At least students at the US Universities aren't forming fraternity gangs that intimidate, assault, and harrass faculty.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Subtle Racism: Can Repulicans be Proud?
I've respected John McCain for a long time. I said as late as June that I could see myself voting for him, depending on what the alternatives are. But it saddens me to hear the subtle influence of the Karl Rove "How Racist Can We Be Without Putting too Many White People Off?" campaign strategy. The warmup, Joe Lieberman:
Not too bad, now Mitt Romney:
Now, Chris Rock recycling some of his comedy for the topic:
McCain supporters and doners: Tell your candidate this not the honorable campaign we expect and that this insults our intelligence.
Not too bad, now Mitt Romney:
Now, Chris Rock recycling some of his comedy for the topic:
McCain supporters and doners: Tell your candidate this not the honorable campaign we expect and that this insults our intelligence.
Mission Accomplished, Part Duh
The Murdoch Street Journal published and article that once again declares victory: "The War in Iraq is Over. We've Won," reports Bret Stephens. Bold. What does that mean John McCain will do for the next hundred years?
My if it takes more than 100 words to prove victory, then you probably ain't won yet, but he bases the decision on the fact that Francis Fukuyama conceded a bet about whether Iraq would still be "a mess" five years after the war started in 2003. In my book, a country that can't stand on it's own without 100,000+ foreign troops occupying it as peacekeepers qualifies as a mess, and few would argue that it wasn't a mess in March at the date of the 5-year anniversary.
But that's neither here nor there. This is the key point Mr. Fukuyama points out that trumps the current conditions on the ground: "We've spent a trillion or so dollars, 30,000 dead or wounded, a large loss in international influence and prestige, all for the sake of disarming a country with no WMDs." Where is the margin indeed? Few dispute the tangential benefits that have been realized by giving Saddam the boot, but those benefits weren't the main reason for entering. I, along with others including Mr. Fukuyama, have said from the start that regardless of your personal views about the war, it was never giving the American Taxpayer the most bang for it's military spending buck in the socalled "war on terror."
My if it takes more than 100 words to prove victory, then you probably ain't won yet, but he bases the decision on the fact that Francis Fukuyama conceded a bet about whether Iraq would still be "a mess" five years after the war started in 2003. In my book, a country that can't stand on it's own without 100,000+ foreign troops occupying it as peacekeepers qualifies as a mess, and few would argue that it wasn't a mess in March at the date of the 5-year anniversary.
But that's neither here nor there. This is the key point Mr. Fukuyama points out that trumps the current conditions on the ground: "We've spent a trillion or so dollars, 30,000 dead or wounded, a large loss in international influence and prestige, all for the sake of disarming a country with no WMDs." Where is the margin indeed? Few dispute the tangential benefits that have been realized by giving Saddam the boot, but those benefits weren't the main reason for entering. I, along with others including Mr. Fukuyama, have said from the start that regardless of your personal views about the war, it was never giving the American Taxpayer the most bang for it's military spending buck in the socalled "war on terror."
Monday, August 4, 2008
Gains from Trade and why Favre won't get Traded
Gains from trade occur when one side has different endowments or preferences that make exchanges mutually beneficial. For a Brett Favre trade to happen 3 parties have to all be satisfied: GB has to get talent without helping its division and conference rivals, Farve wants to find a team with a legit shot, and the team he goes to has to have QB needs. Most trades only satisfy 2 of these parties, and that's why economics gets so difficult when there are more than two parties have veto power to a transaction.
Which contenders need a QB? The Giants, Pats, Cowboys, Chargers, Seahawks, Colts and Steelers all have stars in the position. The Jags are solid, leaving the Bucs and Skins as the only possibilities from last year's playoff teams. The Titans, Saints, Rams, and Panthers don't seem to be itching to make a QB change either. Bears fans would rather go 0-16 than see "Number Four" wearing GSH on his sleeve. Would the Pack really help the Vikes or Bucs to fill their biggest holes? The only teams left are a handful of AFC teams with little or no chance of making the Playoffs let alone the big piece of dinnerware at the end (I include my beloved Chefs in that lot). So sit back and enjoy the drama, NFL fans.
