Power Struggle
White House Says Energy Plan
Will Drive Down Prices

W A S H I N G T O N, May 17 — President Bush will unveil his energy plan today, warning that the nation faces "the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargo of the 1970s."



Promising a long-term solution to a problem that lacks a quick fix, the Bush plan — developed by Vice President Dick Cheney — features 105 specific recommendations that emphasize conservation, with tax incentives for people who buy energy-efficient cars or who use alternative energies.
"This great nation of ours — because of our technology, our attitude, our adherence to free enterprise, our willingness to conserve — we're going to solve this problem," Bush said Wednesday, brandishing a copy of his plan. "I think this is a country that is going to show the rest of the world how to deal wisely with energy."

Bush intends to issue executive orders to federal agencies that would have them break down various regulatory barriers on energy production.

"My plan helps people in the short term and long term by recognizing the problem and by expediting energy development," Bush said. "This is the first comprehensive energy policy probably ever."

In what is sure to be one of the most controversial elements, Bush proposes opening federal lands to oil drilling.

Democratic leaders are dismissing the plan as "shortsighted, foolish and outright destructive"

‘Here and Now’

While the administration says the president's call for more refineries, pipelines and power plants will drive down energy prices in the short term, Democrats lambasted the administration for failing to provide immediate relief.

"Why is the president so unresponsive to the consumers and small business who need relief now?" House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said Wednesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

But the White House insisted the president's plan does just that.

"The president is taking action to help in the immediate, here and now," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer insisted.

Earlier Wednesday, Fleischer said the national energy policy would help provide immediate relief to consumers now paying record-high gasoline prices in many parts of the country.

"The president has been very concerned all along about the prices that the American people pay for energy," Fleischer told reporters. "The president is confident that markets will see that more supply is on the way … And as those markets are affected, it has a ripple effect that … helps to lower prices."

A Sweeping Plan

The plan will call for the production of more oil, gas and coal as well as more electric and nuclear power in a series of sweeping initiatives designed to dramatically expand the nation's capacity to produce energy.

"A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation's energy crisis," says the report, part of which the White House released Wednesday night. "This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security."

The administration has previously emphasized long-term solutions to the nation's power woes, warning the White House did not have a "magic wand" and saying the problem of soaring gas prices could not be solved overnight.

"Our strategy will be … long-term in outlook," Cheney said last month as he outlined the administration's energy policy. "By long-term, I mean none of the usual quick fixes, which in the field of energy never fix anything."


Supply-Side Approach to Energy Crunch

Bush's approach to solving the energy crunch is a decidedly supply-oriented one. The new national policy he will pitch over the next two days in a campaign-style swing through Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania will call for an easing of government regulations in order to promote the construction of new oil refineries, gas and oil pipelines, electrical grids and nuclear power plants. It will also recommend boosting coal production.

"We've … got to recognize our infrastructure is old and stale and so we've got innovative approaches to be able to move product from one part of the country to another," Bush said.

With the latest ABCNEWS survey showing fewer than four in 10 Americans approve of Bush's handling of the energy situation, however, the administration has a long way to go in convincing the public that its supply-oriented approach is the right one.

One GOP strategist close to the White House said the administration is "somewhat worried" about such seemingly discouraging poll numbers and concedes the president has a lot riding on today's rollout of the plan.

Dems Launch Pre-emptive Strike

Sensing the president's political vulnerability on the energy issue, Democrats on Capitol Hill mounted a pre-emptive public relations strike, portraying Bush and Cheney, both former Texas oilmen, as pawns of their former industry.

"The Bush approach to solving our nation's energy problem is shortsighted, foolish and outright destructive to our resources and out economy," House Minority Whip David Bonior, D-Mich., said at a news conference on Wednesday. "It would hand over our future to big oil for profits and for plunder."

Cheney, who headed up the administration's Energy Task Force, met privately with Republican congressional leaders to discuss the energy crisis and the administration's upcoming announcement. Speaking to reporters after the session, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said the Clinton administration was to blame for the current crisis and blasted Democrats for trying to blame it on Bush.

"We can in fact encourage American industry to provide energy for all of this great nation," he said. "But I think it's time for Democrats now to get working on solutions and quit trying to hang the rap on somebody else."

A day earlier, House Democrats rolled out their own proposed energy policy, which emphasizes conservation efforts and environmental protections and offers short-term relief in the form of wholesale electricity price caps — a measure Bush flatly rejected.

"There are some who advocate price controls," the president said. "Price controls do not increase supply, nor do they affect demand."

Bush also responded to Democratic charges that his administration is reluctant to investigate allegations of price fixing or gouging by energy companies.

"We can make sure that any entity will not illegally overcharge," he said. "And so I call on the [Federal Trade Commission] to make sure that nobody in America gets illegally overcharged [for gasoline] and we're going to make sure [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] will monitor electricity supplies to make sure that they charge rates that are fair and reasonable."

Democrats and environmentalist groups also contend that many of Bush's proposals — including opening up a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other federal lands to oil exploration — would do irreparable damage to the environment.

"The Bush-Cheney scheme is to keep telling the American people that when 'big oil' goes into America's special places … that the drilling will be done in that 'clean and green' fashion, that there'll be no negative impacts on the environment," said Larry Young, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "Now they know that's a big lie."

Compassionate Conservation

Only three weeks ago, Cheney dismissed suggestions that conservation efforts could be a major part of the solution to the energy crunch.

"To speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues," he said. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

But the White House appeared to soften its stance, with Fleischer citing the president's directive to the Defense Department to reduce its electricity consumption in California as "an example of ways to help get prices down as quickly as is possible."

"That helps relieve pressure on prices, and it does so immediately," he said.

"Ours is a nation that can lead the world in innovative conservation measures, and we provide incentives to do that," Bush added, referring to various tax credits his plan is expected to offer consumers who buy fuel-efficient cars or make their homes more energy-efficient.
www.abcnews.com (http://www.abcnews.com)

------------------
Manu Narayan

I am not sure what in this Energy Policy I like.

Where is the relief? Where is the environmentalism? Where is the planning for the future? Yeah, yeah, we can build and drill more, but if we're talking about long term solutions why aren't we talking about exploring safer, greener, NEW ways to manage/produce energy?

Where is the short term fixes? Relief? I just don't get it.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Well, he followed through on his promise, there are no short term solutions in his package. As for the 'green' energy solution, I really don't think one exists that will please everybody. Photovoltaic cells (solar panels) are 60% efficent, at best, and the byproducts and chemicals used to make them are not exactly 'green' friendly. Nuclear power opposition is obvious, though, unwarranted. I am not to sure about the efficancy of wind energy, ie: how many windmills will it take to power a city.

As far as drilling in the Artic Wildlife refuge, go for it. Some think that is just a heinous thing to do. We are talking about a area of land less than 1% of the total acreage there. The U.S. NEEDS to develop it's own energy resources and should start now. How long should we have to rely on the middle east for all of our oil?

Regarding the 'green' solutions, I have read enough papers on CO2 and global warming to firmly believe that it is nothing more than a U.N. scare tactic to try and rush in the one world government. Since we refused to ratify the Kyoto accord, we have been kicked off of two U.N. panels, and according to FOXNEWS.com the U.N. is now going after U.S. based human interest groups:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25020,00.html

With countries like Sudan and China on the human rights commision and the U.S. being kicked off, I say we worry about our issues here at home before we worry about the rest of the world. Pull out of the U.N. and anything they are involved with.

Back on the subject, while I hope the gas tax gets rolled back and some short term assistance can be found. But, I believe Bush is on the right track for a long term solution. It took eight years of the democratic administration ignoring this issue to create the problem we now have, it can't be solved overnight.

------------------
Uh, what country is this??

Well, regarding there being no 'green' alternative. I think there are MUCH better alternatives than nuclear proliferation.


From abcnews.com
So far the 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States have generated an estimated 45,000 tons of waste that is expected to remain radioactive for more than 200,000 years.

That right there is reason enough for me. Our only answer to disposing of nuclear waste is to bury it. Concrete cracks, and accidents happen. I don't like the idea of burying nuclear waste in our own backyard. (Though in nevada its fine :P)

Regarding drilling in the wildlife reserve. Yes it is a small % of land...but how much of alaska is already being drilled? How many endangered species live in the AWR? THere is only believed to be a 6-1 year supply of oil there. It woudl take 10-20 years of raping the land to have that oil meet final delivery as gas. So, in the long run...whats that allow us to do? Well looking as I think 40% of our oil is arab oil, we could prolly 'drop' arab oil and then fuel ourselves for a few years (2-3) on our own, and then be back where we were. This won't bring prices down, if anything developement without product will bring prices UP! Not to mention I was hoping for more 'alternate fuel' ideas in 10-20 years.

Regarding the UN (going to start another thread) I agree. Whats going on is BS.

Regarding the CO2/greenhouse 'conspiracy' I woudl ahve to say there isn't enough research to show anything one way or the next. But what I DO know, C02 is BAD for the environment (and life like us!) and that the DEGREE is not known. There is NO HARM in being greener! But there IS harm in not being environmentally sound.

