No blood for oil!

[kuyu]

This argument has been tossed around for too long. Here's the skinny of it. When oil prices rise, unemployment follows suit. When unemployment rises 1%, child abuse goes up and domestic disturbences go up. In fact, historically a 1% increase in unemployment leads to 600 extra suicides, 900 extra murders, and 20,000 extra hospital visits because of heart attacks.

So, it appears that we must trade blood for oil. However, keep in mind that the military exists to protect the citizens of this nation. I hate to say this, but sometimes soldiers must die in battle to protect civilians in the rest of society.

The answer: Buy a hybrid car.

[patrick0brien]

-kuyu

Don't forget that with every rise in unemployment, alcohol consumption rises as well. Heck, every rise in employment does it too! In fact, the only time there is a fall in drinking, it in a period of switchover.

What to do? Forget the hybrid - take the train. Stay off the road. :D

[mactastic]

I wish it was that easy. There is no single magic bullet against high oil prices, nor military or civilian deaths as a result. Although a hybrid car isn't a bad start.

[Desertrat]

Hybrids: Coming to your friendly Ford dealer, sometime in the next couple of months. I disremember the model name; been to lazy to google-ize.

:), 'Rat

[Ugg]

It would be nice if we all had access to public transportation. Since we don't, hybrids and the Smart (http://www.thesmart.co.uk/) by DaimlerChysler are great alternatives. Unfortunately, the US has decided the Smart cannot be imported into the US. Not sure why but the car has been on European road for a few years now.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Ugg
It would be nice if we all had access to public transportation. Since we don't, hybrids and the Smart (http://www.thesmart.co.uk/) by DaimlerChysler are great alternatives. Unfortunately, the US has decided the Smart cannot be imported into the US. Not sure why but the car has been on European road for a few years now.

-Ugg

I think it has to do with safety regulations: rollbar, crush, weight.

Due to the SUV+Idiot Driver issue we have in the States.

Can you see Jimbo Billy-Bob Johannsen driving a "Smart" car? I really don't like contradictions sometimes.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by kuyu
However, keep in mind that the military exists to protect the citizens of this nation. I hate to say this, but sometimes soldiers must die in battle to protect civilians in the rest of society.

The answer: Buy a hybrid car.

So the military exists to keep oil prices low by invasion and theft.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Pinto
So the military exists to keep oil prices low by invasion and theft.

-Pinto

That's bait.

It's not that simple, and you know it. As illustrated by the flamewar that will start shortly...

[SPG]

Originally posted by kuyu
When unemployment rises 1%, child abuse goes up and domestic disturbences go up. In fact, historically a 1% increase in unemployment leads to 600 extra suicides, 900 extra murders, and 20,000 extra hospital visits because of heart attacks.


So, under the leadership of bush, there are 2million, 3million more unemployed? Under kuyu's math that's a lot of blood on W's hands.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Ugg

I think it has to do with safety regulations: rollbar, crush, weight.

Rollover tests are not required and there are no minimum weights for US vehicles.

Now there is some question as to whether the vehicle could pass the other crash tests required...

but the most important barrier is the EPA. Federalising a vehicle engine is expensive and troublesome. If you were to import a car under the new supercar regs, you'd need to bring the engine/emissions/exhaust to spec and have it tested, which, for you as an individual, would cost at least $20,000 per car.

For an example of the complexity involved, VW sells its 2.0l gas motor in the Golf, Jetta and Beetle. It's the same exact motor in each car. It must be tested and federalised for each model and each transmission used (5-speed, 6-speed, 5-speed tiptronic, 4-speed auto, 5-speed auto) in each car. Not to mention that the GTI is just a 2-door Golf and the New Beetle Cabrio is just a drop top Beetle, but both must be tested as separate cars in each engine/transmission combination. Or the fact that certain models can have one different gear ratio, which means its a separate transmission under gov't regs. Okay, now multiply this problem with one engine times the TDI, 2.8 VR6, the 150HP, 170, 180 1.8T engines all with different transmission options and you'll see why US choices in cars' engines and transmissions is so pathetic next to the ones available in the EU or the rest of the world.

[Frohickey]

Does that mean that prior to the discovery of petroleum, people lived forever? :o

When unemployment rises 1%, child abuse goes up and domestic disturbences go up. In fact, historically a 1% increase in unemployment leads to 600 extra suicides, 900 extra murders, and 20,000 extra hospital visits because of heart attacks.

Blaming criminality (child abuse, domestic violence, murders), poor health choices (heart attacks), and poor mental health (suicides) on petroleum or its scarcity's effect on the labor market is not logical.

Thats right alongside blaming fast food restaurants for making people fat.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
but the most important barrier is the EPA. Federalising a vehicle engine is expensive and troublesome.
...
you'll see why US choices in cars' engines and transmissions is so pathetic next to the ones available in the EU or the rest of the world.