Which contenders need a QB? The Giants, Pats, Cowboys, Chargers, Seahawks, Colts and Steelers all have stars in the position. The Jags are solid, leaving the Bucs and Skins as the only possibilities from last year's playoff teams. The Titans, Saints, Rams, and Panthers don't seem to be itching to make a QB change either. Bears fans would rather go 0-16 than see "Number Four" wearing GSH on his sleeve. Would the Pack really help the Vikes or Bucs to fill their biggest holes? The only teams left are a handful of AFC teams with little or no chance of making the Playoffs let alone the big piece of dinnerware at the end (I include my beloved Chefs in that lot). So sit back and enjoy the drama, NFL fans.
Gots to Get Paid
I knew the man was stickin it to me!
Or, maybe writers (like people with "real" writing jobs for mags & papers) get something out of blogging. Blogs aren't necessarily as scrutinized for length or content, so writers can say more and be more blunt in blogs than they would in their more formal editorial and analytical writing.
Or, maybe writers (like people with "real" writing jobs for mags & papers) get something out of blogging. Blogs aren't necessarily as scrutinized for length or content, so writers can say more and be more blunt in blogs than they would in their more formal editorial and analytical writing.
Friday, August 1, 2008
CFL - Inferior version of US Football, or "Bright" Idea?
I wish understanding the environment were easier. Apparently, so does Stephen Colbert, who interviewed one of Slate's the "Green Lantern" writers, Brendan Koerner, and discussed Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFL).
Anyway, the main issue with CFLs is alleged to be mercury. It's true that CFLs use less energy, and compensate for their higher cost over their lifetime in savings on energy bills. The question was whether this cost was worth it given concerns over the fact that the bulb itself contains a small amount of mercury (less than 1/100 of the mercury in a mercury thermometer).
This report, outlines some of the mercury issues. Basically, on average much more mercury is emitted as vapor from the coal-burning electrical plants that supply extra energy needed for incandescent bulbs than the combined mercury in a CFL plus their emissions. The report, however reveals a small concern: some of the mercury from a CFL is sent to the place it goes after it is burnt out. If you have access to a place that can recycle the bulb, do that. If you don't, I worry about the nature of liquid mercury piling up in landfills if everyone switches over to CFBs. Vapor emissions are less of a big deal because they become a bit more diffuse in the atmosphere, although they eventually find their way into water sources. Liquid mercury doesn't become diffuse: That's why Bush's bright idea to auction mercury pollutants like we had begun to do with SO2 and other atmosphereic pollutions was quickly shot down.
I'm trying not to advocate a position on this. However, I would like a bit more careful thought and study to be done, preferably by someone who is not me.
Anyway, the main issue with CFLs is alleged to be mercury. It's true that CFLs use less energy, and compensate for their higher cost over their lifetime in savings on energy bills. The question was whether this cost was worth it given concerns over the fact that the bulb itself contains a small amount of mercury (less than 1/100 of the mercury in a mercury thermometer).
This report, outlines some of the mercury issues. Basically, on average much more mercury is emitted as vapor from the coal-burning electrical plants that supply extra energy needed for incandescent bulbs than the combined mercury in a CFL plus their emissions. The report, however reveals a small concern: some of the mercury from a CFL is sent to the place it goes after it is burnt out. If you have access to a place that can recycle the bulb, do that. If you don't, I worry about the nature of liquid mercury piling up in landfills if everyone switches over to CFBs. Vapor emissions are less of a big deal because they become a bit more diffuse in the atmosphere, although they eventually find their way into water sources. Liquid mercury doesn't become diffuse: That's why Bush's bright idea to auction mercury pollutants like we had begun to do with SO2 and other atmosphereic pollutions was quickly shot down.
I'm trying not to advocate a position on this. However, I would like a bit more careful thought and study to be done, preferably by someone who is not me.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Big Bang in the Small Town News
Several of my own comments were published this week in the Lexington News-Gazette. While the New York Times makes its online content available mostly for free, the Lexington paper requires online readers to pay for access. Some of my dear friends would probably think this is wholly appropriate based on their own perceptions of quality (see my post from earlier today on media bias). Here is a link to my full thoughts that I sent the author via email.
I have to say he did a great job of pulling together my thoughts and the thoughts of a colleague at W&L and (surprise!) two independently-interviewed economists mostly agreed on the basic issues. When I spoke to the journalist over the phone, I got tricked into saying something about the Bush Tax Cuts, which I commented on in the context of the need to more budgetary discipline - if you want to spend money to fight wars you've got to ask the public to make a sacrifice to pay for it.