Bush's plan has some good points, and it does show reality, but I think for being a mostly long term energy plan there isn't nearly enough emphasis on moving away from traditional energy as we know it. There are no real research and development plans, and the government needs to embrace them and support them in order to get their proliferation.

Not to mention, I can't help but cringe at the idea of LOOSENING regulations for energy companies to build when most of his campaign donors are energy companies...

------------------
Manu Narayan

Originally posted by Manu:
Well, regarding there being no 'green' alternative. I think there are MUCH better alternatives than nuclear proliferation.

That right there is reason enough for me. Our only answer to disposing of nuclear waste is to bury it. Concrete cracks, and accidents happen. I don't like the idea of burying nuclear waste in our own backyard. (Though in nevada its fine :P)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21015,00.html

I think this article says it all...

Originally posted by Manu:

Regarding drilling in the wildlife reserve. Yes it is a small % of land...but how much of alaska is already being drilled? How many endangered species live in the AWR? THere is only believed to be a 6-1 year supply of oil there. It woudl take 10-20 years of raping the land to have that oil meet final delivery as gas. So, in the long run...whats that allow us to do? Well looking as I think 40% of our oil is arab oil, we could prolly 'drop' arab oil and then fuel ourselves for a few years (2-3) on our own, and then be back where we were. This won't bring prices down, if anything developement without product will bring prices UP! Not to mention I was hoping for more 'alternate fuel' ideas in 10-20 years.


I'd read somewhere that there was an estimated 150 years worth there. Might be mistaken. As for the time frame it taks to convert petrolium to gas, I do not know.

Originally posted by Manu:

Regarding the CO2/greenhouse 'conspiracy' I woudl ahve to say there isn't enough research to show anything one way or the next. But what I DO know, C02 is BAD for the environment (and life like us!) and that the DEGREE is not known. There is NO HARM in being greener! But there IS harm in not being environmentally sound.


"The issue of so-called global warming and increased quantities of CO2 is of interest because of the lack of both scientific history and knowledge. The observance of global temperatures for the last century indicated a rise of approximately 0.8 degree F. prior to the 1940s. The recent hysteria was brought about by a slight rise from 1963 to 1987. Since then it has decreased. Air is, by volume, composed of nitrogen (N2), 78.1 percent; oxygen (O2), 20.9 percent; carbon dioxide, (CO2) 0.0314 percent; and the rest, various inert gases. Observations prior to 1918 indicated CO2 of 0.03 percent, up to 0.04 in urban areas. I have recently read that it has increased by 30 percent, and another source indicates that it was 0.036 percent in 1995 - still not very much. Data indicated in reference books also give the 0.03 percent value at sea level with no measurable amounts at 30,000 and 60,000 feet altitude levels.

CO2 is taken in by trees, shrubs, etc., and, with chlorophyll and sunlight, they give off oxygen. It is not a pollutant nor poisonous. We exhale CO2 when we breathe, and there has been no proof that it is causing global warming. My chemistry book states that the growth rate of trees and plants accelerates during these slight increases in CO2, which is nature's way of resolving things. In 1920 the population of the USA was 106 million and in 1990 248 million, and yet CO2 is still within prior observed values.

It appears to me that our leaders either have been readily hoodwinked or see another way to get more governmental control over us, or both. - CHARLES E. LANGBEIN Winter Haven "

Taken from Junkscience.com letter to the editor. 'nuff said.

CO2 is not the enemy some people would like to claim it is. The ocean gives off 97% of ALL athmospheric CO2 through evaporation. Are we going to try and tax mother nature? ALL plant life changes CO2 into oxygen. How can it be bad for life in general? Being a little greener is great. But lets concentrate where it really counts. If CO2 is an issue for people, plant some trees & flowers. Better yet, lets work on some re-forestation ideas to replace what the upper mid-west loggers are taking. And replace what portions of the rain forests that disappear.

Originally posted by Manu:

Not to mention, I can't help but cringe at the idea of LOOSENING regulations for energy companies to build when most of his campaign donors are energy companies...



Point taken, understood and agreed with.



------------------
Uh, what country is this??

I'd read somewhere that there was an estimated 150 years worth there. Might be mistaken. As for the time frame it taks to convert petrolium to gas, I do not know.
I had read 1 year, go figure. Depending on the amount I guess that there is more merit to the drilling...BUT...

My dad is a 29 year vet of working for ARCO. He is a chemical engineer by degree, and has worked in Alaska for a few months every few years. His time frame he said seemed plausible. 1-4 years for exploratory drilling. 1-2 years to go voer the findings and get governemtn (sate and fed approval) 5-10 years to build the neccessary infrastructure (plant, housing etc) and then 1-2 years to pump/ship refine. But still, I think a LONG TERM plan, needs moving away from IC.

Regarding CO2. Lemme try this differently. Smog, car exhuast, etc causes us to choke, gag, etc. It release pollutants and dangerous chemicals. Lets not get hung up on CO2 and Global warming, cause, like I said, reports are inconclusive. But you CANNOT argue that car exhuast does'nt have a negative impact. (the level is arguable) So it makes sense to explore means of transportation that move away from the IC.

Regarding teh article on foxnews...the issue to me is what happens in 100 years? When concrete breaks? Or when there is an earthquake? (Nevada is teh 3rd most active seismic area in the country). Also there are two known 'volcanos' near there. GRANTED they are dormant, but there are chances. During an erruption radioactive waste woudl SPEW over vegas...

------------------
Manu Narayan

"My dad is a 29 year vet of working for ARCO. He is a chemical engineer by degree, and has worked in Alaska for a few months every few years. His time frame he said seemed plausible. 1-4 years for exploratory drilling. 1-2 years to go voer the findings and get governemtn (sate and fed approval) 5-10 years to build the neccessary infrastructure (plant, housing etc) and then 1-2 years to pump/ship refine. But still, I think a LONG TERM plan, needs moving away from IC."

Makes sense too me...

"Regarding CO2. Lemme try this differently. Smog, car exhuast, etc causes us to choke, gag, etc. It release pollutants and dangerous chemicals. Lets not get hung up on CO2 and Global warming, cause, like I said, reports are inconclusive. But you CANNOT argue that car exhuast does'nt have a negative impact. (the level is arguable) So it makes sense to explore means of transportation that move away from the IC."

Never said inhaling car exhaust was a beneficial past-time. But the focus the gov't and the U.N. have on CO2 is bogus as hell.

"Regarding teh article on foxnews...the issue to me is what happens in 100 years? When concrete breaks? Or when there is an earthquake? (Nevada is teh 3rd most active seismic area in the country). Also there are two known 'volcanos' near there. GRANTED they are dormant, but there are chances. During an erruption radioactive waste woudl SPEW over vegas..."

Hell, it's only Vega$ http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif
Seriously, some more info:
http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/gresham.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/apr01/crletter.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/news/three-mile-island.html

None of this makes it's way thru the normal media (except FOXNEWS) because it goes against the grain of what most news agencies believe.

------------------
Uh, what country is this??

What quick fixes? What immediate relief?

This mess (created by tree huggers and sympathetic politicians) wasnt created in a day and it will take a while to get out of it.

The govt.s role should simply to give the private sector a direction, make the conditions favorable, and make sound reasonable law.

Isnt this what the Democrat Party wanted anyways?
Higher energy prices so we all use less?
I mean it is pretty plain spoken in Algores book and 50 million voted for him...I think he wanted $5.00 a gallon gasoline.
Why are the Leftists whining? They got what they wanted, higher energy prices.
Or didnt they really mean that and they've only been giving that philosophy lip service?
Which is it?

I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth...Or Lefties speak with forked tounge. http://discussanything.com/Ubb/wink.gif

This new policy is sound, reasonable, and balanced and addresses all areas of the equasion. Lets face it..the tree huggers wont be happy until we're all living in caves. 40 something of the points are aimed at conservation and they say nothing about it.
It just proves, once more, that the Democrats are more interested in making all this a political issue rather than fixing the problem.

What is truly the scariest part of all this though is that so many people depend on, expect and want the govt to "FIX" everything.
I mean given govts track record of fixing everything else........
To all you people....you've got a twisted view of the role of govt.


------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand


[This message has been edited by Powerboss (edited 05-18-2001).]

Heh

Took me a bit to remember where I'd seen the word "Powerboss" before.

Wazzup, Bill? http://discussanything.com/Ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
-Curt

"Can you hear the violins playing your song?"

I believe this right here sums it up:

"Isnt this what the Democrat Party wanted anyways?
Higher energy prices so we all use less?
I mean it is pretty plain spoken in Algores book and 50 million voted for him...I think he wanted $5.00 a gallon gasoline.
Why are the Leftists whining? They got what they wanted, higher energy prices.
Or didnt they really mean that and they've only been giving that philosophy lip service?
Which is it?"

Way to go Powerboss.

d in a.

So Bill, one democrat, Al Gore now speaks for all of the people who don't support GW? In a book that he wrote years ago?

