Yes Randy, you should definitely spend more time "trying" to complete the third grade and perhaps put a little effort into improving your social skills before trying to explain anything to RR, Ace or my self....

Thanks....:excited:

 

Like other right wing economic arguments, that makes intuitive sense to those who are rich, or who enjoy identifying with those who are, while it does not fit the facts.

Throughout the Roosevelt administration the top tax rate increased. Unemployment declined, except in 1938 when the Roosevelt administration and the Democratic Congress made the mistake of cutting government spending.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Also, from the administrations of Lyndon Johnson to that of George W. Bush there has always been more job creation under Democratic Presidents than under Republican presidents. There was also more job creation under Harry Truman than Dwight Eisenhower.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The top tax rate has usually been higher under Democratic than Republican presidents.

In my comment #525 in this thread, I demonstrated that there has usually been more economic growth under Democratic that Republican presidents. This is because Republican economic policies have the direct and obvious effect of benefiting the rich. Democratic policies, like strong labor unions, raising the minimum wage, unemployment compensation, and domestic spending programs that help those who are not rich, raise the spending power of those who are not rich. This makes them better consumers. When they consume more businessmen hire more.

It probably does not take many more people to build a Cadillac than a Chevrolet, but many more people are in the Chevrolet price range, so when the government adopts policies that benefit those in the Chevrolet price range more jobs are created.

 

the left likes to go on about the roosevelt admin employment figures. But they always leave out that there was a great depression that started in 1929. Employment figures could only go up from where it was during the depression. Giving him credit is like giving the rooster credit for the sunrise.

Your post dwindles from there.

And you end up with an irrelevant Caddy/Chevy comparison so I'm going to dumb it down even further.

if the person buying the car every 2 years, changes to buying every 4 years it hurts the car maker and the car maker's employees.

 

Economists cannot prove their theories the way scientists in the experimental sciences can. We cannot go back in time, chose a different policy, and measure different results. Nevertheless, life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated president. That is why he was reelected three times, and why Republicans have never been able to repeal the basic reforms of the New Deal.

During the Great Depression classical economists - that is to say those in the tradition of Adam Smith and David Ricardo - did say the country would eventually pull out of the Depression if the government refrained from intervening in the economy. However, during the administration of Herbert Hoover this was obviously not happening.

The classical economists argued that during periods of high unemployment employees would agree to work for less, so it would become profitable to hire them. John Maynard Keynes argued that this would cause demand to stabilize at a lower level. Lower paid employees would buy less, so there would still be less consumption, less production, and less hiring. Keynes argued that anything that put more people to work, and that increased their incomes would increase consumption, and consequently hiring.

By instituting minimum wage laws, protecting and strengthening labor unions, and hiring people directly the New Deal achieved this, so the unemployment rate declined.

 

Karl Marx argued that under capitalism productivity increases faster than incomes. Consequently, manufacturers produce more than they can sell. This leads to over production, and layoffs. Marx predicted that economic downturns would become increasingly destructive. This did happen. One can argue that Marx accurately predicted and explained the Great Depression.

Now that the policies of Keynes have been scaled back by the Republican ascendancy recessions are becoming increasingly destructive.

 

Good news, high gas prices haven't cause everything else to rise. . . yet!

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -





The government's key measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, showed prices rose 0.4% in February, the most since last April and in line with economists' expectations.
After stripping out volatile energy and food prices, core inflation was up only 0.1% in the month.



The ideal inflation rate, at least according to the Federal Reserve, is around 2% a year. Compared to last year, the CPI is up 2.9%, but core inflation -- the Fed's preferred measure -- is up only 2.2%.
On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve said higher gas prices are likely to drive inflation higher but only temporarily.
That's because the economy still has a lot of room to grow. Although the job market has started to improve recently, 12.8 million people remain unemployed. Meanwhile, home prices are at their lowest levels since 2002.


http://www.ktbs.com/CPI-Inflation-s...-high-gas-prices/-/144944/9351994/-/wk7qm5/-/

​

 

Still, gas prices keep rising. The jump at the pump could slow growth if consumers are forced to cut back on other purchases. The average price for a gallon of gas on Friday was $3.83, according to AAA. That’s 32 cents higher than a month ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...flation-tame/2012/03/16/gIQAYYIKGS_story.html

​

And if they don't cut back, they'll charge more and save less!!

 

Sure. "One" could make that argument. If "one" were either a simpleton or desperate to defend one's faulty misconceptions. Making the argument does not make it true. Marx did nothing of the sort.

Your closing remark about Keynes is a typical faulty conclusion, drawn from a bad premise.

Marx's remarks about productivity and capitalism also made faulty assumptions. That is why his ideas so often fail, when applied to the real world.

For instance: the assumption of infinite supply. Marx's ideas about productivity and overcapacity obviously do not apply to energy, do they? Boy, would it be nice to have too much of that, for a change!


No remarks from anyone on the Krauthammer op-ed, I see. Not surprising. I guess it's the typical M.O. around here: if anything appears that could threaten the myopic world view, we just let it ride up the page until it disappears. In the meantime, we spew bullshit about Keynes and Marx.

 

Karl Marx did not claim to be infallible. When he learned that others were claiming infallibility on his behalf he said, "I thank God that I am not a Marxist." I do believe he explained and predicted the increasingly destructive downturns from 1848 to 1932, and from 1980 to the present.

