Oil Prices and Incentive to Work--A Question for Conservatives [Archive]

Urantia II

29-03-2005, 02:47

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 02:50

The problem there is that with higher wages, that means that an employer would have to employ fewer people. Either that or slash profits to a degree...

Or raise prices, which seems to be happening with pretty much anything anyway. It's pretty sad when I could lecture a child on why a dollar ain't what it used to be, and I'm only 19.

However, labor costs are artificially low, because certain low-wage employers force taxpayers to subsidize their labor costs through welfare, Medicaid, etc. If the minimum wage was raised to a level that people could actually live off of, the government could cut taxes because the strain on social programs would be reduced. I for one would rather pay for the true cost of a good or service than pay an artificially low price that doesn't reflect this sort of, er, subsidy.

Stoic Kids

29-03-2005, 02:50

Even most free marketers would argue that petrol prices should be taxed to take account of the environmental damage burning petrol causes (which is currently a cost unaccounted for by the market).

It seems pretty unlikely that the private sector would be able to successfully provide an economy with the infrastracture it require without some sort of government intervention.

If the costs of people working is higher than the benefit, they shouldn't work.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 02:51

Great Beer and Food

29-03-2005, 02:51

The problem there is that with higher wages, that means that an employer would have to employ fewer people. Either that or slash profits to a degree...

Well, without some government subsidies in the beginning, some smaller businesses would. Larger businesses and corporations would be mostly unaffected. But, who's idea was it that the working man always gets the shaft anyway. As a working, blue collar person, I resent that. I see people who sit on their butts all day playing with speculative, non existent cash making a fortune, while people like me, the backbone of society, make pennies. Why is it the people who do the most REAL work, make the least money? This is totally unfair. So I don't care how unreasonable, or distasteful to the upper class, it is, I will always be in favor of any idea that levels the playing field.

Afghregastan

29-03-2005, 02:51

As a despised free marketer I would say, lets get off the oil tit as quickly as possible, build a nice system of trains (god I love trains) and learn how to walk. The higher oil prices go the more incentive to find alternative energy sources so lets keep jacking the price up and really make it tough on people. umm, yaeah. . .

As a free marketer I'm going to assume you think rail service should be privately owned. If I'm wrong, forgive me, and assume this following question is directed at people do think that way. As it's such a capital intensive project to lay a rail line, how would you prevent the resulting monopolies from engaging in the economic blackmail of the people dependant on the rail lines?

Urantia II

29-03-2005, 02:53

If the costs of people working is higher than the benefit, they shouldn't work.

No, we should lower the benefit then...

No one should be encouraged "not" to work, simply because it pays better!

Regards,
Gaar

Talfen

29-03-2005, 02:53

I would do one simple thing, Build more refineries. You realise we haven't built a new oil refinery in decades? It is time to do it and we need atleast 6-10 of them. The problem is not oil supply it is refineriers to get that crude oil made into gasoline. Also I would put the whole country on the same standard of gasoline so the refineriers wouldn't have to make 7 different types. I would go with 3 and make them safe by California standards. Even thought I hate California and wish it would fall into the ocean. I can say that their standards for fuel are by far the best in the nation. Following all this would lower our gas prices greatly, Once we do this we can then get drilling started in areas we know there is oil off our shores. Tell the rest of OPEC to f-off and start pumping billions into alternative fuels before our own sources of oil runs out.

Oh one more thing, I would make sure the Government has no control what so ever over any of this. The Government has enough to worry about than trying to control business in producing alternative fuels and building more refineriers. Competition after all keeps prices lower than government ran progams.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 02:55

Perhaps if we spent even "half" of what we have spent Researching the fictional Human affect on the GreenHouse Effect on practical application of TDP instead, we wouldn't be talking about such things right now...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Regards,
Gaar

But...then the oil companies wouldn't be able to charge $2.50 per gallon! Teh horrors! [/end sarcasm]

I propose an alternative...we spend 5% of our defense budget on TDP instead. I'm sure that we could get rid of a few National Guard bases, especially considering that the National Guard seems to be spending a lot of time in Iraq lately. :rolleyes:

29-03-2005, 02:55

As a free marketer I'm going to assume you think rail service should be privately owned. If I'm wrong, forgive me, and assume this following question is directed at people do think that way. As it's such a capital intensive project to lay a rail line, how would you prevent the resulting monopolies from engaging in the economic blackmail of the people dependant on the rail lines?

Line them up against a wall and shoot them, of course. How would you?
Don't we have anti-trust laws? Shouldn't we just enforce them or regulate pricing?

Markreich

29-03-2005, 02:57

Urantia II

29-03-2005, 02:57

I can say that their standards for fuel are by far the best in the nation. Following all this would lower our gas prices greatly, Once we do this we can then get drilling started in areas we know there is oil off our shores. Tell the rest of OPEC to f-off and start pumping billions into alternative fuels before our own sources of oil runs out.

This produces a high grade Oil at about $15/Barrel, or less...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

In the not-too-distant future we will have more Oil than we know what to do with!

Regards,
Gaar

Markreich

29-03-2005, 02:57

Why not institute a living wage based on true cost of living and solve the problem once and for all....

And oh yeah, I'm not pro-free market, as you can probably tell, lol

What's a living wage? The cost of living varies from locale to locale. And from week to week.

Talfen

29-03-2005, 02:59

This produces a high grade Oil at about $15/Barrel, or less...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

In the not-too-distant future we will have more Oil than we know what to do with!

Regards,
Gaar

And then why are we not captialising on this and turning it out and getting rid of the OPEC and others that have the USA by the balls with our need for the black gold?

Urantia II

29-03-2005, 03:00

But...then the oil companies wouldn't be able to charge $2.50 per gallon! Teh horrors! [/end sarcasm]

Why not?

Imagine how much we could make in taxes if we kept the price the same and just made the difference TAXES!

We could likely stop charging people Income Tax...

as well as a few others!

Regards,
Gaar

Urantia II

29-03-2005, 03:01

And then why are we not captialising on this and turning it out and getting rid of the OPEC and others that have the USA by the balls with our need for the black gold?

They have started, but it's going to take a while to build the Production facilities.

Conagra is already turning Turkey offal into Oil every day.

Regards,
Gaar

Great Beer and Food

29-03-2005, 03:05

What's a living wage? The cost of living varies from locale to locale. And from week to week.

Well, of course your wage has to be based on the economy where you live. Each state would be different. Yet another good argument for state's rights. Also, I feel that a balance can be reached where small fluctuation in cost of living won't significantly affect a living wage.

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 03:06

Although not "conservative" I support free trade and can answer the causes of the oil surge:

The price of oil has risen so sharply due to one thing in particular: the falling value of the US dollar (prices for oil in Europe have been unchanged since 2000 because of this despite the surge to $53+). The easiest way to solve this is to cut the deficit and raise interest rates to a neutral, rather than accomodative level. This would seriously reduce the amount of dollar denominated debt entering the marketplace and so elevate the value of the dollar, resulting in a drop in oil prices proportionate to the rise of the dollar.

Simultaneously, the US should both expand its domestic oil refinery system and pursue alternate fuels. These would both increase capacity and insulate the US from oil shocks much better. Public transportation is another must (esp. buses running on alternate fuels, trains) to lower oil demand.

These two would cause oil to fall, which would lower inflation, and that would result in greater gains in real per capita wealth and higher living standards.

Talfen

29-03-2005, 03:06

What's a living wage? The cost of living varies from locale to locale. And from week to week.

But you are forgetting one thing Liberals scream up and down about all day long. " We should be equal" meaning that we should make those that are succesful suffer for those that are unable to gather enough initiative to get out and get a job that pays decent.

Heck my nephew, who is 19, got a job paying $12/hr painting propane tanks. Perfect job for a college student. The work is out there if people want it, these people that go " I am too good for that job" haven't starved or had to watch the disappointment on their kids face at Christmas time. When they see that, they should go out and do what is needed to and not complain because someone else is willing to put in 50-60 hr work weeks to get what they and their family need.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:07

Well, of course your wage has to be based on the economy where you live. Each state would be different. Yet another good argument for state's rights. Also, I feel that a balance can be reached where small fluctuation in cost of living won't significantly affect a living wage.

Congratulations. You just described the minimum wage.

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 03:08

Talfen

29-03-2005, 03:09

They have started, but it's going to take a while to build the Production facilities.

Conagra is already turning Turkey offal into Oil every day.

Regards,
Gaar

Honestly this is the first I heard of this, I need to expand my daily reading I guess. My wife will not be happy so it probably won't happen. I already read about 3 hrs of papers daily from across the world.

Great Beer and Food

29-03-2005, 03:10

Congratulations. You just described the minimum wage.
Hmmm... then if the minimum wage is a living wage, why doesn't it cover any of the costs of real living?

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:10

Oil bad, hydrogen good. Me want hydrogen car, me want drive hydrogen car to AM/PM to buy super big gulp.

Talfen

29-03-2005, 03:10

Some good news on the refinery front:

http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/news/2004/072904.htm

Arizona will likely be able to open the first new refinery in 30 years. The refinery would have an output capacity of 150,000 barrels, or 6.3 million gallons of gasoline per year.

This I heard rumors about and read more, it is a start but more needs to be done. We need atleast 6, 10 would be nice as it should solve our problems for the next few decades. Not only that imagine all the people that would be put to work? Oh wait that is good news for Bush, means bad news for Dems so that can not happen.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:13

Hmmm... then if the minimum wage is a living wage, why doesn't it cover any of the costs of real living?

Funny. I lived on it in 1994. Not that I want to *do* that again.

Are you talking about the cost of living, or the cost of living as a consumer?

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 03:15

Disband the Department of Education. Take the money, and fund the total rebuild of the nation's roads, highways, bridges, electrical grid, water supply and historical landmarks.

The resultant boom would fuel the economy for 20 years.

(Note: since the Carter Administration formed the DoE, it has had (if anything) a negative aspect to public education in the US.

Meh. The Department of Education should stay, if only to administer the reduced/free lunch programs for schoolchildren who don't get an adequate diet at home. However, all of this crap about standardized testing is pretty useless.

Alternatively, we could redirect government subsidies for coal/gas/oil companies, subsidies for farmers/agribusinesses who don't need them (I'm thinking more than about $100K annual profit here), subsidies for defense contractors (I'm talking about pork like all the crap weapons programs that Donald Rumsfeld is trying to get rid of, only to have Congress reinstate them), etc. and redirect that funding toward transportation infrastructure? Better yet, why don't we stop meddling with Saudi Arabia, cut off all foreign aid to dictatorships, except for UNICEF, and redirect that towards transportation infrastructure? :)

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 03:15

That, and Chinese demand going way up.

True. if the US and China would unpeg the yuan, it would slow the Chinese economy down to sustainable, manageble levels. This would also eliminated the massively unfair advantage Chinese manufacturers have in the global marketplace.

[QUOTE]This I heard rumors about and read more, it is a start but more needs to be done. We need atleast 6, 10 would be nice as it should solve our problems for the next few decades. Not only that imagine all the people that would be put to work? QUOTE]

These facilities, plus ANWR, would create a large number of jobs and keep our money in the US. Also, I am a centrist Democrat, and support these programs because they will do a lot more good for the economy than just saying no. Conservatives, you're not alone.

Super-power

29-03-2005, 03:15

Oil bad, hydrogen good. Me want hydrogen car, me want drive hydrogen car to AM/PM to buy super big gulp.
LOL I really do hope we prefect hydrogen soon

Unistate

29-03-2005, 03:16

But you are forgetting one thing Liberals scream up and down about all day long. " We should be equal" meaning that we should make those that are succesful suffer for those that are unable to gather enough initiative to get out and get a job that pays decent.