I HONESTLY would not mind the gas prices now if we had an energy policy that was moving away from the IC engine. But unforutnately we do not. Our long term energy plan takes us deeper and deeper into the vice that is big oil. And this is with me having to pay $2.09 for 87.

Why is everything about republic vs. democrat with you Bill? Can you ever dbate an issue and NOT bring that up?

------------------
Manu Narayan

Posted by Manu:
So Bill, one democrat, Al Gore now speaks for all of the people who don't support GW? In a book that he wrote years ago?

He was their man, wasnt he? They supported him and they knew full well what his position was. Im simply pointing out the FACTS. They've done a complete flip flop.
They want lower prices NOW because it is a way to score political points all the while doing NOTHING to fix the problem. Whats funny is how all during the campaign every hardcore environmentalist who advocated that position ran away from it so fast....Either they had a change of heart, they knew it was a loosing issue, or they are just trying to fool people.

Posted by Manu:
I HONESTLY would not mind the gas prices now if we had an energy policy that was moving away from the IC engine. But unforutnately we do not. Our long term energy plan takes us deeper and deeper into the vice that is big oil. And this is with me having to pay $2.09 for 87.


Why does or should govt. be the one determining all this? In a capatalistic society, the market should decide how we want to use our choice of energy.
I dont believe the govt. should be dictating to us what kind of car, or what type of fuel, or anything of the sort.
Solar and Biomass had been subsidized BILLIONS and Billions of dollars for years...and the results...we get like 1% of our energy from that. It makes no sense to pour money into something that the consumer (at this time) doesnt want.
Simply put, it is wise to find more domestic oil (because thats what the consumer wants), along with govt and the private sector researching new forms of energy and ALAS.. thats what this energy policy does!

Posted by Manu:
Why is everything about republic vs. democrat with you Bill? Can you ever dbate an issue and NOT bring that up?

Well, you tell me where all the democrats are on this issue? Rather than any solutions, they are politising the issue once again, flip flopping on thier philosophy, misrepresenting the facts, and demonizing and scaring people. Jeez..they are now Blaming Bush for Californias problems! You cant get any more dishonest than that.
They are putting politics and party above what the american consumers want...more energy of our choice at a reasonable price.

Again, I am just pointing out the facts but when you have a political party that sticks together on almost everything (yes, even perjery and obstruction of justice)like a pack of hyenas, and would rather politisize EVERY issue rather than try to solve problems, well they're going to receive my wrath and I will do everything in my power to expose them for the frauds they are.



------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Grey-out Davis has hired Algores "hit crew" of Chris Laheinous and Mark Fabricationiani to try to take the blame away from him (where is partially belongs), and shift it to the Bush admin.
$30,000 a MONTH!
Sad, very sad indeed.
Why doesnt he use that money to pay for some energy or better yet use the money for research to find a way to help solve the problem rather than point fingers and duck responsibility.
Sad, very sad indeed.


SACRAMENTO (AP) -- Republicans criticized Gov. Gray Davis Monday for spending tax money on what they described as "a partisan, cutthroat political communications firm" that previously advised Vice President Al Gore.

The Democratic governor announced Friday he had hired Chris Lehane, former Gore press secretary, and Mark Fabiani, a deputy campaign manager for Gore's presidential run, for six months at $30,000 a month.

Davis said the firm will coordinate the governor's communications staff on energy issues and help recruit a new director of communications.

"California taxpayers should not be asked to finance political consultants," Senate GOP Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga and Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox of Fair Oaks said in a letter to Davis. "Should you insist on maintaining this relationship, it would be most appropriate to pay the bill with campaign funds."

Davis is up for re-election next year, and has been mentioned as a possible challenger to Republican President Bush in 2004. California Republican Party Chairman Shawn Steel accused Davis of recruiting the Democratic operatives to shore up his poll numbers that have sagged because of the state's energy crisis.

Davis press secretary Steve Maviglio responded: "The Republican leaders should be spending as much energy writing letters to President Bush urging him to institute temporary price caps as they're spending on petty partisan politics."

The Republicans called the decision "financially irresponsible" given the budget cuts Davis announced last week.

They said the pair has a conflict of interest because they previously advised Southern California Edison, which is negotiating for state help in avoiding bankruptcy. Davis is proposing the state pay Edison $2.76 billion for its power transmission lines to help pay the utility's debt.

They also said the hiring "sends the wrong message" because Davis has been calling for bipartisan cooperation in solving the state's energy problems.

The Republican leaders did not criticize Davis' hiring of Gore's former deputy chief of staff, Nancy McFadden, as a senior adviser at an annual salary of $118,000. She will concentrate on the governor's relations with federal regulators and with generators.



------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Bill, i will write a long response when I have a chance to at home. But I dind't forget you :-)

------------------
Manu Narayan

This is simple, why does everyone here make this such a difficult question.

S.A.D. = REALLY high.
SAG = relatively low.

LAD & LAS = Equal each other.

Thus, SMPC = declining, SMPS = Increasing (which is what the democrats SAY they want, but b*tch when they get it) (SMPC+SMPS = 1), SCPI = Rising (relatively high), CCI = declining (which is actually bad, but it IS what the dems want), therefore; INflation (as a result of tree-hugging [which isnt necessarily bad]). Thus there can not be an economic 'short run' 'fix'. Be glad you have someone in office who will tell you that.

Now, what does all this mean?

Everyone is going to win in the long-run. Were going to get relaxed environmental regulations, lower oil prices, more competition, , more efficient market, a stronger economy, and Manu, yes THIS is what will spur alternative energy research (keep in mind, government subsidised research is only 18% effective as private sector research, and 5.1 TIMES more expensive).

Therefore, to counteract the inflationary measures of keynesian economics at work in the oil industry, the tax-cut is crucial (but we got screwed there too unfortunately).

Powerboss: I think we must share a common 'news' source.

How about this one?

http://pages.pomona.edu/~kab01999/bush.gif

(That's from www.pointofview.keenspace.com (http://www.pointofview.keenspace.com) - by Jamie Robertson - I just figured it'd be easier to show the picture than just give the link.)

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Aphasia you have it all wrong. That would mean GWB supported conservation. That should be a picture of his standing over a green glowing (due to radition spills) america saying..

"See, I told you Id solve the energy crisis. Who needs lights? We can read by the dull green glow of radioactive waste!"

------------------
Manu Narayan

Again....43 of the 107 points in the policy are conservation oriented. I guess you'all are pissed cuz it isnt 107 out of 107.
Yeah lets conserve our way to prosperity.
Didnt we try that...along with price caps in the 70's with Mr Carter? And the result...Pain and suffering and a lousy economy.

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Is the policy more benificial to texas oil billionaires then it is hurtful?

I dont have the facts or numbers, but I would be willing to bet Manu's first born son that regardless of what effect this plan has on the enviornment or long term plans, it is beneficial to the texans in the short term.

Don't Mess With Texas

------------------
No Joke

Ok,. I'm really getting tired of this rhetorical smoke from the liberals here.

Manu: I may be wrong (correct me if I am), but you must not be familiar at all with the Bush energy plan. The largest percent of Bush's plan is that of conservation (although, wrongly so). Conservation is NOT the answer. Although, IF it is so, why then do you b*tch and moan about high gas prices? This is the MOST effective means of conservation. This is, yet again, a display of the typical wavering position of the democratic party. They want conservation until they get it. Might I remind you that California is #1 when it comes to conservation. It is the reliance on conservation that got them into the mess they are in.

Contraband: "Is the policy more benificial to texas oil billionaires then it is hurtful?" Ok, if you wish to discuss this point with me, you better come prepared. Let me ask you a few questions. First off, how does this effect aggregate supply? And, is that because of aggregate demand, or good will on the part of oil companies? Therefore, that does what to the economy? Where does this fit in long-run aggregate supply? And, most important, Why? And, have you torn apart your own arguement yet (assuming this statement was a tounge in cheek stab at GWB)? IF this was a stab at GWB, you obviously must be either a keynesian economist, monitarian, or have no understanding of supply side theory. If it is such a bad thing to benefit 'texas oil billionaires', I dare you to attempt to take this point up in my supply side thread.

You later say "I dont have the facts or numbers, but I would be willing to bet Manu's first born son that regardless of what effect this plan has on the enviornment or long term plans, it is beneficial to the texans in the short term." Manu might lose his first born son on this one. One should'nt be so hasty to bet on this. You have not read the actual plan either. It will require an expansion of durables on the part of oil companies in the short run (a MAJOR expense). Although, manu may keep his son due to ambiguity on your part, they will benefit due to relaxed tax rates and environmental policy. Although, overall short-run they will be in the hole.

Welcome to the world of real-world economics everyone. I do not speculate, nor do I make guesses (without clearly stating so [as well as provide scenarios for opposing guesses]). Circular, slippery slope, inconsistant, or any other logical fallacy will not fly here.

Reguardless, I digress. Did anyone read my last post? I dont know how much more simple to make it. I believe I sufficiently explained why (in the short run and long run), and how to fix it (the only real option). Any other questions?