The problem with Marx's philosophy is that it is so complicated that those who like his message assume that everything he said is true, while those who dislike it assume that everything he said is false.

Krauthammer's column was so full of emotional rhetoric I am not sure what his argument was. The only way the government can reduce the price of gasoline, even for a brief time, is to weaken environmental standards, and reduce the gasoline tax. I want the government to move in opposite directions, while subsidizing non automotive means of transportation: public transportation, bicycle trails, and pedestrian walkways.

 

Marx predicted that deflation will happen. That does not mean he predicted the Great Depression, or the Carter era recession. Any more than Nostradamus predicted the rise of Hitler.

But I think in that respect we are pretty much in agreement and essentially saying the same thing.

Back to energy.

The things that you want, are great. As far as they go. But they do not obviate highways, trucks, and cars.

Vatican City could eliminate cars, and replace them with bicycles and walkways.

Lichtenstein? A stretch. Very hilly. But possible.

The United States? Please.

I probably sound like some kind of energy-Luddite, here. But that is not the case. I detest the energy of the past, as much as anyone. And I want the energy of the future, more than most.

But don't you think we're shooting ourselves in the foot, by shutting down the energy of the past, before the energy of the future exists?

Screw it. Here I go. Time to modernize.

I call the heating oil company, and I have them come in, empty my oil tank, cut it up with a torch, and cart out the pieces. Then I call NStar and have them cut the electrical feed to my house.

Then I call NextSolar, and I say, "Get over here. I need the energy of today, I have cash, and I'm ready to talk."

So a NextSolar dude comes over on his bicycle and says, "We can meet 15% of your energy needs with clean renewable solar. The system will pay for itself in 20 years, just in time for you to replace the panels."

"Whoa. Back up. I need you to meet 100% of my energy needs. It's freezing in here."

"What happened to your furnace, miss?"

"I had that old dinosaur hauled out of here. And I cut the power to the street. The power company makes its electricity with the fossil fuels of yesterday. I want the energy of today."

"You have a two acre parcel, Clarise. To meet 100% of your energy needs, we would have to cut down all the trees and install two acres of solar panels."

"Go away. You're fired."

So then I call the heating oil company back and tell them I need a new tank.

They come down with a new oil tank.

"No, no, not that thing. I want one of those new algae tanks. You know, like Obama said: the energy of today."

"We don't sell algae tanks. And besides, to meet your energy needs, you would need a 300,000 gallon tank."

"Go away. You're fired."

So then I call the pool company. "I want your biggest swimming pool."

"We can build a 30 by 50 foot olympic pool, if you have the space for it."

"No, no. I have two acres, and I need to fill the entire property with water, so I need a Gunite wall around the whole two acres."

"Why, miss?"

"So I can grow algae."

"Why, miss?"

"Because my furnace is gone and I'm freezing my butt off and I want the energy of today, that's why."

"Clarise, we build pools. Not lakes."

"Go away. You're fired."

So I call the windmill company. Cape Wind has been in litigation for years, so I figure they need the work. "Get over here. I need a windmill, ASAP."

So they come over. "We can build a two hundred foot windmill. It costs $80,000, and the permitting process and litigation cost an additional $350,000. The windmill can meet 20% of your energy needs, and it will pay for itself in 450 years."

"But I need 100% of my energy"--

"We can build only one windmill per two acres. You would need five windmills, on ten acres, at a cost of"--

"Go away. You're fired."

Then I call--- Oh. Sheesh. I can't call anyone. My iPhone battery is dead.

 

The "Carter era recession" was much milder than the Reagan recession that followed it.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

There was more job creation per year under Carter than Reagan,

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/V

and unemployment never got as high.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

 

Ya know,,I understand the concept of your dialogue in this post, it meets the token of common sense,,I hope you understand, that you are talking way above the heads of the leftists. It does not matter that you will only live 20% of your lifestyle, under the ''NEW ENERGY'' at this time in our lives,,,but damn it,,,,,CO2 is killing us.

 

CO2 is killing us. Literally. In tornadoes, and floods, and heat strokes. But you're just bullshitting yourself if you try to claim we in the US are doing anything about it.

But the main thing you brainwashed parrots don't understand is reality. The reality as I've already posted on this thread that oil is running out and the price is only keep going up over time.

 

DL ENOUGH!!
If you are going to make sweeping generalizations, at least do full disclosure. Or do a better job of hiding your oh so selective "facts" in your argument.

 

yawn. . . Chicken little is getting old!

 

What have I said that is not true?

 

Is that supposed to be a rational response? This winter was one of the warmest on record.

 

Yet, the ICE AGE is the coldest on record,,what's your point?

 

Leftists/liberal lies.........
New Fields May Propel Americas to Top of Oil Companies’ Lists

The US Government's Secret
Colorado Oil Discovery

 

This info came out in 2006

read the disclaimer
http://www.rense.com/disclaimer.htm

They use the link for Stansberry Associates which the link does not work.
Stansberry associates is a shock type penny stock tout that sells info on what they think will be the next big deal
here is there home-site
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/
I have run down many of there Bull Shit claims and they are for the most part BS

here is fact check ORG on this matter

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/