Re: OT: Shoulda listened to Carter


"greego" <greg.w.lindsay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6133e513-416a-4853-a998-d8d1bda00d23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nor is it to take us to the Moon, now... is it? Where I come
from, it's called 'leadership'... you're forgiven if you've forgotten
what it's like, it has been a while.

True, a rare accomplishment. Rare being the operative word.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my
presidential authority to set import quotas...

Import quotas lead to price hikes - and then when you then set price
controls on top you get shortages. Econ 101.

Price controls are the last gasp of an inflating dictatorship...
and nobody but you has brought them up. Red Herring.

Apologies, it was Nixon who set the price controls on oil imports.
But Carter didn't begin to remove them until the end of his
presidency.

They are certainly hard to implement and hard to remove...
a *very* last resort. The point could be made that *somebody*
would be burning that oil we're saving... but we'd be ahead
in the efficiency game. This oil/commodities shortage was
envisioned decades ago, and yet we didn't have the guts
to change over. I remember being a victim of this... speed
limits dropped drastically not too long after I started driving...
just after I got a motorcycle, too. I'm a big believer in the
market for speed limits... let folks go fast if they can afford
it, but tax the gas enough to slow the majority down some.
Now we've got big bloated multi-national oil companies
that aren't beholden to our citizens, only to stockholders...
and yet, they use up *national* resources. That's the problem
with the market/libertarian lassez-faire thing... resources dry
up to become valuable.


Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most
massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's
history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel...


Best developed in the marketplace as a result of price increases and/
or increased demand. Picking winners from above never works. Econ
101.

Yeah, like fighting cancer or AIDS has to be market-driven.
You were arguing *against* price increases recently, like
a few lines ago... new brain?

Huh? I was arguing against government intervention that causes price
rises. Of course prices will rise and fall naturally in a free market
depending on scarcity, innovation, risk-taking, etc.. Fighting cancer
or aids doesn't have to be market-driven - we just probably won't see
success without market incentives being there.

.... in a purely market-driven system, which is what you're advocating.
I'm not a big fan of lemmings and cliffs. The big deal here, is that
you're assuming that the market will do everything... but there's stuff
that's not going to be 'profitable', that we don't *want* profit driving...
medical being one of the biggies. The best drug in the world won't
get developed under your system unless it can be patented and
make money.

I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the
creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us
achieve
the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power
by the year 2000.

Picking winners never works.

Solar's pretty obvious... wind too. Isn't the stock market based
on picking winners? Isn't that how the market works? Aren't
you full of platitudes...

Government picking winners doesn't work because they're too far
removed from the issue and the right incentives aren't there. When
private investors put their own capital into a project they do their
own research and make a decision on how best to spend their own
money.

Plenty of stupidity and emotion involved with private investors...
they just create a bell curve distribution of capital, and the blind
pig eventually finds the acorn. Big things, like the Moon, take
leaps of faith and huge commitments. Private capital didn't get
us the Genome.

When governments spend money there's too much incentive to
follow whatever the special interests want or whatever will win them
votes - and there's less incentive to get it right as it's not their
money to start with.

Those incentives can, and are, being modulated. Also, not all
parts of government are elected, or are overtly (supposedly!)
political.

They also simply aren't close enough to the
problem to choose the right technologies, or too bought into one
scheme to pick up new ones as they come along.

The military is a counter-example... who best knows what
hardware they need? They are Government, perhaps one of
its best, shining examples. We've seen what lack of oversight
has brought... pure doo doo. Trimming down government
oversight of military contractors has caused tremendous
problems here in USA.

Carter put $88B into
the synfuels project and it failed miserably. Look at the current
failures in Ethanol.

Oh, I believe that some see success there... but I agree that turning
food into fuel is *always* a losing proposition. Crop failure equals
famine as well as transportation, infrastructure, etc problems...
not good.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why
Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay...


Tax the profit of producers and you reduce the incentive to produce
more. Econ 101.

And they're producing more *now*? Refinery capacity is artificially
kept low, for just such a reason. Big Oil is also screaming for new
drilling permits when they haven't even exploited what they have.
Producers will only hold out if they think they can get someone to
*repeal* the taxes... if it looks like they're in for the long term, then
they'll pony up.


Of course they want artificial bars raised on where they can drill as
the world's running out of oil. Taxing profits will lower production
further what it is now and prices will go up further.

Only if they believe that they can get more later... that's my point.
You forget the leverage we have... they're drilling *our* resources...
national treasures. This can be made to force their hands, at least
somewhat.