Heck my nephew, who is 19, got a job paying $12/hr painting propane tanks. Perfect job for a college student. The work is out there if people want it, these people that go " I am too good for that job" haven't starved or had to watch the disappointment on their kids face at Christmas time. When they see that, they should go out and do what is needed to and not complain because someone else is willing to put in 50-60 hr work weeks to get what they and their family need.

Hah! Sounds like a sweet deal. Any other vacancies for someone of the same age? xD I'm still looking for a job, and I certainly don't think I'm owed a damned thing by anyone.

Great Beer and Food

29-03-2005, 03:18

Are you talking about the cost of living, or the cost of living as a consumer?

Is there a difference in this country?

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 03:20

Is there a difference in this country?

Only in the sense that there is a cost difference between a direct consumer and their dependents (eg children). This would mostly apply to "discretionary" and not "core" spending on goods and services.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:23

Meh. The Department of Education should stay, if only to administer the reduced/free lunch programs for schoolchildren who don't get an adequate diet at home. However, all of this crap about standardized testing is pretty useless.

Alternatively, we could redirect government subsidies for coal/gas/oil companies, subsidies for farmers/agribusinesses who don't need them (I'm thinking more than about $100K annual profit here), subsidies for defense contractors (I'm talking about pork like all the crap weapons programs that Donald Rumsfeld is trying to get rid of, only to have Congress reinstate them), etc. and redirect that funding toward transportation infrastructure? Better yet, why don't we stop meddling with Saudi Arabia, cut off all foreign aid to dictatorships, except for UNICEF, and redirect that towards transportation infrastructure? :)

I disagree. Standardized testing is the only thing keeping the Unions from owning Education. As for meals for kids, that should also be done on the state level.

As for the rest: (US FY 2006 budgets)
The Department of Agriculture gets $19.4 billion
The Department of Energy gets $23.4 billion
The Department of Education gets $56 billion

Everything else are small drops in the bucket, except for foreign aid and defense spending.

I think that history proves that isolationism (pre WW1, pre WW2, 1991-2001) doesn't work. :(

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:25

Is there a difference in this country?

If that's a serious question, then you must accept that the minimum wage is a living wage. It's like anything else: you're just consuming on a less oppulant level, but one which lets you MINIMALLY live. QED.

Andaluciae

29-03-2005, 03:32

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 03:34

I disagree. Standardized testing is the only thing keeping the Unions from owning Education. As for meals for kids, that should also be done on the state level.

As for the rest: (US FY 2006 budgets)
The Department of Agriculture gets $19.4 billion
The Department of Energy gets $23.4 billion
The Department of Education gets $56 billion

Everything else are small drops in the bucket, except for foreign aid and defense spending.

I think that history proves that isolationism (pre WW1, pre WW2, 1991-2001) doesn't work. :(

Standardized testing is also the reason that I gave up my plans to become a teacher. I don't want to spend all year having to teach my class how to fill in bubbles on the latest NCLB-mandated test. :(

Regarding the DoD, I advocated cutting wasteful projects that exist only to keep military bases that serve no other purpose open, not a wholesale gutting of the military. There is a difference between the two positions. :)

To be honest, history proves that neither isolationism nor interventionism (Vietnam, looking like Iraq too) work. :(

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 03:37

Find alternatives to driving. Ride a bike, walk, run, there's all sorts of things. Cheaper and healthier than driving. These things should be encouraged for not just the poor, but also for everyone. And beyond that, for the environmentalists out there, that's a bonus.

And what of a city such as Los Angeles, where your job may very well be ten miles or more away? Have you ever walked or ran twenty miles (a roundtrip commute to such a job) in one day? Even biking would probably take an hour each way after waiting for traffic lights and the like. Yes, walking is a great idea when it's practical. So is mass transit. But mass transit is not always available (depends on where you live, and moving is expensive).

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:44

Standardized testing is also the reason that I gave up my plans to become a teacher. I don't want to spend all year having to teach my class how to fill in bubbles on the latest NCLB-mandated test. :(

Regarding the DoD, I advocated cutting wasteful projects that exist only to keep military bases that serve no other purpose open, not a wholesale gutting of the military. There is a difference between the two positions. :)

To be honest, history proves that neither isolationism nor interventionism (Vietnam, looking like Iraq too) work. :(

I had a 3rd grade teacher ask me during 9/11 where in New York the Pentagon was. The bar needs to be raised somehow.

Oh, I agree that there is some pork there. Just not as much in DoED.

Iraq is to Viet Nam what a zebra is to an fern. Both are alive, and live on solid ground. (Read: the similarities between the two are almost non-existant.)

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:47

Find alternatives to driving. Ride a bike, walk, run, there's all sorts of things. Cheaper and healthier than driving. These things should be encouraged for not just the poor, but also for everyone. And beyond that, for the environmentalists out there, that's a bonus.

It's six miles to the train station. I take the train every morning into NYC at 6.01 AM. There is no way to get there except to drive, unless I want to walk. At best, that means I would have to get up at 3.30AM instead of 5. Sorry, just not happening.

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 03:47

It's six miles to the train station. I take the train every morning into NYC at 6.01 AM. There is no way to get there except to drive, unless I want to walk. At best, that means I would have to get up at 3.30AM instead of 5. Sorry, just not happening.

That is why the US needs to fund massive expansion of the public transportation networks.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 03:54

That is why the US needs to fund massive expansion of the public transportation networks.

If you're saying that public transport is the answer for my 6 miles, you're waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. ;)

Sometimes, the automobile is the way to go.

Vetalia

29-03-2005, 04:00

If you're saying that public transport is the answer for my 6 miles, you're waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

Yeah, in NYC building the lines closer probably wouldn't work. In the suburbs, probably, but not NYC.

Sometimes, the automobile is the way to go

Sometimes it is, can't argue with that :)

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 04:04

I had a 3rd grade teacher ask me during 9/11 where in New York the Pentagon was. The bar needs to be raised somehow.

Oh, I agree that there is some pork there. Just not as much in DoED.

Iraq is to Viet Nam what a zebra is to an fern. Both are alive, and live on solid ground. (Read: the similarities between the two are almost non-existant.)

Which was why I said the DoED should be limited to administering the free/reduced lunch program.;)

Regarding your complaint about st00pid teachers, yes, I had my fair share of those two. I don't have a problem with making teacher certification exams harder; my problem is making the students take so many standardized tests that the teacher is forced to "teach to the test," because there is no time to teach anything else. This is a really big problem for me, especially considering that I wanted to teach social studies (mostly history)--a subject that requires a significant degree of academic freedom to teach well/make the class interesting.

Regarding the similarities/differences between Vietnam and Iraq, I will concede that it is not a perfect comparison. However:

We intervened in Vietnam because we were afraid that if Vietnam went communist, other neighboring countries would acquire a taste for communism. (the domino theory)

We intervened in Iraq because we were afraid that if Saddam could make WMD's, terrorists would acquire those capabilities. (another domino theory)

The resistance in Vietnam tried, successfully, to break the political will of the United States to stay in Vietnam.

The resistance in Iraq is trying to drive the United States out of Iraq. (However, their task is somewhat more difficult because Iraq doesn't have the jungles that Vietnam did.)

We were involved in Vietnam for nearly twenty years (first military advisors in the fifties up until the withdrawal of troops in the early seventies).

We are likely to be in Iraq for a very long time.

I drew the comparison based upon the above six statements. I recognize that the comparison wasn't perfect; few are. :)

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 04:36

Yes, free-marketeers, I'm talking to you. You know who you are. Those who hate welfare because "those evil, lazy bums who don't want to work and want to live off of my tax dollars."

Gas prices are headed way up. In cities such as Phoenix, Arizona, or Los Angeles, California, that are incredibly spread out and don't have any public transportation infrastructure to speak of, rising gas prices are making commuting incredibly expensive--and the lack of alternate transportation infrastructure severely constricts other options. At some point, unless the minimum wage is increased (something most conservatives I know oppose), a person who has a crappy, low-wage job will spend as much commuting to and from work as he earns from said job. Said person would be better off unemployed--and it's not because of laziness; it's because of economic circumstances beyond his/her control.

Figure an average commute of 50 miles (insane) with an average MPG of 20 (insane). Minimum wage at $6.75 an hour, (California’s minimum wage) That’s $54 for 8 hours of work. Gas prices would need to hit $10.80 cents per gallon before it would cost people the same in gas prices as it does for them to work. Of course the reality is that no one is commuting 50 miles for a minimum wage job anyway. And that a meager 4-5 some million people are on minimum wage anyway.

And don't say "move to where there are better jobs;" where is a minimum wage worker going to find the couple thousand dollars it would cost to move from, say Phoenix to Chicago? Ditto with education. Face it, our economy needs low-wage workers (slaves) to work.

So what would those of you who despise unemployment benefits, welfare, or any other government programs to help the poor do with such a situation? Issue a blanket condemnation on people caught in this situation to starve? :rolleyes:

low-wage workers yes. They're not exactly salves but hey, call them what you want, it shows your attitude concerning them and not anyone else’s.

As far as education costs, a city college is about 22 dollars a unit. Figure you work a job during the day and take night or afternoon classes. So you manage to fit in 12 units each semester, a whopping total of 264. Throw in $300 in books and you're at $564 every semester, ie every 3 months. If you're working as oh, I don't know, a waiter and you make $8 bucks an hour on average its not that hard to pay for your educaton. 1,280 net, figure 1,000 after whatever taxes exist on you. Figure rent of $600 a month. Figure food costs for yourself of $100 a month and another $100 dollars for misc. expenses. You've got $200 leftover every month. So taking into account your school costs you've got $12 whole dollars to save every month. Of course the easy thing to do here to get more money is to reduce your rent by getting a room mate or a smaller place, ie reduce your standard/cost of living.

If you want an education, you can do it. It takes sacrifices and effort. If you don't want an education, you won't do it.

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 04:38

Why not institute a living wage based on true cost of living and solve the problem once and for all....

And oh yeah, I'm not pro-free market, as you can probably tell, lol

Yeppers. And in the process drive up the wages of all sorts of unions who have their wage based in part on the minimum wage. Indeed you'll do such a nice job in increasing the costs of labor that if you think outsourcing is a problem now... wooheee, can't wait till I can hear what you think of the stampede that would cause.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 06:03

Figure an average commute of 50 miles (insane) with an average MPG of 20 (insane). Minimum wage at $6.75 an hour, (California’s minimum wage) That’s $54 for 8 hours of work. Gas prices would need to hit $10.80 cents per gallon before it would cost people the same in gas prices as it does for them to work. Of course the reality is that no one is commuting 50 miles for a minimum wage job anyway. And that a meager 4-5 some million people are on minimum wage anyway.

Point taken...though if the $hit hit the fan really hard in the ME, I could see gas going for $5 per gallon, still too much for poor people to afford.

low-wage workers yes. They're not exactly salves but hey, call them what you want, it shows your attitude concerning them and not anyone else’s.

As far as education costs, a city college is about 22 dollars a unit. Figure you work a job during the day and take night or afternoon classes. So you manage to fit in 12 units each semester, a whopping total of 264. Throw in $300 in books and you're at $564 every semester, ie every 3 months. If you're working as oh, I don't know, a waiter and you make $8 bucks an hour on average its not that hard to pay for your educaton. 1,280 net, figure 1,000 after whatever taxes exist on you. Figure rent of $600 a month. Figure food costs for yourself of $100 a month and another $100 dollars for misc. expenses. You've got $200 leftover every month. So taking into account your school costs you've got $12 whole dollars to save every month. Of course the easy thing to do here to get more money is to reduce your rent by getting a room mate or a smaller place, ie reduce your standard/cost of living.

If you want an education, you can do it. It takes sacrifices and effort. If you don't want an education, you won't do it.

Do I think low-wage workers should be considered slaves? Absolutely not. However, our society treats low-wage workers as such, and I should know from holding low-wage summer jobs. Furthermore, in your little calculation of living costs, you left out transportation, utilities, and well, some expenses of going to school. So let's recalculate. :)

$1,000 take-home pay per month...

