lot of shouting though. And, I've never seen anyone say, "You are right, I've changed my opinion on this." What I find hilarious though are the pairings (as if there are only ever two opinions), which is usually some well credentialed politico who just wrote a book (needing plugging), and then in a rush to present the opposing view they get the dog catcher from Massapequa , or some b-list comedian to rebut.

[Nastie_Bowie]

There is a lot of shouting though. <span style="color:#FF0000">And, I've never seen anyone say, "You are right, I've changed my opinion on this." What I find hilarious though are the pairings (as if there are only ever two opinions), which is usually some well credentialed politico who just wrote a book (needing plugging), and then in a rush to present the opposing view they get the dog catcher from Massapequa , or some b-list comedian to rebut.

I am sure you see this a lot on the left wing interviews.

:D

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sorry for the delayed reply. I was in Atlanta taking care of some family business when you posted this and felt it needed more attention than I could give it then.

Pete, why did you argue that you need a permit to engage in a simple activity of free men and women going about their business?

Since I read this, I've given it a fair bit of thought. I've asked myself if the position I took was based on my dislike for religion. I've tried to reconcile it as much as I can with my rather strict interpretation of the Constitution. And I've worried about it in terms of my anarchistic tendencies. My conclusion is that it is a question of a balance of rights.

The the right of the people peaceably to assemble, for whatever reason, must be balanced against the right of people to have free access to their homes, against the right to have peace and tranquility in their homes, against the right to have security of their property and of their persons. How many 'peaceable assemblies' against various wars, against political conventions, against various trade groups, against domestic or foreign policies, have turned into violent riots? How often have we seen so called 'protesters' breaking windows? How many people's idea of 'speaking out' involves stealing a high definition TV set?

So, in order to maintain order, in order to have control over the regions that their police are sworn to protect, those in charge of a region must control that region. They do so by building permits, by zoning laws, by traffic regulations. And they do so by requiring permits for assemblies. And, in light of the first amendment, how can this be right? Well, the complete phrase is "right of the people peaceably to assemble" (emphasis mine). If the purpose of that permit is to ensure that peace, then I see no problem.

In terms of the original issue, the right of the bible study group does not trump the rights of the neighbors to peace, quiet, un-dented cars, on street parking, and what have you. There are store fronts, assembly halls, school auditoria, etc., that can support the traffic, that have the parking, and that don't have neighbors to disturb and annoy in the evenings and at night. An occasional meeting (two, three a year) should not be a problem. But a weekly meeting is, whether it be of Boy Scouts, of Amway dealers, of Young Republicans, or of Wobblies, an imposition on the neighbors which the zoning laws and the permit requirement are meant to check.

To exempt a religious group from these strictures simply because it is a religious group is to invalidate the first amendment. It establishes religion. It establishes it as an entity superior to and independent of the state.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I am sure you see this a lot on the left wing interviews.

Oh, either side does it. If the issue is liberal, they will get some myopic cloistered and usually bigoted deacon from east stickesville to offer their poorly reasoned ridiculous opposing view. So, it not only offers the liberal side as the only reasonable position, it shows that if you disagree you are like the idiot on the right.

In reality, in the US, we are usually offered the choice between poison, and deadly poison.

[Chesspiece_face]

Oh, either side does it. If the issue is liberal, they will get some myopic cloistered and usually bigoted deacon from east stickesville to offer their poorly reasoned ridiculous opposing view. So, it not only offers the liberal side as the only reasonable position, it shows that if you disagree you are like the idiot on the right.

In reality, in the US, we are usually offered the choice between poison, and deadly poison.

News, like politics, is all marketing.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

[Nastie_Bowie]

News, like politics, is all marketing.

<span style="color:#FFFF00">"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Indeed!

;)