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter
of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of
oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels,
especially coal, our most abundant energy source...


Causes producer prices to spike and energy production to plummet.

Over a decade? Bullets must be bitten, as we are finding now.
Would we had started this early!


You don't know that going in this particular direction would've been
better than any other direction. And the whole country being forced
in one direction is the worst situation as compounds the risk - better
to have a free market trying out lots of things and spreading the risk
around.

.... and lose economies of scale. That's what a leader does... pick a
direction and point resources at obtaining it. The difference between
leading, and being led. I know libertariainism and lassez-faire seems
like a panacea... but it's not, it's just relying on inevitability, kinda
like Nature (survival of the fittest, natural selection, Darwinian
Economics).
Point being, what if the best future doesn't include *us*? You can
either sit back and watch the experiment, or you can go where you
want to get. Two very different philosophies, with perhaps different
outcomes... or perhaps not.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the
way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an
energy
mobilization board...


More bureaucracy never solved anything.

Put us on the moon, fool. Won a couple of world
wars. Developed the atomic bomb. I could go on...
government is not inherently evil, no matter what your
guru has told you.


I don't think government's inherently evil, it just needs to be
contained.

I submit that this is very different from 'government is the problem'.
'Containment' is, after all, a process of 'governing', right? 'To govern',
meaning to control? If something is not contained, then it cannot
be said to be under control, eh?

The moon was a success, but it cost a shitload of money.
Perhaps it would've been achieved at lower cost in the private
sector.

I'm pretty sure we can all see that we'd still be waiting for that...
frankly, that's one of the things I'll take to my grave... that I was
a member of the generation that saw us on the Moon. Didn't
feed anybody, but you'd be hard-pressed to find even poor
people that wish we hadn't gone.

Look at the x-prize for an example of what the free market
can achieve in that area.

Not even orbital... laughing-gas and bubble-gum powered
joy ride. We have robots running around on Mars! We
now understand the dynamics that created the Earth/Moon
system, the Solar System... we touch the face of God.
*That* is what government brings to the table... the capability
to do great things despite lack of immediate profit.

The atomic bombs and two world wars are
nothing too be proud of. If you think they are, then it's you who's
the fool, not me.

I'm not proud as a 'world citizen', I'm proud as an American...
a United States citizen. Indeed, a shame for Humanity... but
the USA's Shining Hour. Not like this Iraq mess...

Most other government projects fail or finish over-
budget.

So what? They finish. We get drinking water, we get
electricity, we get roads, we are protected from external
aggression. Really, the Libertarian's position is not a
well-thought-out one, IMO. You want Coke to supply
your drinking water? You want to rely on Exxon for
the purity of the air you breathe? The Altar of the Bottom
Line?

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve
every state, county, and city and every average American in our
energy
battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your
homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.


Meaningless.

Energy is best saved at the point of use... saves transmission
capacity and is more efficient. Imagine if every roofing shingle
was a solar cell... that's the vision Carter's having here.
You're not much of a 'big-picture' guy, are you?


Visions are cheap. Achieving them is costly, particularly if the
government is the one doing it.

Some things only the government can do... some things
only the government *should* be allowed to do.

Remove government subsidies on all
forms of energy and let the market choose the most cost-effective
technologies.

Energy, as well as food, is too critical to leave to
the whims of the market. You are in favor of
energy speculation? We've had problems with
that around here recently. Markets are too easy
to manipulate... people get hurt when fluctuations
are allowed to boom/bust critical commodities.
What stabilizes markets, anyway? Malthus?
Don't forget Lorentz!

In some circumstances storing up energy and
transmitting it out might be a better solution than storing at the
point of use - why restrict choices?

That's what we have scientists for... these kinds of
easily-decided efficiencies. There will be different
choices depending on climate, demands, needs, etc...
I'd have thought that you would be in agreement with
de-centralization of energy, it fits right in with self-reliance.

To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10
billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation
systems...


Look up 'boondoggle.'

... and you don't live in a big city, do you? How's that
Hummer treating you *now*?


I live in the biggest city in Australia. It's called Sydney; you may
have heard of it. I ride public transport to work as there's no way I
could get into the CBD any other way due to congested roads. Our
public transport system is a mess. It's inefficient, breaks down all
the time, the service is crap, etc.. Planning restrictions prevent
companies from coming in and building new roads so I don't think
things are going to get much better any time soon. I wouldn't buy a
Hummer, they use too much fuel.

Good on ye'... but you're arguing that your transport is crappy, and
yet it doesn't need more money? I don't get it... are you advocating
for more cars and roads? Or perhaps a corporation to take over
the PT?

