Yes, that much I do understand, Citizen Dunkerson, although I wouldn't go so far as labelling the Chicago Boys feudalists. I think "free-market capitalist" covers what you're saying quite ably.To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Yeah, but tell that to...
[sees Lord Dice]
...hold on a second, Citizen D.
Oi! You spotty aristo f~&%er!
[Throws stones leftover from the pelting of Citizens X and Neighbours]
And stay out!
Instead we spend like bandits in the good times trying to keep the bubbles growing and try to cut when the bubble inevitably pops. Counter cyclical government spending smooths out the highs and lows. Using the government to amplify them is insane.
Of course, what's also lost in this high level analysis is that it matters very much where the spending goes. You want it where it will do the most good - high economic multiplier. Spending on infrastructure that will generate more actual wealth is obviously good. Money going to the poor is good because they'll spend it and it will circulate through the economy.
Pumping more money into the already bloated Wall Street casino does very little.
Yes, yes, good, I comprehend all of this, too!
These same Marxian-Keynesian Monthly Review dudes have pointed to the end of the building of the federal highway system as some key marker in understanding the post-war American extended boom. And, of course, all of that from-a-human-perspective-unnecessary-but-perhaps-vital-to-American-capitali sm? military spending.
I am surprised to learn from Citizen D. that unions have nothing to do with Keynsianism, though. Who, I'd argue, have done more to get money to the poor than any government spending program ever (most of those defense jobs are--or were, anyway--also union jobs, btw).
So, is that just a historical happenstance? That the unions formed an alliance with Roosevelt and his Brain Trust Boys?
(I'd be interested in hearing from any of our international brethren on how trade-unions and Keynsianism have gone or not gone together in your respective countries. Thank you in advance.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in the meantime, I would like to draw everyone's attention to some of the Commonwealth Party of Galt's literature on some of the issues that we've been discussing here.
And, although there are some embarrassing typos, there are some pertinent points under the Demands section:
▶ Rapid conversion to the use of renewable energy sources, such as wind, wave and solar power. This can
put millions of the unemployed to work as an emergency measure to kick-start the economy.
▶ Take the Profit Out of Energy!--Bring public utilities under public democratic workers’ control.
▶ Massive expansion of public transportation with green energy and union jobs.
▶ Development of the rail network so that short and medium haul air travel can be reduced and then replaced
▶ Conversion of the car industry to using renewable energy sources. This program can put millions of
unemployed people to work. It should be combined with retraining of workers in polluting industries with
full pay and union rights during retraining.
▶ To pay for a massive green jobs program, we need to tax the richest 1% and the big corporations.
Alas, it doesn't call for international proletarian socialist revolution. Wussies.
Vive le Galt!
|
Unions did good work in the past, but now I question them. Seems to me that they are really just another political entity useing fllowers to get what the union leaders want, which isn't always what the people need. Of course maybe I just hate the idea of some union guy I never met, telling me whether I'm allowed to work or not.
As for democratic things, I use the word moderation.
Kick starting the economy with temporary jobs is only a short term solution. When those jobs are complete, you again have way too many jobless people.
Profit needs to be taken out of everything. People should advance in wealth, station, and prestige, based on something other then money. Preferably something that can be obtained with taking from someone else.
Take the profits out of the car industry and you don't have to convince anyone to convert to green energy,they'll do it anyway, since there is no more profit to be made by dragging their feet and holding back on green vehicles.
Removing profits completely requires a system where individuals don't work for money, which means no need to tax the richest for infrastructure. Though some money will likely need to be kept, but moving the monatary focus completely to luxuries would be beneficial, depending on implementation.
f course maybe I just hate the idea of some union guy I never met, telling me whether I'm allowed to work or not.
I am curious as to what you mean exactly, DLH.
For example, no union guy ever tells me whether I am allowed to work or not. In fact, I am the union guy where I work and I never tell someone whether they are allowed to work or not. That's management job.
(Of course, I do get to run around and tell the supervisors they're not allowed to work, which is always fun.)
There are other arrangements, however, such as hiring halls, and, of course, since this is the United States, there's always corruption, so, I was wondering exactly what you mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in the meantime, I would like to draw everyone's attention to some of the Commonwealth Party of Galt's literature on some of the issues that we've been discussing here.
And, although there are some embarrassing typos, there are some pertinent points under the Demands section:
▶ Rapid conversion to the use of renewable energy sources, such as wind, wave and solar power. This can
put millions of the unemployed to work as an emergency measure to kick-start the economy.
▶ Take the Profit Out of Energy!--Bring public utilities under public democratic workers’ control.