I understand I may be tough to argue with. So, lets try something different. Imagine, you are King and have to solve this whole energy thing, what do you do? If you answer no other question I have posed (as I do not feel anyone here will), answer that one. If not the Bush plan, what is YOUR plan? Failure to answer this question will be precieved as conciet on your part. (Sorry, I'm getting a bit tired of the rhetoric on this. Everyone wants a chance to jab Bush, but have no basis for doing so)

Okay lemme answer a few questions...

You said that in the long run everyone wins? What about the environment?

I will admit, I do not have the economic background you do, nor the facts regarding percentages, I also do not have a large group of advisors as Bush does. So do I have an answer that is definitive? Can I fix the nations energy problems? No. But do I think there are some flaws in what I have READ about the Bush plan? Yes. Do I think that there are other laternatives that could ahve received more prominence (at least in the newscoverage)? YES.

So, anyone have a link to all 140 or whatever points? let me get more aquainted with it, and I will come back and make a more informed decision.

Yes, there is a lot of rhetoric, but it IS coming from both sides.

------------------
Manu Narayan

1993gt40,

I may not be able to argue with you concerning economic issues, but now you have ventured into my area of knowledge, science and mathematics. Everyone on this discussion is calling for facts to support opinions; well I argue that sometimes these facts are meaningless.

Many learn in school how statistics can be manipulated for any purpose. Well, I believe that the statistics that you quoted should not be regarded too strongly. You quote statistics claiming that government research is only 18% as effective as private sector research. How is this quantified? How can this statistic mean anything? Different research groups work on different projects, the success of which are not necessarily determined by who funds them but rather the people involved and the actual project they are working on. In any case, how can someone determine how effective research groups are compared to each other? I am not sure that you can even attempt to do this. Also, you quote a statistic that says that government research is 5.1 times more expensive. I do not doubt this number, in fact I would be surprised if it was anything less than that. The differing costs is certainly because of what projects are funded. (And I do not believe that someone can claim that these are somehow normalized for comparison, because then you run into the same quantifying problems as I mentioned before) The government pays for much larger projects that industry simply does not or cannot fund. Government research projects are more costly, but you cannot claim that it is 5.1 times more costly for the same results because science research simply does not work that way. No two teams produce identical results on identical measurements that can then be compared as one group was more costly than the other.

So how is all of this related to this discussion? Well, my point is that with those different outlooks at the statistics that you quoted, I think that it is clear that government research is not some big waste of money that should be sent to the private sector. As for alternate energy research, private sector will do some, but some projects MUST be funded by the government. Take inertial fusion energy (The NIF facility currently being constructed) for example: no private sector group could produce the funding required to accomplish this project, only the government has the resources to succeed. So I do not think that we should just sit back and wait for competitiion to force the private sector to do alternate energy research. That is not the ONLY solution. I feel we should INCREASE GOVERNMENT FUNDING in energy research programs, since we cannot expect the private sector to tackle these issues on their own. This is not a plan to solve the energy crisis, but it is an approach that I feel should be incorporated into government plans along side with supply side increase.

As for your most recent email, please do not misconstrue my silence on your question as an act of conceit, for it is none other than an act of contempt. My failure to answer is due to my disgust at anyone who is so egotistical about their own ideas that they would even suggest that their solution is the ONLY solution. There are other economists who believe differently than you that the Bush plan is the only solution. Other people have solutions too, and attitudes like that will make people not want to share their solutions. So how about we all be a little more receptive to other ideas for discussion, rather then get filled with "rhetoric", whether it is liberal or conservative. This is a discussion website, not an "I'm right, you're wrong and ignorant" website.

Nate

Why does or should govt. be the one determining all this? In a capatalistic society, the market should decide how we want to use our choice of energy.
I dont believe the govt. should be dictating to us what kind of car, or what type of fuel, or anything of the sort.
Solar and Biomass had been subsidized BILLIONS and Billions of dollars for years...and the results...we get like 1% of our energy from that. It makes no sense to pour money into something that the consumer (at this time) doesnt want.
Simply put, it is wise to find more domestic oil (because thats what the consumer wants), along with govt and the private sector researching new forms of energy and ALAS.. thats what this energy policy does!

Okay here is my response. Letting the economy/capitalism run the country is GREAT, but only if people are informed. Consumers are not INFORMED.

If they were presented with...

'We can build more nuclear facilities so in 20 years we have more power...'
OR
'We can invest in solar research we can have solar facilities in 10-20 years that are just as efficient as nuclear facilities, but do not cause as much adverse environmental impact.'

What do you think MOST americans would chose? Are both feasible? YES. They have a cube based solar cell that CURRENTLY is three times as expensive as 'normal' electricity. BUT, some more research and developement, and large scale manufacturing, that company was sure that they'd have a cube that could operate for current electricity prices within FOUR YEARS. That is a far cry from what it would take to get more plants up and running. And this is 'green' energy!

Also, a Canadian company has developed a 'under water windmill technology.' They claim it to be low environmental impact (that has yet to be seen) and their projections are, that with these machines we can power 60-75% of the worlds energy needs, CHEAPER than coal or nuclear power. (this includes maint.)

I posted an article about solar panels and beaming electricity from space.

It si feasible to build a plant on the moon, and get hyrdogen from the ice deposites, and create energy from hydrogen fuel cells.

We could do that on earth too! The hydorgen fuel cell is probably the 'next' thing in energy, but why are we not doing more R&D on it for autos? Solar autos powered by this 'cube' tech are a possability too. NASA fueled a flying wing for 6 months day and night with a row of these cubes.

Alternative energy won't come about while we're under the finger of the oil/electricity companies. They are making record profits. The industry cannot stand against that, the governemtn can help differentiate us. That does not mean that we need to STOP using gas/nuclear, but to slowly move in MULTIPLE directions.

Also, someone mentioned that higher prices are the BEST form of conservation. Umm, how so? Gas is more than a luxury, it is a nccessity, especially living in So Cal. Sure you can curb your gas needs some, but the higher prices still hurt. Thats not conservation, that is starvation. People would be conserving due to NECCESSITY in their budget, not because we should cut back on fossil fuels.

And also, no one has addressed the ARTIFICIAL rise in gas prices over the past three months. Gas prices have gone up what, 30 or 40 cents? Unless there was a major disaster, or an unexpected incident that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. They project these things.

Whew, im done.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Let me just emphasize a point here...

lets keep this CIVIL. I can see us getting caught up in 'issues' with eachother. Lets take the Bush/Rep/Dem angle out of this.

Someone post a link to the plan, and lets look at what is going on. And just 'discuss' what OTHER options there are, or if this is really a comprehensive plan.

We've ALL spewed a lot of smoke, lets take a look in actuality at what is going on...just a thought.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Excellant, this is what I intended to happen.

Manu: "You said that in the long run everyone wins? What about the environment?" The environment wins in this because it is something consumers want. Ie: market forces, thus causing the self-serving interest of energy companies to serve a more environmentally friendly agenda.

Thutmose: "but now you have ventured into my area of knowledge, science and mathematics." Well, maybe. Although, I will argue that all questions are questions of economics. Math and science are irrelivant until it becomes economicly pheasable to do so.

"Many learn in school how statistics can be manipulated for any purpose." Ok, I derive all statistics from sources that can not be debated. CBO and the Economic Report of the President. This was discussed on the last board.

"Different research groups work on different projects, the success of which are not necessarily determined by who funds them but rather the people involved and the actual project they are working on." Yes sir, those working on government funded research are part of bureaucracy, and by the very nature of their position, are inefficient (by nature of government). Those outside of government are therefore part of a market, and therefore subject to market efficiency. Thus outcome dependant on performance. This is then the market effect on R&D. (Re: Standard oil defected by first off-shore wells and NOT anti-trust legislation [which was used to fight unions]).

"In any case, how can someone determine how effective research groups are compared to each other?" Outcome. The rate at which funds are devoured.

"(And I do not believe that someone can claim that these are somehow normalized for comparison, because then you run into the same quantifying problems as I mentioned before)" This is an average of all (recorded) past performance of government funded programs.

"Government research projects are more costly, but you cannot claim that it is 5.1 times more costly for the same results because science research simply does not work that way." Absolutely and undenyably untrue. This is a figure derived from comparisons (by the CBO) between parallel research groups where the outcome was finally obtained (usually by private corporations). But, yes, this number is bias. Bias in your favor, the government program never funded the remaining research (therefore reducing the final #'s).

I believe you have mis-intrepreted me when you say "I think that it is clear that government research is not some big waste of money that should be sent to the private sector." Government should NEVER EVER supply funding for research. By nature of government spending, aggregate supply is reduced (bar none). Therefore, inflation. Private sector will fund it themself. It is their self-serving interest to search out a cheaper means of production. Because it is the inherent nature of ANY market to strive for efficiency. Thus self-serving interest (persuit of more money) has driven a R&D division to devolop new technology in an attempt to edge out the competition. Which spurs counter-technology (in their self-serving interest).