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will
increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We
often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it
is
the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's
strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of
production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more
control over our own lives...


Blah.... blah... blah....

Make sure you have a hand free to shoot the messenger
while you've got both fingers in your ears... not easy.


I was referring to the emptiness of Carter's rhetoric - outcomes sell
themselves, they don't need elaborating on unless you like hearing
fairy tales.

It's a function of leadership... the hard sell. Less now, more later.
Good article in a recent Scientific American about how we value
or de-value future wealth and welfare... in actuarial terms. If you
give a future dollar a small figure in today's dollars, then the future
doesn't appear worth any sacrifice. Carter's big failing... not
very motivational... I voted for Ford, btw, he looked friendly, and
was not overtly religious.

Personally I'd rather focus on how to get there. Note
that Carter began to employ free market solutions towards the end of
his term after noting his policies were a disaster. Such as lifting
price caps on imported oil.

Oil should have been more expensive... no doubt about that.
This doesn't make government bad per se...

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy.
I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the
truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do
promise
you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our
struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We
can
manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but
there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There
is
simply no way to avoid sacrifice.


Blah... blah.... blah...

You probably *like* being in Iraq... you'd probably vote
to do it all again. Guess what... your time at bat is gone,
for decades probably. Nobody's buying that crap any more.


Ahh - the assumption that if I oppose a statist like Carter I must be
a Republican/conservative. No, I didn't vote for my country to go
into Iraq and I wouldn't have voted for yours either if I could have.
I'm a libertarian. War is a terrible thing when it's necessary - and
when it's unnecessary like Iraq it's just mass murder. The current US
administration and previous Australian government have blood on their
hands, that's for sure. I note that Obama wants to move on to killing
more Afghans instead while McCain wants to kill Iranians. Nice choice
you have over there.

I admit it... the Afghan thing, for me, it's pure revenge. *** those
guys... bin Ladin, the Taliban... it's all dangerous, what with nukes
in Pakistan etc. but I want bin Ladin's head on a stick.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, America's crazy right wing. We couldn't have ignored our most
important problems for three decades and thereby made them much worse
without you.

You are clueless. The only answer is to reduce the size of government
and let the market work. If you try and control the market you get
the conditions that existed in soviet union, cuba, etc..

Not much on history either... take a look at Europe... a
real hell-hole, eh? That Euro's a piece of toilet paper now,
isn't it? Once you understand the difference between
Communism and Socialism Hell will freeze over, who
am I kidding?


Are you saying that the Euro is a great currency? It's not. It just
happens to be a stronger than the US dollar.

Relatively great, then... seems pretty stable to me.

Blame the US federal
reserve and their printing press for that. At least the EU central
bank shows a little constraint and attempts to preserve the value of
its currency. Australia seems to manage it's currency reasonably well
too actually, although I think we'd be better off without centralised
banking at all.

One of my big problems with Libertarians... the giant
changes they bandy around. More like Anarchists with
clown suits.

If you let
the government grow big alongside a free-ish market you get fascism
(what we have now.) You must collapse as much of the government as
possible and let problems be solved though free people and free
markets. Reagan was right (even though he did nothing about it during
his terms): 'Government is the problem'.

Ah, another McVeighite. Well, go blow some government
up. Or do like Bush, and get elected on the '*** *** up'
program... *he* certainly put the truth to your truism.
You don't like government? Then don't let me find you
doing the Pledge Of Allegiance, or standing for our National
Anthem... because you just *** all over them. Wish I could
punch you, right fucking now. Come on over.

Hmm, really? You might have to fly me over for the privilege. It'd be
nice actually, I've never seen Texas.

Just got off a trip across it... 800 miles, round-trip, to
do a gig and see the parents out west. Didn't get within
200 miles of the western tip.

The fact that you could get so worked up over stupidities such as the
Pledge of Allegiance and other patriotic nonsense is really quite
sad. Smoke a fatty and loosen up a bit.

I'm on a history kick... we just had national day, I'm getting
patriotic in my dotage. Since you have the excuse of not
being a citizen, we'll forego the fisticuffs (my blood pressure
spike has passed, anyway). Some folks only see the bad
side of government... we've had near eight poor years of
the bad side here. Thankfully we're going to change that
very soon. Sorry to get in your face, etc... but government
is not the problem... that's like saying "You're limping... those
damn legs, they're always the problem! Less legs!" I hope you
see my point... thanks for our exchange.
__
Steve
..


.

Loading