▶ Massive expansion of public transportation with green energy and union jobs.
▶ Development of the rail network so that short and medium haul air travel can be reduced and then replaced
▶ Conversion of the car industry to using renewable energy sources. This program can put millions of
unemployed people to work. It should be combined with retraining of workers in polluting industries with
full pay and union rights during retraining.
▶ To pay for a massive green jobs program, we need to tax the richest 1% and the big corporations.Alas, it doesn't call for international proletarian socialist revolution. Wussies.
Vive le Galt!
That's an awesome list of awesome things and I couldn't agree more on them. I would add, however, legislation about off-shore bank accounts (an infinitesimal tax on all bank transactions so we can track where this money goes and how much of it there is) and a wealth tax so the uber rich stop hoarding all the golds. Thom Hartmann has a "no billionaires" campaign, wherein there is a 100% wealth tax of all money over 1 billion. I think this is unnecessarily harsh, but I think a progressive wealth tax might be in order to put a fire under their butts to spend that wad.
How about removing the upper limit on payroll taxes? That'd basically instantaneously shore up SS/Medicare into the 30th century.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kick starting the economy with temporary jobs is only a short term solution. When those jobs are complete, you again have way too many jobless people.
Actually it's not, which is kind of the point. If we spend a few trillion on infrastructure (converting to wind/solar/wave/nuclear/whathaveyou, rail improvements, electric cars, highways, bridges, et al.) you'll put millions of people to work. If you actually pay them well, you'll stimulate the aggregate demand sufficiently so that once the temporary jobs are done with, the economy will have been so boosted that there will be new jobs for them elsewhere. It's pretty much exactly what our plan was for the first decade after WWII, and it worked spectacularly, both for us and (with the Marshall plan) for Europe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
literature
Woops. Townes Van Zandt is pretty awesome, but the CPG(M-L) doesn't take positions on artistic questions. Fixed the link.
That's an awesome list of awesome things and I couldn't agree more on them.
Oh, good, I'm glad you like them.
How about removing the upper limit on payroll taxes?
How about expropriating the bourgeoisie? C'mon! Who's with me?!?
How about removing the upper limit on payroll taxes? That'd basically instantaneously shore up SS/Medicare into the 30th century
I'm kind of blah on it. It's a technical fix for SS, but the problem is really broader than that. The reason SS is underfunded is that more of the income is going to the rich and is thus untaxed for SS purposes. Changing the SS tax structure fixes that for SS, but doesn't treat the underlying problem. Fix the income inequality problem and not only is changing the SS tax cap unneeded, but a whole chunk of other problems go away.
And there is no cap on the Medicare portion. Similarly, we could bump up the Medicare tax, since it's quite small, but we really need to get a handle on health care costs in general. Then we wouldn't need to bump Medicare taxes.
This is true. I'm sorry I truncated my original post because I was in a hurry. Other ideas that work with my previous post are: roll Medicare and SS into universal healthcare and repeal medicare part D so we can negotiate prices for medicine.
...also cut the "defense" budget by a third (for a start).
I mean, seriously, ten easy steps to fixing--wealth inequality, the stagnant economy, climate change, the national debt, and health care. BAM!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
f course maybe I just hate the idea of some union guy I never met, telling me whether I'm allowed to work or not.I am curious as to what you mean exactly, DLH.
For example, no union guy ever tells me whether I am allowed to work or not. In fact, I am the union guy where I work and I never tell someone whether they are allowed to work or not. That's management job.
Isn't that a fairly standard line in support of 'Right To Work'?
It's one of the ways they get working class folks to support stomping on the unions.
Of course maybe I just hate the idea of some union guy I never met, telling me whether I'm allowed to work or not.
I hate the idea of people making up things to support their own agenda.
I was in the UFCW for a while. I was hired by management. Management made the schedules. The union wasn't involved in either of those, so they didn't tell me if or when I could work at all.
I differ there. We need to add more marginal rates and crank the top ones way up. I agree that all income should be treated the same. No loopholes for hedge fund management and the like. OTOH, I'm all for more deductions and exemptions based on what you do with the money. Giving it to charity. Investing in business - actual businesses not the stock market casino. Encourage things we want done with big money.
Here's my proscribed solution:
Progressive taxation on capital gains. I think that if you invest wisely for retirement, that's something we should incentivize. If you're living off your investments there should be a certain amount you can "earn" in a year without taxes-random out of my butt figure: 20k. Then a standard progressive tax schedule.