"no private sector group could produce the funding required to accomplish this project" Therefore no private company can use this thechnology (because they cant afford it). Thus, this issue becomes a moot point, unless, this is a plea for government providing energy (where upon the economic ramifications would be devistating).

"is not the ONLY solution" I would say it is the most beneficial solution. Anything else (by nature of itself) is more costly that it is effective. Therefore, a greater cost in the long-run to the consumer (hmm, sound like California?).

"This is not a plan to solve the energy crisis, but it is an approach that I feel should be incorporated into government plans along side with supply side increase." Well, it really is a plan to solve it, but a realistic affordable plan seems to be something people dont want. According to EVERY modern school of economic thought (supply side, keynesian, and monetarian), government funding of research will only dig us further into the hole.

"My failure to answer is due to my disgust at anyone who is so egotistical about their own ideas that they would even suggest that their solution is the ONLY solution." Well, I understand this point, but your preception is not that of which, where I have derived my egotistical stance. Re: the arena. No one I have debated there (I do realize the crowd is a bit different here) has yet to concouct a single effective arguement against a supply side theory. This was (obviously) not directed at you. I am (extremely) well versed in Economics, and honestly feel that I have the only viable solution (since this really is the only thing I do). All I do is crunch numbers on economy, I like to think I know something about it.

"This is a discussion website, not an "I'm right, you're wrong and ignorant" Did I not discuss this with you? Did I not provide sufficient evidence to support my claims? Do I not show all logical steps necessary to reach m conclusion (for the most part)? Have I not adquately responded to all reasonable challenges to my arguement (in number and weight)? Has my philosophy waivered (ever)?

Manu: "Letting the economy/capitalism run the country is GREAT, but only if people are informed. Consumers are not INFORMED." Why do they have to be informed?! Do you have to be a mechanic to drive a car?! The people dont have to know crap about why there electricity work, they just have to know they want lower prices. I guarentee you research in alternative fuel is going on at the highest rate than ever before. This is because of market pressue! Would you invest in it if it were not economicly beneficial? Absolutely not! If gas were .10/gal, forget it, no research (why? WAY too expensive) Therefore, a finite energy source will bring about it's own demise, and therefore it's own research.

"It si feasible to build a plant on the moon, and get hyrdogen from the ice deposites, and create energy from hydrogen fuel cells.

We could do that on earth too! The hydorgen fuel cell is probably the 'next' thing in energy, but why are we not doing more R&D on it for autos? Solar autos powered by this 'cube' tech are a possability too. NASA fueled a flying wing for 6 months day and night with a row of these cubes" Yes, feasable, but NOT beneficial. Conservation is NOT the answer. Look at Cali, the MOST energy conservative state, where is it? Oh yeah, they funded alternative fuel, forced price controls, relied on government research, and oh, yeah, they dont have power.

"Also, someone mentioned that higher prices are the BEST form of conservation. Umm, how so?" SMPC = declining, SMPS = Increasing (which is what the democrats SAY they want, but b*tch when they get it) (SMPC+SMPS = 1), SCPI = Rising (relatively high), CCI = declining, therefore; INflation (as a result of tree-hugging [which isnt necessarily bad]). This is the most simple idea in economics, as price rises, demand falls.

"People would be conserving due to NECCESSITY in their budget, not because we should cut back on fossil fuels." WOAH! Wait a minute! Now, is it ONLY conditional conservation?! So, we will only conserve IF (and only if) we feel like it? There should be no incentive for conservation? OR, should we only conserve once we have an alternative (knowing full well the economic environment necessary to devolop this). Therefore, use all our fossil fuel, then conserve (what's left), since this is the only time we will realisticly have an alternative. OR install price caps under the false pretense that this is 'good' for economy (see keynes and law of diminishing marginial returns)?

"And also, no one has addressed the ARTIFICIAL rise in gas prices over the past three months. Gas prices have gone up what, 30 or 40 cents? Unless there was a major disaster, or an unexpected incident that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. They project these things." Ok, I have herd this arguement before. I had to do some research to make sure I was correct (and I am). This was NOT an artifical rise in gas prices. IF you think it is,. PLEASE tell me why, I honestly have not the slightest clue. We have a ton of crude oil yes. Is this where you derive this statement? If so, let me remind you that you must refine this stuff. THIS is where we got screwed. Due to environmental regulation not a single refinery has been built in the US in 25 years. Does this sound like a bottleneck? Maybe. Sounds like someone relied on government research into solar cell and other energy sources to pay attention to the short-run (as was the logic for the false economic incentive for private investment [nothing is going to work but market pressure]).

Finally, I will say it again. Is there NO disagreement with my earlier posts (with the exception of the few sentances I have been challenged on)?

LOL! I feel like I walked into a meeting of lawyers... where else on earth would you find such people who can "talk" forever and say nothing?

1993gt40: I haven't heard so many acronyms since flight school.

Finally, I will say it again. Is there NO disagreement with my earlier posts (with the exception of the few sentances I have been challenged on)?

I took two semesters of economics in college, both macro and micro, and I have no idea what the h3ll are you talking about. SAD, SAG, LAD, LAS... Means about as much to me as Vne, TAS, GSI, and METO means to you. I'm sure if I can't follow you, the rest are having just as hard a time. Maybe that's the reason why nobody can argue with you... basing an arguement on alot of vague jargon, you might as well be speaking in Chinese. It might help if you defined some of these terms while throwing them out.

FWIW, I think Bush is on the right track. The three C's (Caps, conservation, and controls) won't work, and will only lead to inflation. Why? Simple... Moving goods and services from point A to point B takes energy. Doesn't necessarily have to be a truck going over the highway... it can be power, water, or a television signal as well. By raising the cost of energy, it likewise raises the overhead of the manufacturer and seller of these goods and services. Since a business has to somehow compensate for these additional costs, they in turn have to raise prices to manufacture/transport/sell these goods. That in turn means that the consumer is paying more for a product or service... inflation. The next round is that workers are going to demand an increase in pay to compensate for the rise in prices, which of course will again raise the cost of overhead... on and on it goes, and the cycle of inflation starts.

Repeat after me: You can't get something for nothing.

The Japanese have been working on fuel cell technology for 30 years. They have a number of prototype cars that they have experimented with, amongst other things. Ask yourself why such technology hasn't become mainstream. It's either way too expensive to implement, or the idea still has bugs to be worked out.

Solar is not and never will be IMO a realistic alternative. It costs too much to make the cells, they only work when there is a sufficient source of light, and may produce undesireable side effects. Toxic chemicals are one, power to weight ratio is another. Keep in mind that the only way for a solar cell to truly be efficient is to have a corresponding battery to store the power in. Batteries are heavy, filled with all sorts of toxic chemicals, need frequent service or replacement, etc. Another aspect of solar power to the "green" friendly people is something called the Albedo effect... this is caused by sunlight being reflected back into space. The result is a cooling of the earth's atmosphere.

Funny thing is, for all of the hume and cry to conserve, I still see darn few bicycles on the road, or people who make an attempt to move closer to their jobs, etc. Seems to me that alot of the "liberal" thought is great when it applies to the other guy... yet how many of these same said people also think nothing of buying a big V-8 powered automobile or SUV? Of course when it comes THEIR turn to conserve, heaven forbid...

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

oops.

[This message has been edited by 1993gt40 (edited 05-26-2001).]

SAD = Short run aggregate demand
SAG, should be SAS (typo) = Shortrun aggregate demand
LAS = Longrun aggregate supply
Lad = Longrun aggregate demand
SMPC = Shortrun marginal propensity to consume
SMPS = Shortrun marginal propensity to save
Scpi = Shortrun consumer price index
CCI = Consumer confidance index

I felt the jargon was appropriate, seeing as though we were talking economics. Those two paragraphs say a WHOLE LOT.

Hmm, do you really think I have said nothing? Or do you not understand what I said? I feel I have said a lot (although I may be some what biased).

And, your right on in reguards to inflation.

"Repeat after me: You can't get something for nothing." #1 rule in economics, threre is no such thing as a free lunch.

Originally posted by 1993gt40:
Excellant, this is what I intended to happen.


"According to EVERY modern school of economic thought (supply side, keynesian, and monetarian), government funding of research will only dig us further into the hole.

"Also, someone mentioned that higher prices are the BEST form of conservation. Umm, how so?" SMPC = declining, SMPS = Increasing (which is what the democrats SAY they want, but b*tch when they get it) (SMPC+SMPS = 1), SCPI = Rising (relatively high), CCI = declining, therefore; INflation (as a result of tree-hugging [which isnt necessarily bad]). This is the most simple idea in economics, as price rises, demand falls.

"People would be conserving due to NECCESSITY in their budget, not because we should cut back on fossil fuels." WOAH! Wait a minute! Now, is it ONLY conditional conservation?! So, we will only conserve IF (and only if) we feel like it? There should be no incentive for conservation? OR, should we only conserve once we have an alternative (knowing full well the economic environment necessary to devolop this). Therefore, use all our fossil fuel, then conserve (what's left), since this is the only time we will realisticly have an alternative. OR install price caps under the false pretense that this is 'good' for economy (see keynes and law of diminishing marginial returns)?