You get a roommate and cut the rent to $300/month. This leaves you with $700.

Subtract $100 for food--$600.

Subtract $30 for your share of the utilities (some are likely covered by rent, some not)--$570.

School supplies, such as extra paper, writing utensils, notebooks, binders, etc. drive miscellaneous costs up to $125/month--$445.

Subtract, I don't know, $75/month for car insurance--$370/month.

Say you have to drive 1000 miles per month (somewhat unavoidable in the sprawl of LA), at 20 MPG (not so insanely low if have a fifteen year old beater car and can't afford a replacement) at $3/gallon (already there in LA I think)--$150/month--$220.

Every month, you set aside $75 for said beater car's maintenance, because it breaks down periodically--$145.

Oh, yeah, and there's the tuition and books, average of $188/month, and you're at a deficit of $43/month.

Oh, and your estimate for food costs is lowballing, I think. Furthermore, throw a kid into this mix, and you're really screwed.

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 06:13

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 06:21

The peanut farmer has the true kiss of death. Everything he touches turns to shit. He has even managed to degrade the respect of the Nobel Peace Prize.
:rolleyes:

Maybe, just maybe, if we had listened to his advice on energy conservation in the long term, we wouldn't be importing half our oil today.

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 06:40

Do I think low-wage workers should be considered slaves? Absolutely not. However, our society treats low-wage workers as such, and I should know from holding low-wage summer jobs. Furthermore, in your little calculation of living costs, you left out transportation, utilities, and well, some expenses of going to school. So let's recalculate. :)

Ulities were included in the $600 rent. :p

$1,000 take-home pay per month...

You get a roommate and cut the rent to $300/month. This leaves you with $700.

Subtract $100 for food--$600.

Subtract $30 for your share of the utilities (some are likely covered by rent, some not)--$570.

School supplies, such as extra paper, writing utensils, notebooks, binders, etc. drive miscellaneous costs up to $125/month--$445.

Subtract, I don't know, $75/month for car insurance--$370/month.

Say you have to drive 1000 miles per month (somewhat unavoidable in the sprawl of LA), at 20 MPG (not so insanely low if have a fifteen year old beater car and can't afford a replacement) at $3/gallon (already there in LA I think)--$150/month--$220.

Every month, you set aside $75 for said beater car's maintenance, because it breaks down periodically--$145.

Oh, yeah, and there's the tuition and books, average of $188/month, and you're at a deficit of $43/month.

Oh, and your estimate for food costs is lowballing, I think. Furthermore, throw a kid into this mix, and you're really screwed.

Well let us consider one thing first. Many people who went to City College with me were supporting themselves as waiters/waitresses. They weren't in the Red. hm. And no my estimate for food cost is not low-balling. If you're eating a TV dinner for lunch and dinner + cereal for breakfast you're paying $315. If you're making your own food you can get by on far less. Go to the grocery store and look at the Ramen Noodles, Macaroni and Cheese, Hamburger etc... It is quite possible to get by on $100 a month. But lets roll it up to $150 anyway.

And notebooks, paper, pencils, lead etc... do not cost anywhere near $25 a month. They might cost $25 a semester.

Per Month

Credits
$1000
______
1000

Debits
______
$300 Rent
$30 utilities
$100 Misc
$188 Tuition/books
$58 Gas (using gas price of $3, 1000 miles a month and 52 mpg, IE a Honda CRX from 1989 that are readily available at less than $2000)
$75 Insurance
$50 maintenance (being smart, you bought a Honda CRX, aka, a Honda)
$150 food
______
$951

Unless I'm forgetting something it looks like we're actually running a 49 dollar surplus when you're rooming with someone else.

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 06:43

Yes, free-marketeers, I'm talking to you. You know who you are. Those who hate welfare because "those evil, lazy bums who don't want to work and want to live off of my tax dollars."

Gas prices are headed way up. In cities such as Phoenix, Arizona, or Los Angeles, California, that are incredibly spread out and don't have any public transportation infrastructure to speak of, rising gas prices are making commuting incredibly expensive--and the lack of alternate transportation infrastructure severely constricts other options. At some point, unless the minimum wage is increased (something most conservatives I know oppose), a person who has a crappy, low-wage job will spend as much commuting to and from work as he earns from said job. Said person would be better off unemployed--and it's not because of laziness; it's because of economic circumstances beyond his/her control.

And don't say "move to where there are better jobs;" where is a minimum wage worker going to find the couple thousand dollars it would cost to move from, say Phoenix to Chicago? Ditto with education. Face it, our economy needs low-wage workers (slaves) to work.

So what would those of you who despise unemployment benefits, welfare, or any other government programs to help the poor do with such a situation? Issue a blanket condemnation on people caught in this situation to starve? :rolleyes:

Have you considered that the following might happen.

The employee request more pay because it isnt making sense to work given the commuting costs. Since this will apply to all workers of his skill level/set, the employer will have to decide

1) to raise the employees salary because as much as the guy need the money, so too does the employer need the work to get done. He will try to transfer these costs into his products(inflationary pressure)

or

2) If the employer cannot transfer these costs to either the price of his product or survive the hit in profitability, then he will shut down.

If the employer shuts down, he removes all his demand for oil. ncluding many of his employees demand for oil unless they can find employers with the ability to compensate for this rise in inputs.

If oil has a significant impact, many such employers will shut down(lowers demand for oil) or transfer these increases into their products(inflationary).

If its the former than its self correcting, as demand lessens so too will price. If its inflationary, it will lead to the same thing because people will start to demand more pay from their employers. Employers will either be able to provide this increase or not. Those than can, continue on in the cycle and they are priced out or their input costs come in line, those that cant close and take their demand for oil with them.

Keep in mind that as employers are being priced out, the labor supply is going to increase as demand decreases(firms closing).

This is a very rough and simplistic model, I am just trying to point out how free markets correct themselves. High oil prices act like a brake on the economy, which in turn reduced demand for oil.

Also keep in mind that at higher oil prices, companies and countries start to think about increasing capacity(very slow process)

It is essentially self correcting, except that oil supplies are not infinite.

or are they?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4092

who knows if it is true or not

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 06:54

Ulities were included in the $600 rent. :p

Well let us consider one thing first. Many people who went to City College with me were supporting themselves as waiters/waitresses. They weren't in the Red. hm. And no my estimate for food cost is not low-balling. If you're eating a TV dinner for lunch and dinner + cereal for breakfast you're paying $315. If you're making your own food you can get by on far less. Go to the grocery store and look at the Ramen Noodles, Macaroni and Cheese, Hamburger etc... It is quite possible to get by on $100 a month. But lets roll it up to $150 anyway.

And notebooks, paper, pencils, lead etc... do not cost anywhere near $25 a month. They might cost $25 a semester.

Per Month

Credits
$1000
______
1000

Debits
______
$300 Rent
$30 utilities
$100 Misc
$188 Tuition/books
$58 Gas (using gas price of $3, 1000 miles a month and 52 mpg, IE a Honda CRX from 1989 that are readily available at less than $2000)
$75 Insurance
$50 maintenance (being smart, you bought a Honda CRX, aka, a Honda)
$150 food
______
$951

Unless I'm forgetting something it looks like we're actually running a 49 dollar surplus when you're rooming with someone else.

Yeah, and where would a person in this situation find the $2000 cash for a Honda CRX? Such a person might be able to get a subprime loan, but the payment on it would wipe out the $49/month surplus.

Meh, you might be right about the school supplies, I should have made that $10/month.

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 06:54

:rolleyes:

Maybe, just maybe, if we had listened to his advice on energy conservation in the long term, we wouldn't be importing half our oil today.

And what is so wrong with importing half our oil today? These countries need to sell it just as much as we need to buy it. Energy conservation comes at a price. The price being reduced growth rates in the economy. It makes more sense to let the market dictate the terms than a bunch of people in congress. You will notice that as gas prices increase, hybrids become more and more popular. The companies smart enough to invest in research in these technologies early on are starting to reap the benefits now. Same with fuel cells and all the other technologies that reduce dependance on fossil fuels.

We could go nuclear in a relatively short period of time. France already receive a significant portion of its energy needs from nuclear plants. The Usa could do it too but it makes no sense because fossil fuels are so cheap. As their price changes, other methods of power generation will become more acceptable.

Its how free markets work.

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 06:55

-snip-

http://upload.illuminise.org/files/dd3f6fb91d3c1d7965d17010cafbc90a.JPG

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 06:58

Yeah, and where would a person in this situation find the $2000 cash for a Honda CRX? Such a person might be able to get a subprime loan, but the payment on it would wipe out the $49/month surplus.

Meh, you might be right about the school supplies, I should have made that $10/month.

They were working a previous job and already had a car right? Probably in the range of 2-5k. They Sold that car and bought the CRX. But seeing as you said that they had a 15 year old beater I went with a 16 year old beater.

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 07:01

http://upload.illuminise.org/files/dd3f6fb91d3c1d7965d17010cafbc90a.JPG

Good one.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 07:04

And what is so wrong with importing half our oil today? These countries need to sell it just as much as we need to buy it. Energy conservation comes at a price. The price being reduced growth rates in the economy. It makes more sense to let the market dictate the terms than a bunch of people in congress. You will notice that as gas prices increase, hybrids become more and more popular. The companies smart enough to invest in research in these technologies early on are starting to reap the benefits now. Same with fuel cells and all the other technologies that reduce dependance on fossil fuels.

We could go nuclear in a relatively short period of time. France already receive a significant portion of its energy needs from nuclear plants. The Usa could do it too but it makes no sense because fossil fuels are so cheap. As their price changes, other methods of power generation will become more acceptable.

Its how free markets work.

Importing half our oil is bad because we have to import it from politically unstable countries like those in the Middle East, Nigeria, and Venezuela. In the case of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, part of the oil revenue ends up in the hands of terrorists, because the national governments there are faced with a choice between paying terrorists protection money or domestic insurrection against their oppressive rule. (Look at Iraq when the government was removed...anarchy.) Because these countries are not exactly stable, a coup d' etat in one of them could send oil prices soaring, damaging our economy even more than the persistent "drag" of conservation. Think of conservation as an insurance policy against such contingencies.

In other words, if we could import half our oil from Norway, Canada, or other stable countries that aren't likely to cut trade with us, I wouldn't have such a big problem with it. :)

Nevertheless, conservation would act as a buffer against energy price shocks for the economy. Sure, conservation would have slowed down economic growth in the 1990's, but it also would have left us better prepared for China's energy consumption boom and would probably be a positive force in the economy today (without so many SUV's on the road, gas might only be $1.50 per gallon instead of more than $2).

Edit: Had we stayed with Carter's energy policy, we would probably have a lot more alternative energy availiable today, or at least more time to research large scale alternative fuels before oil prices hit unsustainable levels.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 07:06

They were working a previous job and already had a car right? Probably in the range of 2-5k. They Sold that car and bought the CRX. But seeing as you said that they had a 15 year old beater I went with a 16 year old beater.

2-5k for selling a fifteen-year old USED vehicle? Must have been a fifteen year old BMW or Lexus. The used car dealership still needs to make a profit from selling it. They might be able to get $1K for the trade in and buy the CRV for $2k, leaving them to come up with $1K. Subprime loan time.

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 07:15

2-5k for selling a fifteen-year old USED vehicle? Must have been a fifteen year old BMW or Lexus. The used car dealership still needs to make a profit from selling it. They might be able to get $1K for the trade in and buy the CRV for $2k, leaving them to come up with $1K. Subprime loan time.

Why in god's name are you going to a used car dealership? Autotrader is your friend. The idea behind this scenario is somebody was working a previous job, probably making 20-30k and a year and they want to back to school. This is an example of how they can pull it off if they got fired from thier previous job.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 07:25

Why in god's name are you going to a used car dealership? Autotrader is your friend. The idea behind this scenario is somebody was working a previous job, probably making 20-30k and a year and they want to back to school. This is an example of how they can pull it off if they got fired from thier previous job.