I think there are things we can do to incentivize investment in business rather than financial markets, and we should just divorce the two ideas legally and tax-wise. Right now it's very difficult for a regular Joe to invest in a business other than through openly traded stocks. I think that things like Kickstarter (but that actually return your investment) that are coming about might make crowdfunding an actual investment opportunity and that excites me to no end!
I was in the UFCW for a while. I was hired by management. Management made the schedules. The union wasn't involved in either of those, so they didn't tell me if or when I could work at all.
Yes, that has also been my experience.
At the same time, though, and maybe it's my politroll contrarianess surfacing again, it does happen.
I was in the UFCW for a while. I was hired by management. Management made the schedules. The union wasn't involved in either of those, so they didn't tell me if or when I could work at all.Yes, that has also been my experience.
At the same time, though, and maybe it's my politroll contrarianess surfacing again, it does happen.
If it helps, the passage of Right to Work laws correlate with a drop in average wages.
Um, you don't need to convince me to oppose Right to Work.
I wasn't trying to convince you, just cheer you up... with a little schadenfreude.
Oh. Sorry.
Anyway, anyone else care to pontificate on what went wrong with American Keynsianism?
Because I really want to know.
I'm going to sleep now and when I wake up I want answers!
Keynes was the shit from the thirties to the end of the seventies. At that point, there was a pretty little something called stagflation. This was a sharp inflation and a high unemployment at the same time, something Keynes did not deal with. There were many causes of this, but the biggest reason was that across the West, the governments had full freedom to perform all the functions of modern central banks themselves. This was used to shape the various parameters of economic governance according to the wishes of the government, putting political poll results above any sort of financial good practice. Another cause was that the governments also wanted strong controls of the money, and there were many hoops to jump through in getting foreign money. After a while of this, with Keynes giving no answers, people started searching for an alternative. It happens. And just because it is not perfect now does not mean everything will get better if we try to change things back.
Thank you, Madame Sissyl, I knew I could rely on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically what Krensky said a while back. OPEC happened. See the "Yom Kippur War" and the 1973 Oil Crisis. The funny thing is that if we'd listened to Jimmy Carter and converted to solar 35 years ago, the rest of the economy would have straightened out. Without the dependence on foreign oil, Keynes' theories and practices would have made us right as rain. But the Iran hostage crisis happened, the Reagan Revolution happened, and we've been back to boom and bust ever since. Each boom gets boomier, and each bust gets bustier.
Solar energy? As in, solar energy of the 80s? A technology which has matured for 35 years since and is STILL not feasible for large scale energy production, that is your serious suggestion for becoming energy independent in the eighties?
No further questions, your honour.
Solar energy? As in, solar energy of the 80s? A technology which has matured for 35 years since and is STILL not feasible for large scale energy production, that is your serious suggestion for becoming energy independent in the eighties?
No further questions, your honour.
[concentrates mightily, trying the read the mind of a floating skull]
Hmmm.... Of course he could answer that if we had serioulsy begun to invest in it back in the seventies, the technology would be much more mature by now.
And of course, we do have solar powerplants since the seventies (Themis), which have taken a back seat to nuclear power. And of course, solar power isn't really a solution for Sweden.
But yes, at the time, it's mightily expensive, and anyway can only serve to reduce the dependance on fossil fuel, not eliminate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Solar energy? As in, solar energy of the 80s? A technology which has matured for 35 years since and is STILL not feasible for large scale energy production, that is your serious suggestion for becoming energy independent in the eighties?
No further questions, your honour.
Save that this is at least partly codswallop.
As pointed out before, Germany already produced around 20% of its electrical base load via variable renewable as is on route for a doubling of this in the next few years. Already, on the best days, they are exporting large amount of solar derived energy. Large scale micro generation, is a bid part of the problem, but it needs a storage infrastructure, which is difficult to build....
Save that we may well not need to one, last years car of the year, the tesla is a very large battery. If all cars are electric, then the grid has a massive storage pool.
Add in non-variable renewables, new cleaner fission reactor types, foodwaste/sewage powered bio-ethonol reactors, and you start to get a power system which works on a far lower carbon budget. Which gives us more time to work of fusion.
And thats before you start on reducing demand, via greater energy efficiency in design. We have a twelve watt 12 LED bulb with 1600 lumens, literally about to hit the market.
Simple schemes to help home owners insulate their homes properly, can have significant effects.
Yes, basically that.
Becoming energy independent through sustainable energy in the 1970s would have been a good thing. CRAZY RIGHT?! If you watch TV or film from the 1970s they treat it like a foregone conclusion that oil was on its way out.
You might find it hard to believe, but there weren't coal-burning power plants in every town the world over back when electricity began to be used. Ya know, it takes time and both public and private investment to build infrastructure.