I have to say he did a great job of pulling together my thoughts and the thoughts of a colleague at W&L and (surprise!) two independently-interviewed economists mostly agreed on the basic issues. When I spoke to the journalist over the phone, I got tricked into saying something about the Bush Tax Cuts, which I commented on in the context of the need to more budgetary discipline - if you want to spend money to fight wars you've got to ask the public to make a sacrifice to pay for it.
Liberal Media Bias
Apparently it's true, according to Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo (2005, Quarterly Journal of Economics). I just came across the article on a random troll of the internet. Here's a quotation:
Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN’s Newsnight, and ABC’s Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center.One thing I found puzzling about the study is that it ranked the WSJ almost as far to the LEFT as Ted Kennedy and farther to the left than the NY times (by a significant margin), based on the groups and studies they cite. I'm not sure I buy that part of it, but interesting read nonetheless.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Blog Roundup
Busch League Promotions by Division of Labor
Falling Prices (link to list) and No Free Lunch by Freakonomics
Economist Misquotes and Economic Cycles by Heavy Lifting
Doha DOA by Krugman
Playboy in Braille? by Marginal Revolution
Trade Costs, Academic Salary Differentials and Doha by World Bank Private Sector Development
Falling Prices (link to list) and No Free Lunch by Freakonomics
Economist Misquotes and Economic Cycles by Heavy Lifting
Doha DOA by Krugman
Playboy in Braille? by Marginal Revolution
Trade Costs, Academic Salary Differentials and Doha by World Bank Private Sector Development
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
What about Paper?
Recycling paper uses less energy, in principle, but what about the net environmental impact? Tough call, says Slate. I've also heard some mumbo-jumbo about paper and how most paper comes from tree farms. Thus, even though a "farmed" tree does not live very long, the carbon-absorption that it contributes kind of tips the scale, although it does not mean we should just zip through paper with reckless abandon.
Does it pay to recycle? Reconsidered
Recent figures for New York peg the cost of Recycling a ton (US) of waste at $284, compared with $267 for dumping it. This may not completely account for the costs households incur due to mandated recycling, but let's suppose that if you count all the happy vibes people get from doing "good" against the time they spend rinsing cans, bottles, and glass, it's a wash.
A reader points out that glass recycling saves 315 kg per ton (US) of glass recycled compared with making the same ton of glass from scratch. The UN suggests a carbon tax of about $30 per tonne (metric), so the conversion is simple: The added environmental cost of the new glass is about $9.50 per tonne (metric). A metric tonne is about 1.10231 US tons, so divide $9.50 by that equals about an $8.60 per US ton tax on virgin glass. That means the margin for comparison for dumping vs. recycling is about $7.40. In other words, if it were $7.40 per ton cheaper to recycle or $7.40 more costly to dump, recyclying would not only be the warm fuzzy thing to do, it would be the profitable thing to do.
Interval estimates of the harm done by 1 tonne of CO2 is about $20-$50, so if we take the high end of the interval, we get an environmental cost of $15.75 per tonne, divided by 1.10231 is about $14.30 per US ton, and that makes the margin about $2.70 per ton of glass before unsubsidized recycling would be economically profitable (with a high-end carbon tax).
One problem of course is that households aren't benefitting for the effort they put in. You cannot force people to want to recycle. If they could benefit, say be receiving a rebate on their trash removal for the amounts they recycle that might incentivize the whole thing a little better. What irks me most though is the mandating the effort without more careful consideration of other costs. I bike to work, I take short showers, I try to conserve energy used to heat and cool my home, so I'm not trying to advocate for the senseless raping and pillaging of the earth. But, when people say stuff like "we could recycle almost everything we throw out" my first instinct is to think, "sure we could, but at what cost?"
A reader points out that glass recycling saves 315 kg per ton (US) of glass recycled compared with making the same ton of glass from scratch. The UN suggests a carbon tax of about $30 per tonne (metric), so the conversion is simple: The added environmental cost of the new glass is about $9.50 per tonne (metric). A metric tonne is about 1.10231 US tons, so divide $9.50 by that equals about an $8.60 per US ton tax on virgin glass. That means the margin for comparison for dumping vs. recycling is about $7.40. In other words, if it were $7.40 per ton cheaper to recycle or $7.40 more costly to dump, recyclying would not only be the warm fuzzy thing to do, it would be the profitable thing to do.