And how many poor people know about Autotrader? People who have min. wage jobs for college money might, but people who have been low-wage workers all their lives and probably barely know what the Internet is? :rolleyes:

I'm trying to approach this from the POV of a forty-year old who has known nothing but low-wage work and poverty, not a person who works a minimum wage summer job, goes to college full time, and regularly trolls NS.

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 07:28

Importing half our oil is bad because we have to import it from politically unstable countries like those in the Middle East, Nigeria, and Venezuela. In the case of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, part of the oil revenue ends up in the hands of terrorists, because the national governments there are faced with a choice between paying terrorists protection money or domestic insurrection against their oppressive rule. (Look at Iraq when the government was removed...anarchy.) Because these countries are not exactly stable, a coup d' etat in one of them could send oil prices soaring, damaging our economy even more than the persistent "drag" of conservation. Think of conservation as an insurance policy against such contingencies.

In other words, if we could import half our oil from Norway, Canada, or other stable countries that aren't likely to cut trade with us, I wouldn't have such a big problem with it. :)

Nevertheless, conservation would act as a buffer against energy price shocks for the economy. Sure, conservation would have slowed down economic growth in the 1990's, but it also would have left us better prepared for China's energy consumption boom and would probably be a positive force in the economy today (without so many SUV's on the road, gas might only be $1.50 per gallon instead of more than $2).

Couple of points.

1) You will be very happy to know then that the USA gets the bulk(almost 50%) of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. The rest come from various other places(middle east countries = roughly 30%).

2) whether we import from a particular country or not is not really such an important factor. Oil is a fungible good. What matters is world demand and world supply. If there is a breakdown in the supply chain(even if its in a country that we dont do business with) it will affect global prices of oil

3)I dont know if you are aware of this, but the people most affected by slow growth are the poorest and least skillful(jb skills wise) among us.

4)As far as conservation goes, we have been. Very effectly since the discovery of oil. Our unit of oil consumption per unit of output is the lowest its been(ever).

Look at energy consumption / unit of gdp table. Ill see if I can dig up one with more historical data. this just goes back to 1980(just when carter left)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engecon.htm

5)SUVs, constitute a small fraction of the oil consumption in this country. Add into that their lower(but not incredibly lower) MPG and you will realize that SUVs are just an easy target. Sure, some really big ones get only 10mpg, but for every one of those how many RAV4 types are there. And how many cars on the road per SUV.

6) Gas prices are more a result of lack of refinery capacity than anything else. Environmental requirements have prevented any significant refinery capacity increases in decades. How do you think oil becomes gasoline? That and the fact that we have dozens of gasoline standard requirements by different states make this a very bad situation. But its lack of refinery capacity not high oil prices that is the problem.

7)environmental costs? you are seeing it. Everytime you fill up at the gas station, think about what you would have done with the extra dollars if the green freaks had allowed some more refinery capacity.

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 07:33

And how many poor people know about Autotrader? People who have min. wage jobs for college money might, but people who have been low-wage workers all their lives and probably barely know what the Internet is? :rolleyes:

I'm trying to approach this from the POV of a forty-year old who has known nothing but low-wage work and poverty, not a person who works a minimum wage summer job, goes to college full time, and regularly trolls NS.
How old are you? Autotrader is a free magazine that is sitting in those little bins outside virtually every fast-food joint in the country. Just like things like Trade Express or The Recycler.

And besides, if you've been to a public Library in LA you know what the Internet is and you've got easy access to it.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 07:40

How old are you? Autotrader is a free magazine that is sitting in those little bins outside virtually every fast-food joint in the country. Just like things like Trade Express or The Recycler.

And besides, if you've been to a public Library in LA you know what the Internet is and you've got easy access to it.

That's odd. I don't think I've ever seen an Autotrader magazine. I thought you were talking about the internet site. :)

While libraries are great resources, they only work when used. Sadly, work is often valued more than education in poor families, because its benefits, though more meager, are more immediate (education is extremely time intensive, and it can take several years to recoup the cost if you want to be more ambitious than the community college). While poor people often aspire to become educated, they also often see a college education as little more than a pipe dream for them. Sadly, I should know, because I spent some of my childhood living in teh Phoenix slums :(

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 07:47

That's odd. I don't think I've ever seen an Autotrader magazine. I thought you were talking about the internet site. :)

I'm probably a bit overexposed to it. Seeing as my father made a hobby of buying and selling used cars which has resulted in everything from Porsches, Jaguars, Dualies, Del Sols, Civics and Corvettes gracing our driveway for 1-3 month stints.

But eitherway, autotrader/trade express/the recycler and any other number of things are a good way of buying and selling used cars. And though they do have internet websites (my preferred method of searching them) they still do most of their listings via print copies. Indeed you have to pay extra to get listed onto the internet site so in all likelyhood the printed copies have more listings than the website.

While libraries are great resources, they only work when used. Sadly, work is often valued more than education in poor families, because its benefits, though more meager, are more immediate (education is extremely time intensive, and it can take several years to recoup the cost if you want to be more ambitious than the community college). While poor people often aspire to become educated, they also often see a college education as little more than a pipe dream for them. Sadly, I should know, because I spent some of my childhood living in teh Phoenix slums :(

If someone doesn't use the resources Available to them, well, what can you do about that? Its there for the taking.

Yep, education is extremely time intensive and it can take a long time to recoup the costs. Which is why I said you have to be dedicated and make the sacrifices. If someone missed the boat when they were young when it was easier and want to do it when they are older, well, they need to make the sacrifices. Otherwise I'd question whether they a)deserve the education and b) will make good use of it anyway.

Greater Yubari

29-03-2005, 07:49

Salvondia

29-03-2005, 07:58

2 USD per gallon?

Oh please, cry me a river...

One liter super+ goes for 1 Euro here, one liter super for 95 Eurocent. You won't find Diesel here under 85 cent per liter.

Round that up to a gallon and you come to ~4 Euro per gallon. That'd be around 5 USD per gallon.

Real price of gas in Europe, probably less than the US
Tax on gas in Europe. Insane compared to the US.

Come back when you know why your gas costs more.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 08:05

Couple of points.

1) You will be very happy to know then that the USA gets the bulk(almost 50%) of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. The rest come from various other places(middle east countries = roughly 30%).

2) whether we import from a particular country or not is not really such an important factor. Oil is a fungible good. What matters is world demand and world supply. If there is a breakdown in the supply chain(even if its in a country that we dont do business with) it will affect global prices of oil

3)I dont know if you are aware of this, but the people most affected by slow growth are the poorest and least skillful(jb skills wise) among us.

4)As far as conservation goes, we have been. Very effectly since the discovery of oil. Our unit of oil consumption per unit of output is the lowest its been(ever).

Look at energy consumption / unit of gdp table. Ill see if I can dig up one with more historical data. this just goes back to 1980(just when carter left)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engecon.htm

5)SUVs, constitute a small fraction of the oil consumption in this country. Add into that their lower(but not incredibly lower) MPG and you will realize that SUVs are just an easy target. Sure, some really big ones get only 10mpg, but for every one of those how many RAV4 types are there. And how many cars on the road per SUV.

6) Gas prices are more a result of lack of refinery capacity than anything else. Environmental requirements have prevented any significant refinery capacity increases in decades. How do you think oil becomes gasoline? That and the fact that we have dozens of gasoline standard requirements by different states make this a very bad situation. But its lack of refinery capacity not high oil prices that is the problem.

7)environmental costs? you are seeing it. Everytime you fill up at the gas station, think about what you would have done with the extra dollars if the green freaks had allowed some more refinery capacity.

1) I don't consider Venezuela "politically stable." But I do know that we import quite a bit from Mexico and Canada. But I don't think we should be importing ANYTHING from the Middle East.

2) True. But I'd like to see the ME cut out of the global market, and yes I realize this is just a pipe dream. :(

3) Oh, really? Seems like low-wage jobs are the only ones being created these days. (And just to be clear here, I'm talking about net job growth across the entire economy, not just anecdotes. The high wage jobs being created today are offset by high wage jobs outsourced to India or China.)

4) Good, but we could do better. When was the last time CAFE standards were raised? A decade ago? Longer? Surely technology has improved since then, but at this point, only the Japanese car companies are embracing it, while the oil industry keeps Congress and domestic automakers under its thumb. :rolleyes:

5) As percentage of total energy consumption, yes, you are correct. This still doesn't change their inherent wastefulness.

6) OK...let's build a new refinery then. :) In your backyard. :p

7) See 6. :D

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 08:06

2 USD per gallon?

Oh please, cry me a river...

One liter super+ goes for 1 Euro here, one liter super for 95 Eurocent. You won't find Diesel here under 85 cent per liter.

Round that up to a gallon and you come to ~4 Euro per gallon. That'd be around 5 USD per gallon.

Your economy has adjusted to it. Ours hasn't, and will go through the ups and downs of price shocks accordingly.

Trammwerk

29-03-2005, 08:10

I have always been a strong advocate of a strong, national public transportation system. Perhaps modelled after Japan's JR, so that once it's all up and running we can hand it over to a private company - or number of companies, perhaps one for each state - to deal with.

Robbopolis

29-03-2005, 08:26

Isanyonehome

29-03-2005, 08:29

1) I don't consider Venezuela "politically stable." But I do know that we import quite a bit from Mexico and Canada. But I don't think we should be importing ANYTHING from the Middle East.

2) True. But I'd like to see the ME cut out of the global market, and yes I realize this is just a pipe dream. :(
what you want and reality are 2 different issues.
Even if we didnt buy middle east oil, somebody else would. We would just wind up paying more for shipping.

3) Oh, really? Seems like low-wage jobs are the only ones being created these days. (And just to be clear here, I'm talking about net job growth across the entire economy, not just anecdotes. The high wage jobs being created today are offset by high wage jobs outsourced to India or China.)

Real wages(inflation adjusted) have increased. Pretty easy to look up if you are so inclined.

We have been both outsourcing and insourcing jobs for decades. Whats the big fuss now. What do you think happened to all the autoworkers whose jobs were replaced by robots? They learned new skills.

4) Good, but we could do better. When was the last time CAFE standards were raised? A decade ago? Longer? Surely technology has improved since then, but at this point, only the Japanese car companies are embracing it, while the oil industry keeps Congress and domestic automakers under its thumb. :rolleyes:

What is that the point of that statement? We can ALWAYS do better, so what? You made the statement that we werent conserving energy as Carter wanted, I should you that we had by becoming more energy efficient.

How exactly do you know what the oil industry is doing to Congress and automakers in the US? Do you have some sort of insight into this or are you one of those conspiracy people? Japan took the lead in the 80's and people said Japan inc had beaten Detroit. Look how foolish they looked in the 90s. Its a cycle and thats what competition is all about.

5) As percentage of total energy consumption, yes, you are correct. This still doesn't change their inherent wastefulness.

6) OK...let's build a new refinery then. :) In your backyard. :p

7) See 6. :D

What is inherently wasteful about becoming more efficient?

The refineries have to be build somewhere. Or you can make snide remarks instead of understanding the reality of the situation.

see the sentence right above.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 08:39

what you want and reality are 2 different issues.
Even if we didnt buy middle east oil, somebody else would. We would just wind up paying more for shipping.

Hey, I did admit it was a pipe dream, didn't I? :D

Real wages(inflation adjusted) have increased. Pretty easy to look up if you are so inclined.

We have been both outsourcing and insourcing jobs for decades. Whats the big fuss now. What do you think happened to all the autoworkers whose jobs were replaced by robots? They learned new skills.

Real income is increasing...if you're rich.