Yes, basically that.
Becoming energy independent through sustainable energy in the 1970s would have been a good thing. CRAZY RIGHT?! If you watch TV or film from the 1970s they treat it like a foregone conclusion that oil was on its way out.You might find it hard to believe, but there weren't coal-burning power plants in every town the world over back when electricity began to be used. Ya know, it takes time and both public and private investment to build infrastructure.
Wow, my mental powers work both on skulls and gobboes ! Time to find a market for that...
The issue was that if a push had been made in the 70s and 80s for Solar power, at least the US would have been energy independent. When I question this, I get references to other types of renewables, including "new cleaner fission reactor types" and such. You missed the part about how 1) A push WAS made for solar. The effects were not energy independence, 2) The "new cleaner fission reactor types" WERE built, and are the fission plants the greens now complain about.
Another relevant issue is how you plan to institute "reducing demand, via greater energy efficiency in design". It would be a good thing to see an actual historical example of a society decreasing their energy demand, that is, without going through massive bombings of the infrastructure or similar disasters. Otherwise, I call bull. Or perhaps codswallop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue was that if a push had been made in the 70s and 80s for Solar power, at least the US would have been energy independent. When I question this, I get references to other types of renewables, including "new cleaner fission reactor types" and such. You missed the part about how 1) A push WAS made for solar. The effects were not energy independence, 2) The "new cleaner fission reactor types" WERE built, and are the fission plants the greens now complain about.
Another relevant issue is how you plan to institute "reducing demand, via greater energy efficiency in design". It would be a good thing to see an actual historical example of a society decreasing their energy demand, that is, without going through massive bombings of the infrastructure or similar disasters. Otherwise, I call bull. Or perhaps codswallop.
When was this push for solar made? There's only NOW beginning to have ANY sort of traction for renewable energy in the states.
Also, it sounds like in early 1969 you would have been all like "give me a historical example of a society managing to put a man on the moon" yadda yadda. You act as if, because something has never happened, it therefore can't happen. Which is nonsensical.
Reducing demand isn't the problem in the first place, it's meeting that ever increasing demand with renewable sources and doing so EFFICIENTLY. If houses are built that have a 20% heat loss due to inefficiency in the winter...stop building houses using that model! The crazy thing is that the oil scare in the 70s made people do those sorts of things. I grew up in a house where we insulated the windows and wore sweaters rather than tax the furnace.
Even if you doubt AGW, you have to realize that fossil fuels are a finite resource, right? Why on earth would you fight tooth and nail the very idea of using renewable energy sources, if not just to be contrarian?
Not at all. What I am question is a very specific claim: That the US (maybe more countries) would have been independent on fossil fuels if a push had been made in the 70/80s to use SOLAR energy, probably on time to avoid the troubles with the oil crisis. As was pointed out, Carter wanted more solar, and instituted subsidies for it.
Renewable energy is great. However, I quote Monbiot: "There is enough to fry us all". The further on we go, the less it seems peak oil is going to happen. Oil production is rising. Prices are falling. Eventually, certainly, it will end, but it no longer seems as threatening as it did.
Putting a man on the moon is most likely easy to do compared to decreasing the energy demands of a population. That is why I want to see your example of it. I will make do with your admission that it has not happened yet. And of course, it has been a well known truth for a long time that increased efficiency by no means leads to a reduction in consumption. If I remember correctly, there was a law named after a dead white guy to that effect.
EDIT: Ah, found it. Jevon's paradox means that technological improvements to efficiency do not decrease use of that resource. It can have any number of other positive effects, though. It may also be possible to decrease consumption and demand by artificially raising the price, but you're not going to succeed in "reducing demand, via greater energy efficiency in design".
I quote meatrace: "The funny thing is that if we'd listened to Jimmy Carter and converted to solar 35 years ago, the rest of the economy would have straightened out. Without the dependence on foreign oil, Keynes' theories and practices would have made us right as rain. But the Iran hostage crisis happened, the Reagan Revolution happened, and we've been back to boom and bust ever since. Each boom gets boomier, and each bust gets bustier."
This was about what to should have been done about the pissy economic situation in the late 70s, early 80s. Apparently, switching to energy independency via solar would have prevented this crisis.
http://bespokeinvest.typepad.com/bespoke/2008/05/oil-price-chart.htmlDoes not look like a falling price to me.
Thank you, that claim did seem onerous to me.