Interval estimates of the harm done by 1 tonne of CO2 is about $20-$50, so if we take the high end of the interval, we get an environmental cost of $15.75 per tonne, divided by 1.10231 is about $14.30 per US ton, and that makes the margin about $2.70 per ton of glass before unsubsidized recycling would be economically profitable (with a high-end carbon tax).
One problem of course is that households aren't benefitting for the effort they put in. You cannot force people to want to recycle. If they could benefit, say be receiving a rebate on their trash removal for the amounts they recycle that might incentivize the whole thing a little better. What irks me most though is the mandating the effort without more careful consideration of other costs. I bike to work, I take short showers, I try to conserve energy used to heat and cool my home, so I'm not trying to advocate for the senseless raping and pillaging of the earth. But, when people say stuff like "we could recycle almost everything we throw out" my first instinct is to think, "sure we could, but at what cost?"
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Environmental Dogmatists
This is silly. You don't win the environmental crisis by saying "we gotta recycle everything" or making it a war of convictions. Those of us who don't share Andy Posner's convictions are left to deal with the tradeoffs of the real world and really do live the environmental crisis on the margin.
Oh, and by the way, things like recycling and environmental regulations aren't free lunches. Recycling glass for example, uses more energy than just manufacturing it, and is therefore less of an impact on the atmosphere and resource use. [CORRECTION: RECYCLING GLASS DOES USE MUCH LESS ENERGY AND IS A HELP TO THE ATMOSPHERE. THE TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (INCLUDING LABOR COSTS) IS STILL GREATER THAN PITCHING THE GLASS. I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING BETTER CHECKING.] And environmental regulations and trying to impose sanctions on poor countries who don't yet see the environment as much of an immediate concern as, say, eating today is paternalistic and unethical. Maybe instead of preaching "the margin" I should make my point in more drastic and judgemental terms (like the lunatic fringe does):
ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT THE POOR OF AFRICA AND ASIA TO DIE OF STARVATION.
Less (and less) bad is good because it is progress, and before long the inverted environmental "U-curve" will eventually begin to let environmental damage wane.
Oh, and by the way, things like recycling and environmental regulations aren't free lunches. Recycling glass for example, uses more energy than just manufacturing it, and is therefore less of an impact on the atmosphere and resource use. [CORRECTION: RECYCLING GLASS DOES USE MUCH LESS ENERGY AND IS A HELP TO THE ATMOSPHERE. THE TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (INCLUDING LABOR COSTS) IS STILL GREATER THAN PITCHING THE GLASS. I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING BETTER CHECKING.] And environmental regulations and trying to impose sanctions on poor countries who don't yet see the environment as much of an immediate concern as, say, eating today is paternalistic and unethical. Maybe instead of preaching "the margin" I should make my point in more drastic and judgemental terms (like the lunatic fringe does):
ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT THE POOR OF AFRICA AND ASIA TO DIE OF STARVATION.
Less (and less) bad is good because it is progress, and before long the inverted environmental "U-curve" will eventually begin to let environmental damage wane.
Can they Crap Petrol, Too?
Environmentalists want to ban plastic bags. Maybe there's a smarter way to solve the problem than a knee jerk response that inconveniences the entire population.
Flutter Power
On July 21, Depken was worried that wind won't work because of the size of turbines and the fact that they are sensitive to the direction of wind flow. Of course, it is well known how efficiently turbines can convert wind into usable energy, and we've nearly hit that known peak. How about this:
Flutter Power
Flutter Power
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Remember - it rolls DOWNhill
Make sure you hook up the pipes correctly when you install this space- and water-saving device:
Blog Notables Roundup
"Best Sentences I've read Today" by Art Carden at Division of Labor.
"Make Office 2007 look like Office 2003" by Heavy Lifting (to actually do it try here)
"Drive 70 and Freeze a Yankee" by Krugman
The ongoing debate over "Immigration and Wages" by Marginal Revolution
...people do not understand the economy very well. And what do stories like Gosselin’s tell us? That most journalists don’t either."The Cost of Aviation Security" by Freakonomics
"Make Office 2007 look like Office 2003" by Heavy Lifting (to actually do it try here)
"Drive 70 and Freeze a Yankee" by Krugman
The ongoing debate over "Immigration and Wages" by Marginal Revolution
This week in The Economist
More wind from a gas company blowhard. T. Boone Pickens wants to go to wind for lighting our homes and gas for transportation. Do we really need to transition to natural gas for our cars or will we be clever enough to make the transition once to electric?