But...but... isn't the EPA, and all of its byzantine regulations supposed to be protecting our environment? :p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Does that mean that prior to the discovery of petroleum, people lived forever?

No, but his implication is that after a Bush economy, people who were alive and would have lived longer are dead instead.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But...but... isn't the EPA, and all of its byzantine regulations supposed to be protecting our environment? :p

No one's claiming the regulations work perfectly. But it beats the alternative of letting anyone run any kind of 2-stroke engine, or other such nonsense, that the market is willing to produce.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But...but... isn't the EPA, and all of its byzantine regulations supposed to be protecting our environment? :p

Those particular regualtions are in place due to lobbying by the Big Three, who can afford to pay for them much more easily than smaller foreign manufacturers.

You asked.

Sorry, your "government is evil" argument doesn't work here either.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
No one's claiming the regulations work perfectly. But it beats the alternative of letting anyone run any kind of 2-stroke engine, or other such nonsense, that the market is willing to produce.

Market is only willing to produce if the consumers are willing to buy. Consumers make poor purchasing choices is if there is lack of accurate information regarding the choice of purchase.

Big 3... actually, its big 2 now. Number 3 is a German-owned now. I'm kind of glad, really, all of a sudden, my status in the world has increased, my LeBaron is now a Mercedes-Benz. :p

As to the argument that economic downturns lead to more bloodshed, and blaming this on the administration in office, remember, the dot com crash happened prior to GWBush taking office. How about the multitude of people now out of work in California? Is that Gray Davis' fault?

Maybe we should drill in ANWR.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by kuyu
When unemployment rises 1%, child abuse goes up and domestic disturbences go up. In fact, historically a 1% increase in unemployment leads to 600 extra suicides, 900 extra murders, and 20,000 extra hospital visits because of heart attacks.


link, please

[Desertrat]

"Those particular regualtions are in place due to lobbying by the Big Three, who can afford to pay for them much more easily than smaller foreign manufacturers."

Now, there's as wonderful a non sequitur as ever I've seen!

If they're in place due to the lobbying, imagine how strict they'd be without it! The yelling and screaming out of Detroit as the regulations were developed was quite loud; they even took some of the clean-air standards to court--and often lost.

But, for sure the texting is complex and expensive. Every engine/transmission package has gotta meet spec by running cycles on a dynomometer for the equivalent of 50,000 miles with no adjustments allowed. That's what, about two months or so per package? Not cheap, when you figure the number of packages available.

'Rat

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by SPG
So, under the leadership of bush, there are 2million, 3million more unemployed? Under kuyu's math that's a lot of blood on W's hands.

-SPG

Please don't pull that - it doesn't work. This slide began 9 months before we knew who the 43rd president would be.

I remember conversations at the time being "gee, whoever get's elected is going to inherit on heckuva mess". Please try not to revise history.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
This slide began 9 months before we knew who the 43rd president would be.


the projected $5 trillion surplus has turned into a $1.4 to $7+ trillion deficit.

there has been a net loss of nearly 3 million jobs since 2001 (the first net loss since the depression).

is this an inherited mess? if not, how much responsibility should bush be assigned?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-SPG

Please don't pull that - it doesn't work. This slide began 9 months before we knew who the 43rd president would be.

I remember conversations at the time being "gee, whoever get's elected is going to inherit on heckuva mess". Please try not to revise history.

It's one thing to say that the economic slowdown started in the Clinton administration, it is a whole other thing to say that this economic "mess" started with the Clinton administration. There will always be business cycles, it is what you do in those downturns that matter. Given this administration's whole economic policy is tax cuts, more tax cuts, and still more tax cuts; I would say that they must take responsiblity for the mess.

[patrick0brien]

-zimv20, Sayhey

I want you both to note that I didn't lay blame at the feet of either administration. They both made contributions to the slide, and to shoring it up - too numerous to mention.

This slide has also been affected by extraordinary events as well, the attacks, then the scandals. We're extremely lucky it's not a full blown depression.

Presidents have limited ability to affect the economy. The economy is it's own beast, if it were easy - it would be easy. They do what they can.

As for cutting taxes over and over again, six months ago I would say that was not the right thing to do, however, according to indicators, it seems to be working. Now wether that's luck or skill - that's a debate only historians can put to bed.