I suggest you look up how Flint, Michigan's economy is doing. :rolleyes:

What is that the point of that statement? We can ALWAYS do better, so what? You made the statement that we werent conserving energy as Carter wanted, I should you that we had by becoming more energy efficient.

How exactly do you know what the oil industry is doing to Congress and automakers in the US? Do you have some sort of insight into this or are you one of those conspiracy people? Japan took the lead in the 80's and people said Japan inc had beaten Detroit. Look how foolish they looked in the 90s. Its a cycle and thats what competition is all about.

What is inherently wasteful about becoming more efficient? Gas was cheap in the 90s. Japan's automaking industry seems to like high gas prices. :p

An SUV is inherently more wasteful than a small car, especially when said SUV only has one person in it and zero cargo in it. Which seems to cover about 90% of the SUV's I see on the road. And yes, I do understand that SUV's are useful and efficient if they are used to transport large amounts of people and/or cargo. From what I've seen, they seldom are. :(

The refineries have to be build somewhere. Or you can make snide remarks instead of understanding the reality of the situation.

see the sentence right above.

Oh, I understand that we don't have enough refinery capacity. I'm surprised that the oil industry hasn't "outsourced" the building of refineries to countries with few or no environmental protections yet.

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 08:56

Yes, free-marketeers, I'm talking to you. You know who you are. Those who hate welfare because "those evil, lazy bums who don't want to work and want to live off of my tax dollars."
Not everyone who favors the free market speaks that way. There are many reasons why someone is poor enough to be eligible for social welfare programs.

Gas prices are headed way up. In cities such as Phoenix, Arizona, or Los Angeles, California, that are incredibly spread out and don't have any public transportation infrastructure to speak of, rising gas prices are making commuting incredibly expensive--and the lack of alternate transportation infrastructure severely constricts other options. At some point, unless the minimum wage is increased (something most conservatives I know oppose), a person who has a crappy, low-wage job will spend as much commuting to and from work as he earns from said job. Said person would be better off unemployed--and it's not because of laziness; it's because of economic circumstances beyond his/her control.

And don't say "move to where there are better jobs;" where is a minimum wage worker going to find the couple thousand dollars it would cost to move from, say Phoenix to Chicago? Ditto with education. Face it, our economy needs low-wage workers (slaves) to work.You're loosely defining a problem, without really offering a solution. You're basically saying, "gas prices are going up, what are you gonna do about it?" There really isn't any government solution.

So what would those of you who despise unemployment benefits, welfare, or any other government programs to help the poor do with such a situation? Issue a blanket condemnation on people caught in this situation to starve? :rolleyes:When you say, "what would you do?", you obviously mean "what would you have the state do?" If you want to know what I would personally do to help people screwed by higher gas prices, it's none of your buisness.

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 08:57

Why not institute a living wage based on true cost of living and solve the problem once and for all....

And oh yeah, I'm not pro-free market, as you can probably tell, lol
How much is a living wage?

Ra hurfarfar

29-03-2005, 08:58

Yes, free-marketeers, I'm talking to you. You know who you are. Those who hate welfare because "those evil, lazy bums who don't want to work and want to live off of my tax dollars."
...
So what would those of you who despise unemployment benefits, welfare, or any other government programs to help the poor do with such a situation? Issue a blanket condemnation on people caught in this situation to starve? :rolleyes:

It's true you pose a genuine problem, but what you think would fix it likely wouldn't, or else would have serious drawbacks in other areas, specifically the over-all quality of life. Increasing the minimum wage would only result in increasing prices. A company must turn a profit, afterall. Sure they could stand to turn a smaller profit in some cases, but that's just not how the real world works. Increased spending on welfare would come not just from the better-off citizens, but from corporations, which would just have to increase cost again, you see.

There are ultimately two ways of going about the issue: control wages and prices and employment, basically communism, which pretty much eliminates work ethic, not to mention breeds corruption in the few that control these things.
Or, you can have what we already do. Free enterprise. A system that has functioned with relative stability for more than two hundred years, through revolutions of inustry and technology, upsets of mind states and several wars.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 09:07

Not everyone who favors the free market speaks that way. There are many reasons why someone is poor enough to be eligible for social welfare programs.
You're loosely defining a problem, without really offering a solution. You're basically saying, "gas prices are going up, what are you gonna do about it?" There really isn't any government solution.
When you say, "what would you do?", you obviously mean "what would you have the state do?" If you want to know what I would personally do to help people screwed by higher gas prices, it's none of your buisness.

OK, this is gonna shock all of NS, but I admit I overgeneralized. :D

This thread was primarily intended for the subset of free-marketeers who think that poor people are poor because they "deserve it," despise the very idea of welfare, and are unwilling to donate to charity in the absence of welfare. I recognize that not all free-marketeers meet these requirements. Unfortunately, some (my uncle, for one) do. :(

I did not intend to propose a solution, because I wanted to see how rabidly greedy free-marketeers would rationalize a situation where it is utterly not advantageous for someone (who is able-bodied) to work.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 09:19

It's true you pose a genuine problem, but what you think would fix it likely wouldn't, or else would have serious drawbacks in other areas, specifically the over-all quality of life. Increasing the minimum wage would only result in increasing prices. A company must turn a profit, afterall. Sure they could stand to turn a smaller profit in some cases, but that's just not how the real world works. Increased spending on welfare would come not just from the better-off citizens, but from corporations, which would just have to increase cost again, you see.

There are ultimately two ways of going about the issue: control wages and prices and employment, basically communism, which pretty much eliminates work ethic, not to mention breeds corruption in the few that control these things.
Or, you can have what we already do. Free enterprise. A system that has functioned with relative stability for more than two hundred years, through revolutions of inustry and technology, upsets of mind states and several wars.

Capitalism wouldn't be so bad if people donated more than a token dollar here or there to charity and if war didn't occur in its name. :)

Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism really works. As things stand right now, welfare programs subsidize corporations that employ a lot of low-wage people, because said people file for welfare benefits instead of demanding that the corporations raise their pay to a level they can actually live on. Teh horrors! :eek: And there are plenty of ways for corporations to avoid taxes (like Enron did :rolleyes: )...you just have to be willing to pay off some damn good accountants.

And what about mass transit? Funding it could be revenue-neutral if we cut subsidies for other questionable entities, such as Halliburton, ConAgra, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Boeing, Citibank, et al. (By questionable entities, I mean companies that really don't need the subsidies to turn a profit. Halliburton might be an exception, but the manner in which the government subsidizes them is just downright evil.) And how would this cut down on quality of life? It would actually improve it for me. And when I advocate conservation, I'm not talking out of my ass...I don't drive at all even though I'm 19.

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 09:48

LOL I really do hope we prefect hydrogen soonPerfect hydrogen? What's to perfect? It's already a perfect energy storage medium. All we need is a cheap long-term way to produce it.

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 09:52

I think that history proves that isolationism (pre WW1, pre WW2, 1991-2001) doesn't work. :(
I that's what you think, I question your familiarity with American history. The US had no valid reason to enter WWI, and had it not, WWII probably wouldn't have happend. That sounds like a pretty good case for isolationism, unless you really like war you sadist.

Evil Woody Thoughts

29-03-2005, 09:55

I that's what you think, I question your familiarity with American history. The US had no valid reason to enter WWI, and had it not, WWII probably wouldn't have happend. That sounds like a pretty good case for isolationism, unless you really like war you sadist.

Unless you believe making money off of increased arms sales to allied nations is a valid reason :D

For teh record, I do agree with your statement "The US had no valid reason to enter WWI, and had it not, WWII probably wouldn't have happen[e]d."

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 09:57

And what of a city such as Los Angeles, where your job may very well be ten miles or more away? Have you ever walked or ran twenty miles (a roundtrip commute to such a job) in one day? Even biking would probably take an hour each way after waiting for traffic lights and the like. Yes, walking is a great idea when it's practical. So is mass transit. But mass transit is not always available (depends on where you live, and moving is expensive).My dad lives about 15 miles from his place of work, and has in the past ridden a bike to work more than half the year. He lives in Minnesota, so riding during the winter is not practical. I'm not quite sure how much he rides now, but I know he still does, when it's warm enough at least some time. He's 51 years old, and doesn't do it quite as frequently as he used to. Oh, and it takes him about 55-70 minutes.

Battery Charger

29-03-2005, 11:04

Capitalism wouldn't be so bad if people donated more than a token dollar here or there to charity and if war didn't occur in its name. :) Interesting. I'm not really sure what to say about this. If a person accumulates wealth without "cheating", it's up to them to decide how they use it. The problem is that it is not exactly clear when a person is cheating. If you take someone like me who is a total advocate of the free-market it's possible to find something wrong with the way most people earn a living.

I work for a precision manufacturing company who does some work government contractors, who in turn get paid by the US government who takes money from ordinary people by force. Actually, pretty much all of my employer's customers do at least some government work. So, I'm "cheating" because at least some of the money I earn is taken by force. The problem is that there is no way around this with the federal government being such a massive part of the economy. While I don't support spending tax dollars on various programs, I don't necessarily fault those who take advantage of them. I guess I'm getting off the point here...

Anyway, if the US had a virtually totally free market and almost no federal government, it would be far more easy to make the kind of judgement on the charity of the market participants that you're trying to make. Obviously, people are not going to donate money to any particular cause if they feel that enough or too much of their tax money is already being spent there.

Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism really works. As things stand right now, welfare programs subsidize corporations that employ a lot of low-wage people, because said people file for welfare benefits instead of demanding that the corporations raise their pay to a level they can actually live on. Teh horrors! :eek: And there are plenty of ways for corporations to avoid taxes (like Enron did :rolleyes: )...you just have to be willing to pay off some damn good accountants.I'm not sure what "pure communism" would be, but I'm pretty sure the pure communists will disagree about what works. Even though, I'm about as much of an advocate of free market capitalism as anyone, I wouldn't myself say that pure capitalism "works." I'm not going down that road, because saying it works means it does what it's supposed to do. I'm not sure we'd agree on what it's supposed to do. Also, pure capitalism would, despite what I'm about to be told, anarchy. I'm not prepared to defend anarchy. I guess what I'm getting at is that saying that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism wouldn't work, doesn't really challenge what anyone thinks. It's a non-sequitor, really.

I'm somewhat impressed by your understanding of one way social welfare spending affects the labor market. I may not see it exactly the same way, but we're pretty close. I think about people on social security working low-wage jobs to maintain the living standard they had when they had better paying but more stressful jobs. I can hardly fault Wal-mart or any other employer for hiring people who get checks from Uncle Sam, even if it reduces their labor costs. This should be a good example of how social welfare spending subsidizes poverty.

And what about mass transit? Funding it could be revenue-neutral if we cut subsidies for other questionable entities, such as Halliburton, ConAgra, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Boeing, Citibank, et al. (By questionable entities, I mean companies that really don't need the subsidies to turn a profit. Halliburton might be an exception, but the manner in which the government subsidizes them is just downright evil.) And how would this cut down on quality of life? It would actually improve it for me. And when I advocate conservation, I'm not talking out of my ass...I don't drive at all even though I'm 19.
Mass transit is not and should not be a federal issue.

Well, there is the federally subsidized Amtrak, which the least economical way to travel around the country because it's about as slow as Greyhound and about as expensive as a plane ticket.

Chinkopodia

29-03-2005, 11:36

I don't mind those living off benefits who can't change their situation, I do mind those who can but are living off benefits anyway, or those who are claiming unemployment benfits when they're actually employed.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 13:37

Yeah, in NYC building the lines closer probably wouldn't work. In the suburbs, probably, but not NYC.

Sometimes it is, can't argue with that :)

NYC has fine public transport.

The main problem with the 'burbs is that mass transit is not sensible nor economical in most cases. Basically, if you need to make more than a stop or two, and are going less than 10 miles, it's pointless.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 14:10

Which was why I said the DoED should be limited to administering the free/reduced lunch program.;)

Okay, I'll buy that for a shekel.