She probably means gas prices, which at the moment (at least around here) are dropping. Which isn't surprising, it's called the bumpy plateau. Basically the prices (along with production) just sort of jiggle up and down, slowly edging upward, so that whenever the masses start to THINK about an alternative energy source (like they did in the 70s) the prices come down juuuuust enough so shut everyone up. But they're still rising, each cycle up ups and downs, just enough to remain inelastic.At the moment, due largely to the proliferation of fracking, oil production is slowly increasing.
It looks like even freaking China is moving towards renewables. They've said they want 40 GW of solar by 2015, and if anyone can do it they can.
I quote meatrace: "The funny thing is that if we'd listened to Jimmy Carter and converted to solar 35 years ago, the rest of the economy would have straightened out. Without the dependence on foreign oil, Keynes' theories and practices would have made us right as rain. But the Iran hostage crisis happened, the Reagan Revolution happened, and we've been back to boom and bust ever since. Each boom gets boomier, and each bust gets bustier."
This was about what to should have been done about the pissy economic situation in the late 70s, early 80s. Apparently, switching to energy independency via solar would have prevented this crisis.
I know English isn't your first language, but even you must realize you're grasping at straws here.
The increased stimulation to demand by huge government subsidies to renewable energy, both research, infrastructure, and implementation, could have carried us out of the recession. The realization that it was energy prices that were causing the economy to flag, not a failure of Keynesian models, should have kept people from panicking and looking to any old a~$+@$# (Friedman) to succor.
But, as has been pointed out, Jimmy Carter's ideas never came to fruition because of a highly suspect October Surprise and the Reaganoids coming into power.
|
|
What I am question is a very specific claim: That the US (maybe more countries) would have been independent on fossil fuels if a push had been made in the 70/80s to use SOLAR energy, probably on time to avoid the troubles with the oil crisis. As was pointed out, Carter wanted more solar, and instituted subsidies for it.
And Reagan immediately reversed that policy. It is impossible to know what would have happened if we had implemented significant funding for solar energy research (and even what Carter backed was a pittance compared to fossil fuel subsidies). We certainly could have had inexpensive solar hot water heating for most of the U.S. Electricity generation is less certain in my mind as many of the advances which have allowed that to become cheaper than coal were made in materials science and would have been difficult to accelerate.
The further on we go, the less it seems peak oil is going to happen.
Given a planet of finite size, peak oil is going to happen. Peak 'cheap' oil (i.e. the traditional kind where you just drill a simple hole in the ground and the stuff comes pouring out) already has. If battery technology for electric vehicles improves then fracking and deep-water extraction will no longer be economically viable.
And of course, it has been a well known truth for a long time that increased efficiency by no means leads to a reduction in consumption. If I remember correctly, there was a law named after a dead white guy to that effect.
Jevons paradox. William Stanley Jevons noted that increased efficiency of coal power had led to more widespread use (particularly for railroads) sufficient to vastly increase total consumption.
However, that case was an example of inexpensive power allowing entirely new industries to develop. Transitioning from fossil fuel power to renewable power would not have a similar effect unless renewable power was so much cheaper that it allowed whole new applications (e.g. powered roadways that continually recharge all cars traveling on them) to become affordable.
There is enough to deep-fry the lot of us.
I also find it VERY interesting that you showed me an oil price curve that ended in 2008... Surely you are aware that that's impressively dishonest.
On top of not really being followed all that faithfully. Nixon held inflation off with price controls, delaying but worsening the problems. We'd been doing unproductive (war) deficit spending for years by that point, ignoring the Keynsian prescription for cutting government spending during the boom cycle.
Oh yes yes! Don't let me pass up a chance to point out how badly Nixon shat in the bath! Maybe if we'd gotten out of 'Nam in 1968 like LBJ wanted. Who screwed that one up again?
The funny thing is the idea that supply-side economics is IN ANY WAY fiscally conservative. If you're a true conservative you'd want the government OUT of the economy, not messing with things, letting markets do their job.
Running huge, stupid wars because you're too blind to see that the enemy's propaganda might not be the truth is about the most murderously incompetent thing you can do if you want a good economy. Sure, some military suppliers do well in wartime, and jobs are important... but the rest of the economy will end up in tatters.
I am quite in agreement that waging war is stupid. That is why the US should stop doing it, or stop complaining about a bad economy.
Running huge, stupid wars because you're too blind to see that the enemy's propaganda might not be the truth is about the most murderously incompetent thing you can do if you want a good economy. Sure, some military suppliers do well in wartime, and jobs are important... but the rest of the economy will end up in tatters.
I am quite in agreement that waging war is stupid.
Do you live in a country where virtually 1/3 of the entire budget is defense? It's beyond insane.
I've never heard of Sweden being big on such stuff.