As for the loss of jobs, that gets stickier. I'm not proud of the contributions I have made to corporations' ability to terminate employees en masse. Due to efforts by myself and others in the 90's heyday of installing Peoplesoft, and other ERP systems, there have been three key results:
1) The numerization of performance. It's all numbers, nobody cares how good you have been, or how good you can do it in the future - it's all about how you are doing right now vs. your cost to the corporation (salary+benefits). There is no time for a 'bad day'. My former employers, where I did this work, has reduced the 'beach time' (the time a consultant is alotted to find a new project to bill for) has been reduced from the 30 days of my tenure, to 48 hours. After that, you're gone. No matter who you are (unless you are senior management)
2) The Big Red Button. Due to that numerization, it is 'easy' to find those performing below metric. And it is easy to terminate them - essentially with a mouse click.
3) (Meta-Effect) The numerization combined with the Big Red Button precipitates a third effect and that's dehumanization. No need to walk up to a person and tell them the bad news. There's no emotional hang up to pressing a button. To the employee, there's no goodbye, just an email (or a voicemail for the lucky ones) that tells them to turn in their computer and keys and be out of the building in X hours.

This technology was installed and in operation long before the 2000 election - during the Clinton years. Did he have any control over this? Did anyone in his administration foresee this effect (it didn't take much to read between the lines)? It is Bill Clinton's fault?

This is my point.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
the projected $5 trillion surplus has turned into a $1.4 to $7+ trillion deficit.

there has been a net loss of nearly 3 million jobs since 2001 (the first net loss since the depression).

is this an inherited mess? if not, how much responsibility should bush be assigned?

Thats because the projections used for the surplus was based on the pre-dotcom crash. Then, you had lots of people exercising stock options and incurring short term capital gains. After the dotcom crash, these stock options were underwater, and so, the 'surplus' just vanished.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
It's one thing to say that the economic slowdown started in the Clinton administration, it is a whole other thing to say that this economic "mess" started with the Clinton administration. There will always be business cycles, it is what you do in those downturns that matter. Given this administration's whole economic policy is tax cuts, more tax cuts, and still more tax cuts; I would say that they must take responsiblity for the mess.

No one said the downturn was because of Clinton. All I said what the downturn happened prior to the 2000 elections and within the Clinton administration's term in office. As to economic policy being tax cuts, more tax cuts and still more tax cuts, you don't have to take it.

You can send more of your money to government. Write the IRS a check, and address it for 'deficit reduction'. I'm sure that the government will find a use for it.

Me, I think I'm better qualified to figure out what to spend my money on than some elected government official.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Thats because the projections used for the surplus was based on the pre-dotcom crash. Then, you had lots of people exercising stock options and incurring short term capital gains. After the dotcom crash, these stock options were underwater, and so, the 'surplus' just vanished.

i agree that the surplus was overoptimistic. but didn't bush campaign on simultaneous tax cuts, deficit reduction, SS stability and prescription drugs based on it?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
i agree that the surplus was overoptimistic. but didn't bush campaign on simultaneous tax cuts, deficit reduction, SS stability and prescription drugs based on it?

The projections of future surpluses might have been overoptimistic, but lest we forget, the last few years (three?) of the Clinton administration, we had actual budget surpluses, and federal debt was being retired for the first time in many decades. Also we should not have to remind ourselves that the first Bush tax cut was rationalized on the basis of continued surpluses, and when they failed to materialize, the rationalization was altered to economic stimulus. In fact, between these to rationales came a third: to help Americans pay for higher energy prices. It does seem that whatever conditions are occurring in the economy, the Bush team applies the same solution.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i agree that the surplus was overoptimistic. but didn't bush campaign on simultaneous tax cuts, deficit reduction, SS stability and prescription drugs based on it?

Tax cuts is a perennial favorite.
Deficit reduction is something else that is good too, because money tied up in the deficit is money otherwise not available for use in private economic transactions that could be taxed.
SS stability, I still think privatization is the way to do this. Allow people who have a personal stake in earning the most for their retirement be responsible for maximizing the return on it.
Prescription drugs, I don't think govt should be subsidizing this. Its certainly an issue that the Republicans have taken away from the Democrats, who have never met an entitlement program they didn't like. Remember, nothing is free, especially if its coming from the government.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Thats because the projections used for the surplus was based on the pre-dotcom crash. Then, you had lots of people exercising stock options and incurring short term capital gains. After the dotcom crash, these stock options were underwater, and so, the 'surplus' just vanished.

So why did/does Bush insist on giving us more of this money "back" if it was never there to begin with?

Why is his answer to every economic crisis to pass another tax cut? Two massive cuts haven't worked, why will more suddenly do the trick?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In fact, between these to rationales came a third: to help Americans pay for higher energy prices.

While oil companies rake in record profits, our tax cuts went to pay for the increased pump prices. "Giving money back to the American people" my ass.


It does seem that whatever conditions are occurring in the economy, the Bush team applies the same solution.

Take out "economy," sub in any other issue, and you have this administration in a nutshell. They have one direction, regardless the circumstances.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit Why is his answer to every economic crisis to pass another tax cut? Two massive cuts haven't worked, why will more suddenly do the trick?

Because history has shown that when you lower marginal tax rates, you spur economic activity and tax revenues increase. It was true in the 1960s (JFK), it was true in the 1980s (RR), and its true now.