?

Ok i dunno who the "Professor" is whose writing this stuff but if im not mistaken we arent dealing with "perfect competition" here. We're dealing with a sort of oligopoly or atleasat monopolistic competition that is in collusion to keep prices artificially high, im sure they couldnt give less of a poop about the "aggregate demand" curve. They are looking at their Marginal Revenue, say it Marginal Revenue.

As for government research not being benificial according to any models, i think you are mistaken there as well. Now i dont profess to be the master of econ that you clearly are but im pretty confidant that according to Robert Solo and the Neo-classical model the only way to actually increase yopur productivity and income per worker is by INCREASING YOUR TECHNOLOGY.

Thirdly claiming that economics is the force that drives the universe, not scienc eand math, is pretty silly too. Econ is a psuedo science plain and simple and exists in all but its most basic forms only IN THE MINDS OF MEN.


------------------
Rock On

[This message has been edited by CodyChaos (edited 05-26-2001).]

1993gt40: Ok, I have a MUCh better idea as to where you are coming from now.

I think what you are indicating is that the economy is going slow down... demand will go down, supply will go up, and prices as a whole are going to decrease as a result... that sound about right?

I don't know who here remembers the '70s/early 80's (and I admit I was still very young), but we had a problem with a situation called stagflation. Inflation was high in this country, but the economy overall was very sluggish.... Somehow I see what the Democrats are proposing as simply more of the same.

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Codychaos: "We're dealing with a sort of oligopoly or atleasat monopolistic competition" Yes, oligopoly, but certainly not monopoly by any stretch of the imagination (there has never been, nor will there ever be, it is an impossibility to ever have; monopoly [it is a long-run impossibility]). Even in monopoly (I will use this, insert oligopoly if you wish, it works the same) there is aggregate demand. Without aggregate demand there can be no signifigant aggregate supply. Without aggregate demand, even a monopoly will fold. What I have said has absolutely NOTHING to do with competition level. Competition is a by-product of market force (demand). Marginal revenue is a by-product of everything else. There is no marginal revenue without other aspects. I fail to see where you derive your statements (maybe I mis-understand). Are you saying that this is something that operates in areas outside of comprehendable logic (oil companies do not respond to supply and demand?)? If so, I would take issue, it makes perfect (logical) sense to me.

"As for government research not being benificial according to any models" Well, I never once said models. I use data from previous experience.

"the only way to actually increase yopur productivity and income per worker is by INCREASING YOUR TECHNOLOGY." Yes sir, it is. Did I ever say otherwise? This is cornerstone to many of my personal economic theory (which isnt being discussed here). Now, the question is; which is MOST cost beneficial? Bureaucratic government reasearch (which is not subject to the effects of market, whose ultimate goal is bureaucracy [insearch of artificial efficiency], and being conducted in an environment not condusive to 'self-serving interest'), OR an efficient outcome based private industry (which is part of a market whose ultimate goal is efficiency, therefore the greater 'self-serving interest'?)? I would definately say that private industry is the way to go.

"Thirdly claiming that economics is the force that drives the universe" Ok, let me put it this way; Economics is a deciding factor in any decision made by man. Everything is opportunity cost and self-serving interest (remember economics is not only money [it is anything with scarce resources])

"Econ is a psuedo science plain and simple" Please explain this to me sir. I do not follow the logic.

"exists in all but its most basic forms only IN THE MINDS OF MEN." Hmm,. Is this what makes it pseudo science? If so, I can not think of anything that is NOT pseudo science. Biology, math, ect, exists only in the minds of man. They are ALL tools used to explain naturally occouring events, hmm, wounds like economics does the same things. I dare you to live a day without making an economic decision. You would last about 5 minutes before you ran out of breath (you are allocating scarce resources). But, lets examine this on a broader scope. If your hypothesis is correct, economics does not study a naturally occuring phenomenon. I would venture to say that we do at least study. Therefore, you must mean that it is not a natural phenomenon to allocate things that are scarce. If this is true, many other 'sciences' are thrown out. In biology, creatures need to eat, therefore allocate a scarce resource in order to survive. In physics, gravity allocates matter. I could go on.

Turbostang: "I think what you are indicating is that the economy is going slow down... demand will go down, supply will go up, and prices as a whole are going to decrease as a result... that sound about right?" Kind of. I think price will go up more. Economy is slowing, yes. But, due to government regulation oil and energy will never be able to catch up. We operate at very best, slightly behind in this area. Granted, prices are cyclic every year, but in general rise (faster than inflation) every year. This is completely due to government intervention into what would be an otherwise efficient market.

"but we had a problem with a situation called stagflation." I dont forsee stagflation being an option in the Bush plan. Any impediments to the plan could certainly bring stagflation. In modern society, nothing happens without energy being consumed. If the cost of energy got so high it made the opportunity cost of operation so high it was more beneficial to not produce (as it was in the 70's), then we will for certain have stagflation.

Dude 1993gt40 you arent making much sense. First of all i said MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION in which they are acting as a cartel this is different than a Monopoly. And no they arent looking directly at aggregate demand they are looking at their personal marginal revenue intersecting their marginal cost, then setting production and hence price at a point above the MC and MR intersection which lies along the aggregate demand curve. If they didnt have monopolistic powers they couldnt control all the production in the market and wouldnt be able to keep the price so high because in a competitive market the firms are price takers and their MR=the price at which the aggregate supply curve intersects the aggregate demand curve in the overall industry.

Secondly, you have to use model to make economic predictions. The fact that you choose to disavow all basic models in favor of using specific regressions is moot because regressions are just applied models themselves, there are many many many different regression formulas and no single one of them is the "right" one.

Finally, NO, ECONOMICS does not govern the universe. The planet Mars does not choose the most self beneficial orbit around the sun, it is determined by physics, there is no choice involved. You can not choose to defy gravity. You can not choose the speed of light. You cannot quantify magnetic forces in terms of the opportunity costs they forgo for not being gravitic forces. Economics is predicated on psychological processes and rational decision making. You will find there are even deranged human beings who are incapable of rational decision and do not act in their own interest or for any tangible reason and thus exist without, and outside of economics. And no, when i breath it is not an economic decision it is an involuntary body function. And no, ants do not think about their opportunity costs. Economics is not a universally applicable set of laws. The forces of nature are not governed by human logic. Monkeys have no use for regression anaylisis. And no, man did not event physics and biology, the force of gravity has always been the force of gravity and evolution has been occuring since long before humans roamed the earth. If you choose to believe otherwise then I dont know what to tell you.

------------------
Rock On



[This message has been edited by CodyChaos (edited 05-28-2001).]

The Bushler energy policy:

Energy corporations get the go ahead to screw us harder. Consumers get free Enron knee pads..

------------------
Red 86 GT

Ok. I dont know how I am not making sense. I am saying that WAY before there is a MC curve OR a MR intersection, there absolutely MUST be bar none, no if's and's or buts Aggregate Demand (duh, you can not sell a product that people do not want. All I am saying is, people will stop buying oil at some point. Therefore reguardless of where the oil companies set their points they all in term have to yeild to aggregate demand (you can not sell something people do not want). Thus it is secondary. Granted oil is relatively inelastic, but even it is subject to people stoping the purchase of their product. The bottom line here is stop *****ing about lower prices. If you were REALLY upset, you would stop buying it (isnt the whole opposition to the plan based on conservation anyways?). You are looking out for your self-serving interest just as much as the oil companies and any other corporation / person / group / social class / race / creed ect., stop being a hypocrite (not you spacifically, but as a collective of everyone *****ing).

Ok, I may model to make predictions, but by and large when speaking to non-economists their defination of model is vastly different than mine. I underestimated you and profusely apologize. Most of the time when I mention model people get the completely wrong idea. Reguardless, I would argue that past performance is a relatively good indicator of future performance (when dealing with the subject at hand). Please re-read my paragraph on this and tell me where I am wrong. I understand the inherent nature and driving factors for both and clearly state how I have drawn my conclusion. I would like to know where I have gone wrong. Reguardless of that point entirely, it is NOT the job of the federal government to provide power (If so, find it for me in the constitution). The best arguement for this would be from a states rights stand point in relation to amendment #10. Even then it is not the job of the federal government. Furthermore, when has it become the job of the federal government to run corporations and dictate to them what exactly is an appropriate way to run their business in reguards to their profit levels? Not even anti-trust legislation gives the federal government power to dictate such things. Any of the arguements against those I have just laid out only serve to make the federal government larger and more bureaucratic which I have already proven to be an economic mistake (re: the arena, Reagan post [I believe]). Therefore where would any of that really put the consumer out ahead (no net gain, no net loss [according to nature of bureaucracy it would be a net loss, but a theory difficult to prove])? The only means is for them to apply market pressure and make it the self-serving interest of the oil companies to give them what they want (which they must inevitably do anyways).