Regarding your complaint about st00pid teachers, yes, I had my fair share of those two. I don't have a problem with making teacher certification exams harder;

Good.

my problem is making the students take so many standardized tests that the teacher is forced to "teach to the test," because there is no time to teach anything else.

I can't agree with you here. I know lots of teachers (sister is one, worked in a Board of Ed (not where she worked, so a different crowd)) and there is *lots* of wasted time in a day. I'm not talking music and art, either. I'm talking about "magazine time" and watching thirty year old filmstrips.

This is a really big problem for me, especially considering that I wanted to teach social studies (mostly history)--a subject that requires a significant degree of academic freedom to teach well/make the class interesting.

I'm all for academic freedom (I have a dual degree in English Lit and History). I just feel that there needs to be a minimum level of proficiency. I didn't have standardized testing when I was in school, and so went for nearly 3 YEARS without a real math teacher. This would not have happened with a standardized test.

Regarding the similarities/differences between Vietnam and Iraq, I will concede that it is not a perfect comparison. However:

We intervened in Vietnam because we were afraid that if Vietnam went communist, other neighboring countries would acquire a taste for communism. (the domino theory)

Erm, that's a reason, but not the main one. Kennedy orginally contributed to (and later got our troops involved in) Viet Nam to keep the French in NATO.

Please go check out Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". It's a great book. Tells the folly of man in 5 stages. (You may know her more famous work, "The Guns of August".)

We intervened in Iraq because we were afraid that if Saddam could make WMD's, terrorists would acquire those capabilities. (another domino theory)

So is breaking 19 UN resolutions and voiding a cease fire. ;)

The resistance in Vietnam tried, successfully, to break the political will of the United States to stay in Vietnam.

The resistance in Iraq is trying to drive the United States out of Iraq. (However, their task is somewhat more difficult because Iraq doesn't have the jungles that Vietnam did.)

Actually, in both cases, I like your arguement better if you replace "resistance" with "press". :(

Also:
* The Vietnamese were fighting to unify their nation which was split by outside powers. Their own leader was popular (Ho Chi Minh), whom was elected in a fair election.
* In Iraq, most of the combatants are foreigners, Baathists, and/or the minority that prospered under Hussein (whose elections were shams, at best). The nation isn't divided; and the only link most of the combatant have is hatred of the US.

We were involved in Vietnam for nearly twenty years (first military advisors in the fifties up until the withdrawal of troops in the early seventies).

We are likely to be in Iraq for a very long time.

Yes, I agree with this. But the US was an occupation force in Germany from 1945-1990. Long occupations have been the rule since end end of the 19th century.

I drew the comparison based upon the above six statements. I recognize that the comparison wasn't perfect; few are. :)

Exactly. I'm just tired of it. Iraq is much more similar to the US occupation of Mexico than anything else, but no one draws that parallel.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 14:23

The peanut farmer has the true kiss of death. Everything he touches turns to shit. He has even managed to degrade the respect of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I can only somewhat agree. Carter, like any US President, did both good and ill for the nation.

I really hated him for boycotting the Olympics, for his economic policy, and most (!) of his foreign policy.

On the other hand, his energy policies and were good and The Panama Canal Treaty and Camp David Accords were solid. Forming the Department of Energy was a good idea.

All in all, a 3 out of 10.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 14:26

2 USD per gallon?

Oh please, cry me a river...

One liter super+ goes for 1 Euro here, one liter super for 95 Eurocent. You won't find Diesel here under 85 cent per liter.

Round that up to a gallon and you come to ~4 Euro per gallon. That'd be around 5 USD per gallon.

Yeah, except that our nation is the size of your continent. The UK is the size of Oregon. Germany is the size of Montana.

Basically, things in Europe are a LOT closer together.

Markreich

29-03-2005, 14:29

I that's what you think, I question your familiarity with American history. The US had no valid reason to enter WWI, and had it not, WWII probably wouldn't have happend. That sounds like a pretty good case for isolationism, unless you really like war you sadist.

Your opinions are noted, but my degrees are not recinded. That's what's nice about academic freedom: I'm allowed to have my opinion. :p

Erm? US entry into WW1?
1. Zimmerman Telegram.
2. Unrestricted submarine warfare.
national interest. QED.

BTW, making insulting remarks is no way to make friends.

Plutophobia

29-03-2005, 14:32

Actually, I have a solution to welfare - the government could re-direct that welfare money to local charity organizations which would serve to help the unemployed.
Charities are just as corrupt as the government.

Chinkopodia

29-03-2005, 15:22

Yeah, except that our nation is the size of your continent. The UK is the size of Oregon. Germany is the size of Montana.

Basically, things in Europe are a LOT closer together.

Who says that means you need to get around more?

Markreich

29-03-2005, 16:03

Who says that means you need to get around more?

A few reasons:
1) European nations are smaller, and are less efficient in terms of net taxation. That's why you pay so much more for gasoline.
2) Things are closer in Europe. Seriously: how often does a Londoner commute to Cambridge? That's the average US commute.
3) Life in most European nations centers around their capitals, with a major city per region. The European Capitals mostly correspond to the top 30 US cities, size wise.
4) European cities are mostly concentrated -- there are no real suburbs or "megacities". I can drive from Boston to Washington DC and never not be in a city. This is *not* true of Europe: there is no urban/suburb sprawl.
Example: Atlanta takes up 19 COUNTIES. Simply put, US housing development is very spread out.

So: if you took the use of fuel for the whole of Europe and compared it to the US, the picture is a lot more even. If the EU was more homogenous (which it is certainly getting) in terms of taxation and monetary policy, the price of fuel in Europe would drop.

Evil Woody Thoughts

30-03-2005, 01:01

Charities are just as corrupt as the government.

:rolleyes:

Evil Woody Thoughts

30-03-2005, 01:33

Interesting. I'm not really sure what to say about this. If a person accumulates wealth without "cheating", it's up to them to decide how they use it. The problem is that it is not exactly clear when a person is cheating. If you take someone like me who is a total advocate of the free-market it's possible to find something wrong with the way most people earn a living.

Agreed. Though I probably have a broader definition of "cheating" than you do.

I work for a precision manufacturing company who does some work government contractors, who in turn get paid by the US government who takes money from ordinary people by force. Actually, pretty much all of my employer's customers do at least some government work. So, I'm "cheating" because at least some of the money I earn is taken by force. The problem is that there is no way around this with the federal government being such a massive part of the economy. While I don't support spending tax dollars on various programs, I don't necessarily fault those who take advantage of them. I guess I'm getting off the point here...

Anyway, if the US had a virtually totally free market and almost no federal government, it would be far more easy to make the kind of judgement on the charity of the market participants that you're trying to make. Obviously, people are not going to donate money to any particular cause if they feel that enough or too much of their tax money is already being spent there.

I doubt that if welfare was eliminated and taxes lowered accordingly that private contributions to charity would offset the elimination of welfare. Face it, American culture is simply too materialistic and greedy. Most people would take the tax cut and run, rather than thinking about why their taxes have been cut, and buy a plasma TV or some such crap instead of donating the tax savings to charity. As you might be able to tell, regardless of the merits of capitalism, I have a very, very, very, very low opinion of the superficial aspects of American culture, namely, consumerism. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what "pure communism" would be, but I'm pretty sure the pure communists will disagree about what works. Even though, I'm about as much of an advocate of free market capitalism as anyone, I wouldn't myself say that pure capitalism "works." I'm not going down that road, because saying it works means it does what it's supposed to do. I'm not sure we'd agree on what it's supposed to do. Also, pure capitalism would, despite what I'm about to be told, anarchy. I'm not prepared to defend anarchy. I guess what I'm getting at is that saying that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism wouldn't work, doesn't really challenge what anyone thinks. It's a non-sequitor, really.

I define "pure communism" as the economic system defined in the Communist Manifesto, though its endstages, if we should call what happens after the "dictatorship of the proletariat" no longer becomes necessary that, have never before been tried.

Ever heard of a "reductio ad absurdium?" (sp?) I got you to admit that capitalism in pure form, i.e. without some level of regulation, wouldn't work, which was what I was trying to do. So I made some progress. :)

If I really wanted to go into graphic details, I would have described capitalism as it occured in nineteenth century America. Very few people today would support that degree of economic "freedom."

I'm somewhat impressed by your understanding of one way social welfare spending affects the labor market. I may not see it exactly the same way, but we're pretty close. I think about people on social security working low-wage jobs to maintain the living standard they had when they had better paying but more stressful jobs. I can hardly fault Wal-mart or any other employer for hiring people who get checks from Uncle Sam, even if it reduces their labor costs. This should be a good example of how social welfare spending subsidizes poverty.

If the minimum wage were increased, it would effectively end said subsidy, because the burden placed on social welfare programs by low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart would be eased. Raising interest rates has traditionally been a reasonably effective method of containing inflationary pressure, and it would not necessarily be a bad thing, as American society needs to reign in its collective debt. It's about time Americans be encouraged to start paying down debt instead of being mindless consumerbots; a minimum wage increase+rising interest rates would alleviate two problems at once. Of course, the solution isn't perfect, but it's the best one I can think of. Oh, and by the way, when the minimum wage increased in the 1990's, it barely affected inflation on prices for consumer goods. :)

Mass transit is not and should not be a federal issue.

Well, there is the federally subsidized Amtrak, which the least economical way to travel around the country because it's about as slow as Greyhound and about as expensive as a plane ticket.

As a matter of national energy security, the federal government does, imho, have an interest in encouraging mass transit use. What if the ME slapped another oil embargo on us? With extensive mass transit, we would have an alternative (and oil could be rationed and redirected towards the military without completely destroying the economy, because alternate modes of transportation would still exist).

I would also like to point out that the interstate highway system was built with mostly federal, not state/local, funds. It was a federal program, and a successful one at that. :eek:

The states/municipalities do bear a greater load of responsibility when it comes to intracity public transit, though to be honest, I don't care if the money comes from the feds, the states/localities, or private investors, so long as I have the option of getting around without a car. :)

And regarding Amtrak...it's coastal routes, especially along the East Coast, are generally profitable. The transcontinental routes are the inefficient money pits.

Spizzo

30-03-2005, 01:57

If the minimum wage were increased, it would effectively end said subsidy, because the burden placed on social welfare programs by low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart would be eased. Raising interest rates has traditionally been a reasonably effective method of containing inflationary pressure, and it would not necessarily be a bad thing, as American society needs to reign in its collective debt. It's about time Americans be encouraged to start paying down debt instead of being mindless consumerbots; a minimum wage increase+rising interest rates would alleviate two problems at once.

I'm sure you are all familiar with simple economics.
PRICE FLOORS CREATE SURPLUS.
It's a simple concept. If you restrict the price of a good or service (min wage) then it will create a surplus of the good or service (unemployment). Simple concept.

In my opinion, if minimum wage were increased and interest rates were increased, consumers would continue digging themselves into a hole of debt. More money to spend and higher rates to pay it back is not a benevolent combination.

Vetalia

30-03-2005, 02:01

The main problem with the 'burbs is that mass transit is not sensible nor economical in most cases. Basically, if you need to make more than a stop or two, and are going less than 10 miles, it's pointless.

Yes it is. The problem is, this is where a large amount of gas is being used, on short trips. Thus, it is kind of an unsolvable problem to reduce gas usage, because if given the option, people just don't want to use public transportation for short distances.

Evil Woody Thoughts

30-03-2005, 02:08

I can't agree with you here. I know lots of teachers (sister is one, worked in a Board of Ed (not where she worked, so a different crowd)) and there is *lots* of wasted time in a day. I'm not talking music and art, either. I'm talking about "magazine time" and watching thirty year old filmstrips.