Measuring poverty. Federal poverty line: 20,444 for a family of four, which has been relatively stable in real terms since 1968. Proposed level for New York City using a new methodology: 27,138. That means 23% of New York's population is poor, up from 19%. I don't have any real thoughts on this - changing the numbers doesn't do much to change the problem.
Teachers' Unions. Sure, teachers' unions can be part of the solution, but will they and should they? Teachers' unions fight for higher wages and equal for their people and oppose anything that would make it easier for the boss to cut employees loose. The result is social pressure not to try too hard and make your peers look bad, and mediocre teachers being the most vocal folks in union meetings. But that's some of what education in America needs - more pay for good teachers and less job security for bad ones.
China's Economic Constitution. I'm a little cynical, but this will probably be like the contract law for workers' rights - it'll hit the books but no one will enforce it, and few among the public will even know about it. For those of you saying "contract law for worker rights in China?"... exactly.
Measuring poverty. Federal poverty line: 20,444 for a family of four, which has been relatively stable in real terms since 1968. Proposed level for New York City using a new methodology: 27,138. That means 23% of New York's population is poor, up from 19%. I don't have any real thoughts on this - changing the numbers doesn't do much to change the problem.
Teachers' Unions. Sure, teachers' unions can be part of the solution, but will they and should they? Teachers' unions fight for higher wages and equal for their people and oppose anything that would make it easier for the boss to cut employees loose. The result is social pressure not to try too hard and make your peers look bad, and mediocre teachers being the most vocal folks in union meetings. But that's some of what education in America needs - more pay for good teachers and less job security for bad ones.
China's Economic Constitution. I'm a little cynical, but this will probably be like the contract law for workers' rights - it'll hit the books but no one will enforce it, and few among the public will even know about it. For those of you saying "contract law for worker rights in China?"... exactly.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Eleven Reasons Journalists Should Know More Economics
This article comes courtesy of Agnes. It's basically a poorly-written, off-target rant about how our society has become scarcely better than socialism. Well, besides the fact that income has diverged over the period in question, the government also actually provides fewer public services, does less for the poor, poses less of a burden on businesses (sometimes to a fault), has generally been measured to have moved to the right ideologically, and if there has been a move in the way the government directs economics, it has been rightward towards fascism (favoring special private business interests) rather than to the left (favoring direct state control). Other than THAT, let's try to be fair to this guy's "11 reasons."
1. "Dumber than a fifth grader with cognitive dissonance" He explains that this just means that we've become ideologically narrow-minded. This one's just funny because the guy obviously idolizes Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan and dare I say, exhibits the "cognitive dissonance" he's accusing us of.
1. "Dumber than a fifth grader with cognitive dissonance" He explains that this just means that we've become ideologically narrow-minded. This one's just funny because the guy obviously idolizes Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan and dare I say, exhibits the "cognitive dissonance" he's accusing us of.
2. "Where did all the leaders go with their moral character?" Basic idea: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Problem is, that quotation comes from the 19th century. So, I guess this guy was around in the 1800s, and can testify to the moral character of Thomas Jefferson (diddling houseservants), Andrew Jackson (murdering a guy over a woman), or Alexander Hamilton (getting killed in a duel)?
3. "Fed and U.S. Treasury adopted Enron accounting tricks" Here he just starts making stuff up, like that the Man "dumped" Bear's Fannie's & Freddie's liabilities "onto the taxpayers' 'balance sheet'." I think this is just his "grumpy old man" coming out, but he's showing a total lack of understanding of what happened with the loans extended to help keep these companies from going under. But Reagan was this guy's hero - didn't Reagan get us into the deregulation, Savings & Loan mess and other misadventures in malfeasance. Be fair. Are you on the rolls of NewsCorp?
4. "Deregulation creating new socialist housing system" Raise your hand if you know what this means. I don't. Deregulation did a lot of horrible things to make the mess we're in, but it didn't creata a socialist anything. In fact most of the foreclosures and price bubbles (which have begun popping) were on those lower-value homes. So, thankfully for the author, those beneficiaries of the socialist housing policies are again renters in miserable slums. Chalk one up for the rich old white guys.
5. "Trade deficits outsourced more of America's wealth than jobs" This is just false. At best he has the tail wagging the dog, and the initial culprit of both was an unusually strong dollar (based on so-called fundamentals. The theoretical causal relationship between trade deficits and outsourcing in a flexible exchange rate economy is that the trade deficits will eventually depreciate the currence, thus turning investment inward and retaining both wealth and jobs domestically. A handful of other policies by the US Treasury, Fed, and IMF kept the dollar high and the normal correction process for trade deficits was stifled.