I am really starting to wonder if you read my post at all. You say "Finally, NO, ECONOMICS does not govern the universe." Please re-read my last post and you will clearly see that I stated "Ok, let me put it this way; Economics is a deciding factor in any decision made by man. Everything is opportunity cost and self-serving interest (remember economics is not only money [it is anything with scarce resources])"

"You will find there are even deranged human beings who are incapable of rational decision and do not act in their own interest or for any tangible reason and thus exist without, and outside of economics." They ARE acting on their preception of what theior self-serving interest is (I never said their preception was right or that I would always know what it is [thus study of groups of people]).

"And no, when i breath it is not an economic decision it is an involuntary body function." Reguardless of involuntary or not (although I would venture to say it is voluntary) you are allocating scarce resources which is inherently and by ddefination and exchange and economic.

"And no, ants do not think about their opportunity costs"Please re-read my last post and you will clearly see that I stated "Ok, let me put it this way; Economics is a deciding factor in any decision made by man. Everything is opportunity cost and self-serving interest (remember economics is not only money [it is anything with scarce resources])"

"Economics is not a universally applicable set of laws" Nothing is. Not even physics does that.

"And no, man did not event physics and biology, the force of gravity has always been the force of gravity and evolution has been occuring since long before humans roamed the earth." OK. Explain to me how man did not invent physics and biology. Seeing as though physics is "the study of . . ." And Biology is "The study of . . ." According to the defination of the word Science All examples I have laid out without a doubt clearly lay economics in the study of a natural occouring phemonenon. Seeing as though they are all an example of a study of something, what makes me wrong?

I stated before "If your hypothesis is correct, economics does not study a naturally occuring phenomenon. I would venture to say that we do at least study. Therefore, you must mean that it is not a natural phenomenon to allocate things that are scarce. If this is true, many other 'sciences' are thrown out. In biology, creatures need to eat, therefore allocate a scarce resource in order to survive. In physics, gravity allocates matter. I could go on." Please explain to me how this is wrong. I strongly advise you to look up the word 'science'. We study the allocation of scarce resources. How is that not a science by the defination of the word?!

But, how about this. Explain this energy thing to me with physics (since it has universal laws, therefore must apply here). (This will be fun, I have this debate with the physicist guys in my building all the time)

I am not exactly sure what you mean about explaining the energy thing with the laws of physics. I could certainly give you a description of how energy is produced and used using the laws of physics, but I am sure that is not what you want. Therefore, I will do something a little different; I will use one of the tools of physicists to explain my viewpoint of one part of this energy problem that has come up in this discussion, energy research. Though I am not sure, economists probably use similar sorts of analytical tools. (Speaking of economics and politics.... I warn you, after writing this message I realize that it is long and boring. I am not responsible for your wasted time if you choose to read it)

For my analysis of the situation, I would like to consider a graph. One axis will represent money invested in govt. energy research, another will be time invested in govt. energy research. In addition to this I will need two axes representing the same resources spent in private sector research. Finally I will need an axis representing the total "profit," however this is defined. So, I need a plot with five axes. In addition however, this situation should evolve in time, adding a sixth dimension. To further complicate the situation, the trajectory that the US follows through this plot should also change the characteristics of the plot at later times. Thus, this six dimensional graph that changes its shape depending on how you move through it is obviously too complicated to be of any help right now.

Therefore I will simplify this into a two dimensional graph to illustrate my view. This graph will have an origin, with the horizontal axis representing resources spent on research and the vertical axis representing "profit". Moving right on the axis represents private sector research, moving left represents funding government research. The vertical profit axis is actually inverted to aid in intuitive understanding of the plot later on. "Up" is actually less profit, and "down" is more profit. The lower that you are on the graph the "better" society is, again depending on how you quantitatively define the profit axis.

Now to start my model of the situtation. We are at the origin. We can choose to go to either direction. To the left, the slope climbs steeply, representing a difficult barrier to progress. To the right, the slope is less steep, but still rising. This means that no matter which energy research that we fund, there is some loss. (i guess this could correspond to some form of economic marginal cost, though i am not sure).

Now suppose that as you move along the right horizontal axis, suddenly the level drops and we are in a lower "profit" state than before. Because of the way I defined the axis, this actually is a more favorable state, and represents a discovery or an application that has made a big positive effect to society. The "hill" region between the origin and this discovery would represent the barrier or cost to getting the discovery (loosely speaking of course. without the aid of a full multidimensional graph this does not all work properly). So real life research would be a series of hills that block our progress, but once they are cleared we are in a better place than before.

To the left things look more difficult. If I am to beleive 1993gt40's economic analysis of this, which I have no reason to contest right now, the slope to the left is incredibly steep. The awful bureaucracy and red tape force a poor return on spending on government research. However, even though the government spending is not as favorable as private sector, at some places, the graph drops into a valley. There ARE government research discoveries. And in some cases, these are huge, dropping much farther on the graph than anything on the private sector side (An example of this is the atomic bomb, the morality of which I do not wish to include in this analysis. Industry would never have worked or completed this project, but society gained alot of knowledge from it at a big cost).

Keep in mind that we can only truly know the shape of the graph in the immediate local vicinity of where we actually are. Thus, an economic analysis (1993gt40's economic analysis, more specifically) would analyze the slope to either direction and conclude that government research is not as profitable as private sector research and suggest only having private energy research. However, this local economic analysis does not view the whole picture. Both directions have beneficial results. The marginal cost is less beneficial in one direction, but that direction also produces some benefits that the other does not. In fact, if we are to look at the complete 6 dimensional graph, the most beneficial trajectory would certainly include both government and private spending.

Personally, I believe that there are significant government energy research benefits, so I think we should invest in that research. Nothing I have said in this message gives any proof of that, it is simply what I believe. However, I hope my "mathematical" approach would suggest that it seems plausible that government research can be overall helpful even though it might appear not so when you look at the local conditions.

I would like to stress that this email was not based on physics, I simply used mathematics to discuss this problem. Economists do this too. I do not really know anything about economics, but it seems to me that specific economic models only look at limited numbers in their analysis. (analogous to the 2-D graph). Adding more dimensions to an analysis adds more complications to the problem, but eventually the "simple" tools (aggregate demand) that were useful in analyzing the simple models lose their effectiveness. Possibly, there would exist a higher dimensional generality to aggregate demand that would take into account many more factors in the problem. This is why I do not completely agree with the economics that 1993gt40 keeps telling me is unequivocally correct. This I do gain from physics: though some things seem to follow simple laws, those laws are only approximations to the truth. Light goes in a straight line to us, but in reality it travels every possible path. The un-straight ones cancel out normally, but not always. We could explain most light phenomena without knowing all of this, but by understanding a fuller picture, we can now explain EVERY light phenomenon that we have encountered so far. My guess is there is more to know about how our economic system works than simply aggregate demand, but unfortunately we can't try different approaches to the same problem. In science we can experiment to figure out which laws hold and when they apply. In economics we only get one shot.

Nate

Thutmose: VERY VERY close!

"the slope to the left is incredibly steep. The awful bureaucracy and red tape force a poor return on spending on government research." Absolutely correct, I just wish to expound on this point for a second. A poor R&D return is a perminate cost (this is more accounting than economics). The cost of that return is then put into the users of the product fot the life of that product.

"at some places, the graph drops into a valley. There ARE government research discoveries. And in some cases, these are huge, dropping much farther on the graph than anything on the private sector side" Yes, and the atom bomb example is an excellant example. Private sector would have devoloped this at a MUCH lower cost had there been private sector demand for an atom bomb.

"would analyze the slope to either direction and conclude that government research is not as profitable as private sector research and suggest only having private energy research." Realizing that a higher cost upfront (on average 5.1 times more) costs the consumer more throughout the life of the technology, which really benefits the consumer more?

"Both directions have beneficial results." This where I differ with you. Both directions MAY have beneficial results. In either direction the cost may be SO high that it is not really beneficial to enact these new technologies.

"the most beneficial trajectory would certainly include both government and private spending." I must wholeheartedly dissagree with this statement. It is certainly not beneficial to the consumer to fund the same research twice. That is twice as much money that could have been spent in other areas (completely outside of research). Realizing that that money (spent) is aggregate demand (by defination), it could be used to spur more useful aspects of economy. The question now becomes, where do we make our bets (so to say)? Government or private? It would be fallacious for me to assert that government will never find the answer (as much as I realize this is very likely). I must absolutely decree that the answer is private industry! For many reasons, #1, in all likelyhood it wil be cheaper, it will be (clearly) constitutional, sooner, and ALL economic pointers point to success to all parties involved whereas they do not for government funded research.

I understand why you do not completely agree with me. I feel your explanation is VERY good but leaves out some factors. Those factors are neither economic or physic. They are political scientific. In a perfect world both areas of research would yeild the exact same results. To understand the nature of bureaucracy vs the nature of a free market is essential to this discussion.

[This message has been edited by 1993gt40 (edited 05-30-2001).]