I'm all for academic freedom (I have a dual degree in English Lit and History). I just feel that there needs to be a minimum level of proficiency. I didn't have standardized testing when I was in school, and so went for nearly 3 YEARS without a real math teacher. This would not have happened with a standardized test.

You are using one bad teacher to tar and feather the entire profession. I'm all for giving the teachers standardized tests before they are allowed to teach, to make sure that they are competent in the subject matter they will teach. For the record, I am also a vocal critic of the widespread practice of treating different subjects and specialties as fungible, i.e. assigning a history teacher to teach chemistry instead.

If you want to know how the crappy teachers get in, I'll give you a hint. One of my history teachers told the class that any student in the class could take the state teacher certification exam and pass it. To be honest with you, the thought of students being just as competent in the subject matter as the standard that the teacher is held to scares me, though I will concede that this was a high school honors course.

When I said there wasn't enough time in the school year to teach both the subject matter and the test, I was referring to teachers who actually care. Have you ever tried to teach high school United States history from colonialism up until Reagan in about 180 school days? It's damn near impossible. So most history courses cut off at the end of World War II or shortly thereafter, and I'm guessing you're probably wondering why our high school graduates are completely braindead, for the most part, concerning events of the last forty or fifty years. :rolleyes:

If the school year was lengthened to accommodate standardized testing, and the time required to teach it, from say 180 days to 200 days, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. The problem is, few are willing to pay the taxes to keep the schools operating for a month longer, and parents reflexively react by saying, "How dare you propose to shorten my kid's summer break?"

But with a school year as short as it already is, standardized testing effectively shortens it even more because 1)classes are usually cancelled so students can take the tests on school time, and 2)teachers are asked, in some cases required, by the school districts to take at least a couple of days out of their curriculum to teach "test-taking" techniques, because the extra two points average on the 300-point Prairie State Achievement Exam (for Illinois) makes all the difference. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh, and being a competent US history teacher is difficult? World history is even worse, because instead of being expected to teach 350 years' worth of material, you're expected to teach 3,500 years worth of material.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/rant.gif

Erm, that's a reason, but not the main one. Kennedy orginally contributed to (and later got our troops involved in) Viet Nam to keep the French in NATO.

Please go check out Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly". It's a great book. Tells the folly of man in 5 stages. (You may know her more famous work, "The Guns of August".)

Well, the domino theory was the rationalization sold to the public to justify Vietnam, anyway. WMD's was the (original) rationalization sold to the public to justify Iraq. I'm sure there were alterior motives for Iraq, too, but I will not discuss the possibilities here. I stand by my statement.

Regarding the book, it might make some good summer reading.:)

Oh, and it was Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who first got us involved in Vietnam, though Kennedy could also be faulted for not withdrawing when it would have been relatively painless.

So is breaking 19 UN resolutions and voiding a cease fire. ;)

Talk about selective enforcement. I'm sure there are several "resolutions" condemning torture, summary executions, and such, but when was the last time the United States sought to enforce such a resolution against an ally, such as Saudi Arabia? :rolleyes:

Actually, in both cases, I like your arguement better if you replace "resistance" with "press". :(

In many, if not most resistance movements, the resistance is a vocal minority, while most people look the other way for fear of being shot. Even the American Revolution was not supported by an absolute majority of the colonial population, the traditional breakdown of support being a third in favor, a third opposing (supporting the British Crown), and a third saying "meh."

Also:
* The Vietnamese were fighting to unify their nation which was split by outside powers. Their own leader was popular (Ho Chi Minh), whom was elected in a fair election.
* In Iraq, most of the combatants are foreigners, Baathists, and/or the minority that prospered under Hussein (whose elections were shams, at best). The nation isn't divided; and the only link most of the combatant have is hatred of the US.

Actually, Ho Chi Minh's election wasn't fair; the US tried unsuccessfully to rig it against him. Take out the ballot stuffing and he probably would have won by a wider margin. :p

Iraq isn't divided? :eek:

While certain foreign elements have tried to "stir the pot," so to speak, a significant part, if not most, of the resistance is indiginous. Also, Saddam let some groups, such as Christians and women, enjoy relative freedom compared to the rest of the Middle East (not saying those groups would have been "free" by our standards though). So women, half the population, have a valid reason to resist if they believe that the democracy we are trying to impose would result in a strict Islamic theocracy, like a new Taliban.

Yes, I agree with this. But the US was an occupation force in Germany from 1945-1990. Long occupations have been the rule since end end of the 19th century.

Exactly. I'm just tired of it. Iraq is much more similar to the US occupation of Mexico than anything else, but no one draws that parallel.

Most Germans didn't think the United States was/is the Great Satan, either.

Evil Woody Thoughts

30-03-2005, 02:23

I'm sure you are all familiar with simple economics.
PRICE FLOORS CREATE SURPLUS.
It's a simple concept. If you restrict the price of a good or service (min wage) then it will create a surplus of the good or service (unemployment). Simple concept.

In my opinion, if minimum wage were increased and interest rates were increased, consumers would continue digging themselves into a hole of debt. More money to spend and higher rates to pay it back is not a benevolent combination.

In theory, yes, price floors create surplus. In practice, I don't recall the unemployment rate suddenly skyrocketing after minimum wage increases, though it might creep up a tenth or two of one percent.

Economics is basically a system of trade-offs...in fixing one problem, you pretty much automatically create another. If the minimum wage was repealed, Wal-Mart would probably simply kidnap people and pay them thirty cents an hour, like the sweatshops in China that they buy their goods from do. It becomes a question of what problem is the most tolerable...the United States becoming a nation of sweatshops (again...we had our share before the Great Depression too) or a few extra unemployed people. Given the choice between getting paid sweatshop-level wages and being unemployed, I'll take the unemployment.

Another concept of economics:

HIGH INTEREST RATES=LESS DEMAND FOR BORROWED MONEY. Right now, interest rates are artificially low.

Vetalia

30-03-2005, 02:31

HIGH INTEREST RATES=LESS DEMAND FOR BORROWED MONEY. Right now, interest rates are artificially low.

They are. This is due to the threat of deflation during the 2001 recession, so the FOMC decided to stimulate inflation by artifically lowering interest rates. The question is: Is the present expansion sustainable in a rate neutral environment, or is it a "paper boom" caused by artifical liquidity?

The artifically large supply of US dollars in the world market are responsible for the weak dollar. The currency is valued based upon supply and demand, and so lower supply via interest rates will turn the dollar in to a self-fixing problem.

Ra hurfarfar

30-03-2005, 03:20

Capitalism wouldn't be so bad if people donated more than a token dollar here or there to charity and if war didn't occur in its name. :)

Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism really works. As things stand right now, welfare programs subsidize corporations that employ a lot of low-wage people, because said people file for welfare benefits instead of demanding that the corporations raise their pay to a level they can actually live on. Teh horrors! :eek: And there are plenty of ways for corporations to avoid taxes (like Enron did :rolleyes: )...you just have to be willing to pay off some damn good accountants.

And what about mass transit? Funding it could be revenue-neutral if we cut subsidies for other questionable entities, such as Halliburton, ConAgra, General Electric, Wal-Mart, Boeing, Citibank, et al. (By questionable entities, I mean companies that really don't need the subsidies to turn a profit. Halliburton might be an exception, but the manner in which the government subsidizes them is just downright evil.) And how would this cut down on quality of life? It would actually improve it for me. And when I advocate conservation, I'm not talking out of my ass...I don't drive at all even though I'm 19.

True, capitolism would be better if people were more charitable and all, but no matter what system you use, the world won't be perfect as long as people aren't perfect. What capitolism does is give incentive so that people don't have to be perfect for the majority of people to enjoy a certain quality of life.

Granted, at times it is important that some government intervention come in, but generally it is hurtful. For instance, in the industrial revolution, numerous times the government squashed unions trying to earn employee rights. This was the natural response to the oppression people were suffering, and under pure capitolism, these measures would have corrected the imbalance quickly. When the government turned the other way and began funding unions, they lost their original function and became more like a legal mob, extorting companies beyond their right.
Like I said, though, some government intervention can be good. A $5 an hour minimum wage isn't excessive. But you can't just jack up the minimum wage and expect that to fix things. In a perfect world we'd all have six figure incomes, but that's just not practical.
This oil shortage will resolve itself. Actually, it's not the oil shortage that's the problem; it's the lack of refineries in this country.

Evil Woody Thoughts

30-03-2005, 03:30

True, capitolism would be better if people were more charitable and all, but no matter what system you use, the world won't be perfect as long as people aren't perfect. What capitolism does is give incentive so that people don't have to be perfect for the majority of people to enjoy a certain quality of life.

Granted, at times it is important that some government intervention come in, but generally it is hurtful. For instance, in the industrial revolution, numerous times the government squashed unions trying to earn employee rights. This was the natural response to the oppression people were suffering, and under pure capitolism, these measures would have corrected the imbalance quickly. When the government turned the other way and began funding unions, they lost their original function and became more like a legal mob, extorting companies beyond their right.
Like I said, though, some government intervention can be good. A $5 an hour minimum wage isn't excessive. But you can't just jack up the minimum wage and expect that to fix things. In a perfect world we'd all have six figure incomes, but that's just not practical.
This oil shortage will resolve itself. Actually, it's not the oil shortage that's the problem; it's the lack of refineries in this country.

No, I'm not expecting the minimum wage to go from $5 to $50 per hour. I'm not THAT insane. A $7 minimum wage would suffice for a place like Phoenix, while a $10 or so minimum wage would be necessary in a place like New York. I am kind of pulling these numbers out of my @$$, but I'm giving them to try to show that I don't think everyone should be making six figures.

Regarding the oil shortage, I see the lack of refinery capacity as a contributing factor, not the sole cause of the problem. There's still the issue of we're drilling for more oil than we are discovering through exploration. And this is gonna bite us...soon.

Battery Charger

30-03-2005, 11:05

Agreed. Though I probably have a broader definition of "cheating" than you do.

I doubt that if welfare was eliminated and taxes lowered accordingly that private contributions to charity would offset the elimination of welfare. Face it, American culture is simply too materialistic and greedy. Most people would take the tax cut and run, rather than thinking about why their taxes have been cut, and buy a plasma TV or some such crap instead of donating the tax savings to charity. As you might be able to tell, regardless of the merits of capitalism, I have a very, very, very, very low opinion of the superficial aspects of American culture, namely, consumerism. :rolleyes:

The thing is that it doesn't matter how someone spends their own money. If someone earns their wealth honestly, you have legitimate say in what they do with it. Does this sound reasonable to you? It's an awful lot of you to ask of someone that they forsake a plasma TV for some 'charity'.

If a person spends $4000 to some charity like the Red Cross, what happens to that money? Some of it goes to pay for "paid volunteers", some pays for lawyers and accountants, some is used to pay rent, some is used to provide goods and services to those determined by the Red Cross to be "in need", and still some is given directly to such people.

If that same person spends $4000 on a TV, I would guess about 1/3 to 1/2 is gross profit for the store. Of that, a great deal goes to pay for labor costs, possibly including a commission to the salesman, some pays the rent, some pays for advertising, and what's left goes to the coporate HQ. Of that, execs eat a few bucks, national advertising gets some, and what ever is left is net profit which is either paid to shareholders in dividends or is re-invested. Then, of course, the manufacturer pays out it's chunk in a similar fashion.

Either way the money ends up in the pockets of other people. In the first case it goes to those who need it, and to those who earn it in the second. It's not as if the money just disappears.

I have another point about charity, that just because formal charitable organizations like the Red Cross and your local food bank, might not get enough donations to cover what would otherwise be paid out by the government, doesn't mean it's a worse situation. Charity cases would return to more of a family responsibility than a state one. As long as they're able to help, very few people would ever let their loved ones starve to death.

As far as consumerism goes, what exactly is your beef with it? Hell, how would you define it?

I define "pure communism" as the economic system defined in the Communist Manifesto, though its endstages, if we should call what happens after the "dictatorship of the proletariat" no longer becomes necessary that, have never before been tried.

Ever heard of a "reductio ad absurdium?" (sp?) I got you to admit that capitalism in pure form, i.e. without some level of regulation, wouldn't work, which was what I was trying to do. So I made some progress. :)
That's not exactly what I said. Actually, I didn't say that at all. All that I'm saying is that I'm not prepared to defend a government-less system. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but "pure capitalism" would, I suppose, be just that. It's not so much that I see that as a bad idea, as an unworkable one.

Actually, if you get down to it, the anarcho-capitalist and the anarcho-communist both want the same thing. They want utopian anarchy where the people are basically free to do what they wish with no monarch, aristocrats, or even freely elected officials with a monoply on the use of force. Where they disagree is with how these people ought to conduct themselves, and how things like private property should be treated. It should be obvious that widespread agreement over such issues would be necessary in order to achieve even a resemblence to such a society. Hell, we'd need widespread agreement over all sorts of things, and we should all be wary whenever someone intends to achieve that sort of consensus. Such movements are the genesis of genocide. Some form of utopian anarchy may one day be the norm, but we're a long way from there. Perhaps, we'll get to see that a dozen or so lives from now.

If I really wanted to go into graphic details, I would have described capitalism as it occured in nineteenth century America. Very few people today would support that degree of economic "freedom."
If you want, go right ahead. I've certainly spent a great deal of time trying to get my points across. I've heard many of the complaints about that particular time period in the US, and I don't really understand them. Perhaps you could help me out.

If the minimum wage were increased, it would effectively end said subsidy, because the burden placed on social welfare programs by low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart would be eased. Raising interest rates has traditionally been a reasonably effective method of containing inflationary pressure, and it would not necessarily be a bad thing, as American society needs to reign in its collective debt. It's about time Americans be encouraged to start paying down debt instead of being mindless consumerbots; a minimum wage increase+rising interest rates would alleviate two problems at once. Of course, the solution isn't perfect, but it's the best one I can think of. Oh, and by the way, when the minimum wage increased in the 1990's, it barely affected inflation on prices for consumer goods. :) You can say whatever you want about minimum wage, but nothing will change my position on it. If you're not sure, that position is against. There should be no minimum wage, and such laws enacted by the US congress are unconsitutional anyway. Any potential benefit doesn't make it okay.

Don't get me started on the banks. Interest rates should probably be higher. The reason they're low, is because greenspan and his cronies lowered them in an attempt to stimulate the economy - to make borrowing money more affordable so more people spend and the wheels keep turning. Raising interest rates would have the opposite effect, that would "de-stimulate" the economy. That's why the fed is reluctant to raise them. The real problem, IMO, is that the fed operates on keynesian economic theory, which is total bullshit.

I am one who would like to see the Federal Reserve abolished and have the actually gold reserves returned to the holders of Federal Reserve Notes. No central bank ever did an honest man any good. Interest rates should be a matter for private banks that would be held accountable for the type of mischief the Federal Reserve is legally permitted to conduct. I have no idea what a person like yourself would like to see.

As a matter of national energy security, the federal government does, imho, have an interest in encouraging mass transit use. What if the ME slapped another oil embargo on us? With extensive mass transit, we would have an alternative (and oil could be rationed and redirected towards the military without completely destroying the economy, because alternate modes of transportation would still exist).That's not "national security", that's economic security, something the government can't really do anything to help. National security is physical security matter.

I would also like to point out that the interstate highway system was built with mostly federal, not state/local, funds. It was a federal program, and a successful one at that. :eek: Hey, I've never said the government can't get anything done. But just because it can do something doesn't mean it should.

The states/municipalities do bear a greater load of responsibility when it comes to intracity public transit, though to be honest, I don't care if the money comes from the feds, the states/localities, or private investors, so long as I have the option of getting around without a car. :)

And regarding Amtrak...it's coastal routes, especially along the East Coast, are generally profitable. The transcontinental routes are the inefficient money pits.That's great that you don't care where the money comes from. Do you understand the concept of federalism? Perhaps you would care where the money comes from it you did.

And congress should allow Amtrak to fail, like all bad buisness should.

Holy crap, that's long.

Isanyonehome

30-03-2005, 12:07

I doubt that if welfare was eliminated and taxes lowered accordingly that private contributions to charity would offset the elimination of welfare. Face it, American culture is simply too materialistic and greedy. Most people would take the tax cut and run, rather than thinking about why their taxes have been cut, and buy a plasma TV or some such crap instead of donating the tax savings to charity. As you might be able to tell, regardless of the merits of capitalism, I have a very, very, very, very low opinion of the superficial aspects of American culture, namely, consumerism. :rolleyes:

Shows how little you know about your fellow Americans. Americans BLOW away other nations when it comes to private charity. If you feel this way about Americans, I shudder to think what you feel about Europeans who donate a small fraction of what we donate(per capita).

As to whether it will make up for welfare well, I dont know. But I do know that what money was available would be better directed to people who needed it most(unlike now)

If the minimum wage were increased, it would effectively end said subsidy, because the burden placed on social welfare programs by low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart would be eased.

Minimum wage does not work that way. All raising minimum wage does is PRICE the lowest skilled people out of the market.

You are not supposed to live on minimum wage with a family of 4. If you raise minimum wage to the level where a family can live on it, the net result will be that people with no job skills will have NO means of getting a job where they can develop those skills. Moreover, people do not stay on minimum wage. They either get a promotion/raise once their skills improve or find a betting paying job(once their skills improve). Skills in this case can be something as simple as a proven work history(eg he can show up on time and work a job without quiting)

You will realize this if you think about it clearly

.[/QUOTE]

Markreich

30-03-2005, 15:11

You are using one bad teacher to tar and feather the entire profession. I'm all for giving the teachers standardized tests before they are allowed to teach, to make sure that they are competent in the subject matter they will teach. For the record, I am also a vocal critic of the widespread practice of treating different subjects and specialties as fungible, i.e. assigning a history teacher to teach chemistry instead.

Not at all. I know *lots* of substandard teachers. I can cite a dozen examples, if you like. :(

Yep. A teacher should certainly teach within their discipline, or at least something related.

If you want to know how the crappy teachers get in, I'll give you a hint. One of my history teachers told the class that any student in the class could take the state teacher certification exam and pass it. To be honest with you, the thought of students being just as competent in the subject matter as the standard that the teacher is held to scares me, though I will concede that this was a high school honors course.

That doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how some people assume that throwing money at the problem will solve it. Right now, my town spends 74% of it's budget on education. 20 years ago, it was 41%. And the quality (# students going on to college, etc) has not improved.

When I said there wasn't enough time in the school year to teach both the subject matter and the test, I was referring to teachers who actually care. Have you ever tried to teach high school United States history from colonialism up until Reagan in about 180 school days? It's damn near impossible. So most history courses cut off at the end of World War II or shortly thereafter, and I'm guessing you're probably wondering why our high school graduates are completely braindead, for the most part, concerning events of the last forty or fifty years.

While I've never tried it, I did sit through it in AP. We cut off at 1960, as the 60s were still so close in the late 80s that it could make for months of discussion alone.
However, I fully believe that in covering about 2 years of history per diem that some of the (45 minute) period can dovetail into the exam requirements. The lesson plan should include that.
Rant all you want, but I have to multi-task in my job. They've (the Feds) thrown Sox404 compliance on my IT practices. I have to deal. No, it's not fair, but it's what the score is.

If the school year was lengthened to accommodate standardized testing, and the time required to teach it, from say 180 days to 200 days, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. The problem is, few are willing to pay the taxes to keep the schools operating for a month longer, and parents reflexively react by saying, "How dare you propose to shorten my kid's summer break?"

I'd be fine with that, too. While we're at it, we need to kill the unions and bring down costs, though.

But with a school year as short as it already is, standardized testing effectively shortens it even more because 1)classes are usually cancelled so students can take the tests on school time, and 2)teachers are asked, in some cases required, by the school districts to take at least a couple of days out of their curriculum to teach "test-taking" techniques, because the extra two points average on the 300-point Prairie State Achievement Exam (for Illinois) makes all the difference.

1) How many days is that? Two? C'mon. We have more BS "snow days" than that! :D
2) I'd rather have had that than the 30 year old filmstrip.

Oh, and being a competent US history teacher is difficult? World history is even worse, because instead of being expected to teach 350 years' worth of material, you're expected to teach 3,500 years worth of material.

True. But by the same token, in elementary/high school, the detail level just isn't too high on purpose.
IE: A 5th grader should certainly know that there was a WW1, that the major Central Powers were Germany, Austria, and Turkey, and that they fought the major Allies of France, Britain and Russia (later the US).
They don't need to know that Igor Sikorsky created the first heavier than air bomber, or that Admiral Jellicoe had almost no communication with his own fleet for most of the Battle of Jutland. :)

Well, the domino theory was the rationalization sold to the public to justify Vietnam, anyway. WMD's was the (original) rationalization sold to the public to justify Iraq. I'm sure there were alterior motives for Iraq, too, but I will not discuss the possibilities here. I stand by my statement.

It was a reason, I totally agree. It just wasn't the *main* one. I consider Viet Nam to be kind of like home repair: a lot of little things went wrong in succession, and at the end we had a huge bill to pay.

Regarding the book, it might make some good summer reading.:)
Cool, enjoy. I recall one of my teachers (in *Elementary School*) mentioning that one when Ms. Tuchman passed away.

Oh, and it was Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who first got us involved in Vietnam, though Kennedy could also be faulted for not withdrawing when it would have been relatively painless.

If I recall correctly, Ike approved of selling/sending supplies to the French, but not troops/advisors. Kennedy did that.

Talk about selective enforcement. I'm sure there are several "resolutions" condemning torture, summary executions, and such, but when was the last time the United States sought to enforce such a resolution against an ally, such as Saudi Arabia?

It's hardly the US's fault that the UN doesn't enforce their own mandates. We've had to start action for the UN before, in Jugoslavia and in Korea.

Yes, the US has in the past done business with a bad lot in order to defeat the Soviets, mostly. I'm hoping that this is turning around in the same manner the British Empire did once they abolished slavery.

In many, if not most resistance movements, the resistance is a vocal minority, while most people look the other way for fear of being shot. Even the American Revolution was not supported by an absolute majority of the colonial population, the traditional breakdown of support being a third in favor, a third opposing (supporting the British Crown), and a third saying "meh."

Yep. But I still feel that the press (always! since Colonial times) has pandered to sensationalism to raise their profits.

Actually, Ho Chi Minh's election wasn't fair; the US tried unsuccessfully to rig it against him. Take out the ballot stuffing and he probably would have won by a wider margin. :p

Almost certainly.

Iraq isn't divided? :eek:

Iraq? No. The citizens of Iraq and the Jihadists? Yes.

While certain foreign elements have tried to "stir the pot," so to speak, a significant part, if not most, of the resistance is indiginous.

Nope. Certainly not the leadership, and certainly not the majority of the suicide bombers, etc. Of the natives, how many are non-ex-Baathists?

Also, Saddam let some groups, such as Christians and women, enjoy relative freedom compared to the rest of the Middle East (not saying those groups would have been "free" by our standards though). So women, half the population, have a valid reason to resist if they believe that the democracy we are trying to impose would result in a strict Islamic theocracy, like a new Taliban.

That's like enjoying indentured servitude because it's not slavery.
Even if we peg the resistance at 200,000 (a VERY high estimate), Iraq has 28 million people. I think you're perhaps putting "those that do not wish to be occupied" and "those that wish to kill Americans" in the same camp.

Most Germans didn't think the United States was/is the Great Satan, either.

Neither do most Iraqis. Iranians? Sure. ;)
::Addendum:: The Germans also got to compare the US to the Soviets.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Oil Prices and Incentive to Work--A Question for Conservatives