6. "Banking system in meltdown, minting penny stocks" He starts with something off-point about Shumpeter and "creative destruction, and then, to quote, "You don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader to figure out that our leaders are clueless about the reality of our crumbling banking system, with many banks trading as penny stocks, while the Fed still panders to conservative pre-election politics rather than getting serious about inflation." Really? Ever had a conversation about finance with a fifth grader? And Meltdown? Ok, times are tough but I would propose that our banking system has seen worse times, and the JP Morgans of the system manage to survive. Also, banks aren't the ones issuing these "penny stocks." If they are then I have even less of a clue what he's talking about.
7. "Ideologues preach savings, but still push spending" This is a fair point, but that's just politics - politicians run on 2- to 6-year election cycles and savings really doesn't do much in the short term to get them reelected. But is this guy actually proposing a "President for Life" like they have in Zimbabwe? And is this anything new? Nixon ... NIXON said, "we are all Keynesians now," but that's not even the best part - the original quotation that ran in Time in 1968 (?) comes from (wait for it) ... MILTON FRIEDMAN, or author's other hero!
8. "Warning, the market's under 2000 peak, losing money" Yeah. I checked the data and he's not wrong about this, but he is being a jackass. The facts he cites hasn't a damn thing to do with the current market, banking crisis, or so-called recession. Two major crashes hit that were waaaaay worse than this one but nobody really got out of whack: 1. 9-11, and; 2. The invasion of Afghanistan. Since the invasion of Afghanistan the market's up about 40%, even with the current turbulence. In a volatile climate you can usually pick your reference point and find a way that you can scare people. Good one, buddy. He goes on to compound his douchebaggery by exaggerating inflation: he says that the 10% drop was more like a 50% drop, inflation-adjusted. Uuummm, sorry, the prices have not nearly doubled in the last 8+ years.
9. "Inflation and dollars: Is Zimbabwe the new model for the U.S.?" First, I'm surprised if you're still reading. Second, I hope you're not my mother. Comparing the two countries, he says, "Things may be worse in America, psychologically." I don't think there's any words for this other than "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?" This is even douchebaggier than the previous nonsense about the DOW.
10. "Free-market health care failing 47,000,000 Americans" I don't get it. He laments the fact that America is becoming "socialist," but he almost sounds like he's calling for the governmnet to get its mitts in the health care sector. Or, maybe he's just bitching and moaning.
11. "Conservative free-market policies inflated oil 300%!" I'm not sure where he's going with this. While it is market forces that are driving the rise in oil, most of it is demand side, some of it is supply-side, some of it is market structure, some of it is political risk (Venezuela, Iran, Iraq), some of it is speculation, and it has little to do with conservatism. A smart conservative would notice that certain gaps in the regulatory structure have been exploited (smartly) by speculators - but these speculators will get theirs when (not if) the price falls again in real terms (which, by the way, I've already called and is already playing out).
Basically all I can conclude from this is that this dude belongs on his porch drinking PBR and yelling at the g.d. kids running across his lawn. His facts are often wrong, his analysis is often off-point, and his writing style is poor (and if I can tell you that you know it's bad...).
11. "Conservative free-market policies inflated oil 300%!" I'm not sure where he's going with this. While it is market forces that are driving the rise in oil, most of it is demand side, some of it is supply-side, some of it is market structure, some of it is political risk (Venezuela, Iran, Iraq), some of it is speculation, and it has little to do with conservatism. A smart conservative would notice that certain gaps in the regulatory structure have been exploited (smartly) by speculators - but these speculators will get theirs when (not if) the price falls again in real terms (which, by the way, I've already called and is already playing out).
Basically all I can conclude from this is that this dude belongs on his porch drinking PBR and yelling at the g.d. kids running across his lawn. His facts are often wrong, his analysis is often off-point, and his writing style is poor (and if I can tell you that you know it's bad...).
Question of the Day for Lou Dobbs
Something just struck me. How is it that there are no unskilled jobs for hard working Americans because of FDI and "offshoring" by US firms, and yet there are so many unskilled jobs that it attracts a couple million unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants each year (to subsequently steal the jobs away)? Could there be a logical fallacy being made by the d-bag who accused economists of being "idiots" and "jackasses" who don't do any empirical analysis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)