1993gt40 i really dont casre how high electricity prices go im just pointing out that you were being vague in describing your mechanics. Obviously you cant sell a product if theres no demand but in this case demand is not the main determinate of the price. The power companies are extracting all the consumer surplus because of their market power. Like you said demand for electricity is relatively inelastic thus they can increase profits even more by contracting production very little while jacking the price up very high. The answer here is not government regulation, all we have to do is have the power purchasers collude to counter act the power suppliers market power and the market will go back to clearing (albiet price to consumer will be higher than under government regulation) and producers and consumers will have recieve more even benefits.

As for government research not being as productive as private research, you have to realize "the government" doesnt have a million different labs staffed by federal employees to research stuff. More often than not they contract out to universities and private firms to do the research. Obviously yes there are added administrative costs involved in this project but theres no reason that a Boeing employee working on a new jet fighter for the government is going to be less productive than a Boeing employee working on a new commercial aircraft. Plus as nate pointed out the government may be interested in developement of certain societally beneficial goods which private firms would not be interested in otherwise.

And yes i recognize economics plays a part in virtually all human decision making, just as every human decision I can think of is motivated by atleast some measure of self interest. However, outside of human rationality things (animals, inanimate objects, forces) do not conform to these economic standards.

------------------
Rock On

CodyChaos: "1993gt40 i really dont casre how high electricity prices go im just pointing out that you were being vague in describing your mechanics." Well, ok. I really dont know how I was being vague. I dont know how much clearer I could have stated things. Look at my first post that started this stuff. Clean, simple, straight to the point and where I have drawn my conclusions from are clearly stated. If that is vague, I'm sorry, I really dont know how to make it any clearer than that.

"all we have to do is have the power purchasers collude to counter act the power suppliers market power and the market will go back to clearing" Ok, this is what I have been saying all along. Ultimately the consumer has the power, even in a monopoly, even in inelastic commodities.

"(albiet price to consumer will be higher than under government regulation)" I must disagree with this. If you look around on the last board you can find my monologue on bureaucracy, this is important for this. Regulation was the policy in Cali until they couldnt provide power. Price caps will only make this worse. And in the long-run something (alternative energy of SOME sort) is going to come from this. Look at it this way; There is HUGE demand for 'cheap' energy. Therefore it is in the self-serving interest of investors to cater to this market. KNOWING they will make money, they will find ways to enter this market. (OK, did ya follow me?) This concept is cornerstone to a lot of my personal economic theories. Emperical evidence has shown that throughout time this IS what happens. (Thus we get the first off shore wells, new steel technologies, ect,..) I have faith in the innovation of man. We WILL conquor technical problems.

"a Boeing employee working on a new jet fighter for the government is going to be less productive than a Boeing employee working on a new commercial aircraft." I would say that there is a difference. The one working on comercial airliners realizes that he must compete with others in a market with finite resources and real bean counters. The overall efforts of all partieies involved are to lower the opportunity cost of flight in order to have more passengers use their airlines so that they may make more money (self-serving interest). The one working on jet fighters realizes that money is not really a concern. Their market has (virtually) unlimited resources allocated by people who dont care where the beans go because they dont have to do anything. They dont have to compete, every customer must buy their product reguardless of anything else (almost a monopoly [therefore our government is not permanant]). Tell me this; If the citazens of America all wanted jet fighters, would they cost $1,000,000,000 still? How many more companies would be in the market?

"Plus as nate pointed out the government may be interested in developement of certain societally beneficial goods which private firms would not be interested in otherwise." Ok maybe. What would that be? It would have to fit a criteria to qualify. 2 things; 1) The American people DONT want it (in which case the government wouldnt do it because it IS the people [self-serving interests of politicians; re-election yadda yadda yadda]) (I draw this conclusion because if the American people didnt want it there is no market for competition, therefore no motivation for industry to do it, therefore no self-serving interest of any company would drive them into a market that does not exist). 2) There is no money to be made in it. (I really cant think of when this would apply, BUT I am willing to conciede it MAY happen) I really cant see this happening either. If people have demand for something, they realize the opportunity cost (all costs involved), therefore market is created (making it beneficial for companies to come in and make money, efficiency ect). Unless, people want something for nothing (which is an economicly IMPOSSIBLE). I may conciede that some things may fit into these two criteria, but I have absolutely no idea what it would be.

"However, outside of human rationality things (animals, inanimate objects, forces) do not conform to these economic standards." Yes. (Although, I would advocate that all living things do what they precieve to be best for them) But, I dont want to entertain the idea any more than you want me to.

Interesting......

The Washington Times' Bill Sammon has written a column titled "GOP Protests Davis Scheme." You should all read it. It's about Republican lawmakers in California planning to vote against the California state budget because it gives $180,000 in taxpayer money to Algore's former political operatives, Chris Le-heinous and Mark Fabiani.

Davis has hired these PR hacks, not to solve the problem, but to make sure that the people of this country and the state of California understand the problem that California faces energy-wise is Bush's. You've got to dig deep in this story, but there's a huge conflict of interest here:

"Dave Cox, Republican leader of the California State Assembly, dismissed the notion that Mr. Bush's former colleagues in the Texas oil business were gouging California energy consumers."

"He also charged that Mr. Lehane and Mr. Fabiani have a conflict of interest because they also are working for Southern California Edison, a utility that is poised to receive 'a sweetheart deal' from Mr. Davis. Specifically, the governor has proposed a memorandum of understanding that would give the utility, Southern California Edison a large cash infusion of tax dollars and absolve it of significant responsibilities for maintaining the state's electrical grid."

Le-heinous works for Southern California Edison. Now, naturally Le-heinous denies any conflict of interest. He said both the governor and Edison are in agreement in terms of what needs to be done at the public policy level. The memorandum of understanding is "good public policy, not only for Edison and for the governor, but more importantly, it's good public policy for the people of the state." It is not!

If you've heard nothing I've ever said, listen to this: nothing that they're doing out there on this is aimed at helping you. It's aimed at helping Democrats in Washington and California.

Here you have hit men- who also work for a huge energy company - hired by the governor of California with the express purpose of blaming the president of the United States for an energy problem. Now, is that brazen or what? It's a fascinating little detail buried in this Washington Times story, and I don't know that anybody is going to pick up on this and make a big deal out of it - but somebody should

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Originally posted by 1993gt40:
Well, ok. I really dont know how I was being vague. I dont know how much clearer I could have stated things. Look at my first post that started this stuff. Clean, simple, straight to the point and where I have drawn my conclusions from are clearly stated. If that is vague, I'm sorry, I really dont know how to make it any clearer than that.

The mechanics you described in your initial post are correct for a highly competitive market, but as I pointed out we arent dealing with a highly competitive market here.

Originally posted by 1993gt40:
"all we have to do is have the power purchasers collude to counter act the power suppliers market power and the market will go back to clearing" Ok, this is what I have been saying all along. Ultimately the consumer has the power, even in a monopoly, even in inelastic commodities.

No consumers do not have ultimate power in a monopoly, that contradicts the definition of a monopoly. They only have power if they collude against the monopoly. In the current power crisis the consumers have demonstrated a lack of ability to collude and thus are unable to counter act the market power of the electricity producing cartel. If this is what you've been trying to say from the beginning Im sorry i miss interpretted but it sounded to me like you believed the market would return to equlibrium naturally without the consumers actively colluding.

As far as a government regulated price being cheaper to consumers, i think it definately would be to the majority of consumers. The government simply subsidizes the consumers with the tax dollars they suck from the upper tiers of the tax brackets, ineffect making the wealthiest members of the population pay for everybody elses cheap power. Im not advocating this approach but thats the reality of government intervention.


Originally posted by 1993gt40:
The one working on comercial airliners realizes that he must compete with others in a market with finite resources and real bean counters. The overall efforts of all partieies involved are to lower the opportunity cost of flight in order to have more passengers use their airlines so that they may make more money (self-serving interest). The one working on jet fighters realizes that money is not really a concern. Their market has (virtually) unlimited resources allocated by people who dont care where the beans go because they dont have to do anything. They dont have to compete, every customer must buy their product reguardless of anything else (almost a monopoly [therefore our government is not permanant]). Tell me this; If the citazens of America all wanted jet fighters, would they cost $1,000,000,000 still? How many more companies would be in the market?

First off, there IS competition for government contracts. The government spends billions on contracts for everything from canned food to killer satellites. Numerous firms compete with each other for these contracts. The government generally goes with whoever can make the best(most likely cheapest) bid. The feds do not supply the contracted firms with an endless supply of cash to waste. If the firm fails to deliver the feds simply switch contractors, and all those extra employees working for firm A that loses the contract find themselves out of a job. Theres multiple firms who can build guns and bombs but they have very few clients especially since they only reason they are legally allowed to build weapons of mass destruction is through the contracts awarded them by the government.

As far as societally beneficial goods private firms wouldnt be interested in well hmmm. How bout battle tanks, jet fighters, and nuclear bombs. The government has a use for these things, they use them to provide for the public defense. Private industry wouldnt produce these items of their own volition because no body in the private sector aside from criminals would buy enough of these things to make it profitable.



------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche