US Politics... 14 Months to Elections!

[ants]

http://finance.yahoo...1745827859.html

"President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of smog's main ingredient, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy."

Well there you go .......... seems that Obama is quite friendly to business.

Funny, I would have thought Smog counted as a pretty visible and negative externality....

[ants]

No, it's that externalities must have an actual cost associated with them to have any economic meaning. A minor amount of pollution that has no discernable health effects is an externality, but not one to which we should assign any value. The more the pollutant, the more of a cost. But that doesn't mean that any pollution with any negative effective has infinite cost, such that an energy source that has zero emissions should always be preferred to one with emissions regardless of costs. It's not that simple.

To be fair Shryke, I directed that at a single poster who had replied and then missed the point. I wasn't making a general statement about everyone.

Beyond lead poisoning, dumping polutants, chemicals in the water etc. that we all agree are bad and want stopped, there are a whole range where you're going to have a bun fight. The big can of worms is of course global warming, but you also have ones such as smog above, or general air/water/soil quality. You have ones like erosion in areas as well. These can all lead to big fights over the degree to which they are "real", and the degree something like smog costs.

But smog is a good example, because everyone would agree its bad (presumably). But obviously some don't think its bad enough to regulate. To the degree we can agree smog is something we would prefer wasn't being produced, that means business is getting an arm chair ride. I'm not an asthmatic, but I bet those who are think its a bloody big cost to them that they aren't allowed/able to sue and put back onto those who create the problem.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To be fair Shryke, I directed that at a single poster who had replied and then missed the point. I wasn't making a general statement about everyone.

Beyond lead poisoning, dumping polutants, chemicals in the water etc. that we all agree are bad and want stopped, there are a whole range where you're going to have a bun fight. The big can of worms is of course global warming, but you also have ones such as smog above, or general air/water/soil quality. You have ones like erosion in areas as well. These can all lead to big fights over the degree to which they are "real", and the degree something like smog costs.

But smog is a good example, because everyone would agree its bad (presumably). But obviously some don't think its bad enough to regulate. To the degree we can agree smog is something we would prefer wasn't being produced, that means business is getting an arm chair ride. I'm not an asthmatic, but I bet those who are think its a bloody big cost to them that they aren't allowed/able to sue and put back onto those who create the problem.

That's true to some extent, but then the reality is that all of us are getting that free ride in some sense because we all take advantage of those products/services produced by those businesses, which would be much more expensive or perhaps unavailable entirely otherwise. Those products are only being made because we want those things.

The Industrial Revolution enabled humanity to become a lot more productive, which meant more people could, well, live. But one downside was more pollution.

Certainly, there is a line to be drawn, and I think controlling environmental externalities is a legitimate function of government. People can disagree on exactly where that line should be drawn depending upon how the balance those various factors. And generally, it's not really a question of profits, because manufacturers would still make profits from the alternative. It's a question of cost to consumers.

So sure, you could have less pollution if everyone had solar power. But the cost of that means that a great many people wouldn't have a lot of other things they need/want, because so much more of their income would go towards energy. And that's why it's not as easy as just saying we need to eliminate all externalities, because as a people, we are willing to tolerate some of those in exchange for making some things we value affordable.

So sure, less smog. But not enough electricity to heat people in winter or keep them from dying from the heat in summer.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But smog is a good example, because everyone would agree its bad (presumably). But obviously some the administration championed and elected en masse by progressives don't think its bad enough to regulate.

FTFY. It's your own government that sets what the costs of these externalities are and who pays them. It would appear that smog (according to the agency that regulates such things headed by the champion of your policies), is not a significant enough externality to warrant increased costs onto the end user.

[The Progressive]

FTFY. It's your own government that sets what the costs of these externalities are and who pays them. It would appear that smog (according to the agency that regulates such things headed by the champion of your policies), is not a significant enough externality to warrant increased costs onto the end user.

Lol, I like it how you entirely left out the intense lobbying and pressure from businesses and repubs/teabaggers against the proposed regulations!

You're almost as good as flow and commodore now!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Batteries!

But seriously, this is an issue that could be solved by, again, basic research. It's pretty common knowledge that batter tech is not very good. Lots of investment in basic research on power storage is in order.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know you and I have disagreed on the govt's role in basic research, but government at least can point to the results of its investment in basic research and claim results.

Well, sure, if you spend enough money, you're bound to generate something of value. But look, I'd gladly keep some government funding of more pure science (the stuff for which there doesn't seem to be any direct return on investment) if it allows me to get rid of subsidies once things get to more of an applied level. So for batteries, I see plenty of economic incentive for companies to develop better batteries. That's the type of thing I don't think we should be subsidizing. And if a company managed to make solar panels affordable, they'd make a ton of money. So if we've got private incentive there already, why toss in taxpayer money that may just go to some demonstration project in the district of an influential member of Congress?

Is there any historical evidence that these kinds of loan programs "jump start" any new industries? What highly technical industries were jump started through government loan programs? The railroad industry was jump started by giving away the infrastructure to JP Morgan. I suppose there's an argument from the defense industry perspective, but that's a pretty lousy example given the waste everyone acknowledges.

And even if there were, you still have the issue of all the ones that don't succeed, the relative costs of those, etc.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Lol, I like it how you entirely left out the intense lobbying and pressure from businesses and repubs/teabaggers against the proposed regulations!

You're almost as good as flow and commodore now!

Well, don't all citizens have the right to be heard and have their opinions count in a democracy? Or is it just people that agree with you? It would seem the progressive president disagrees with you as to the value of the externalities, as does the EPA. If not them, who should get to decide what the value of externalities is?

[The Progressive]

It would seem the progressive president disagrees with you as to the value of the externalities, as does the EPA.

I think you got it confused here. The president overruled the EPA's proposed regulation.

If not them, who should get to decide what the value of externalities is?

The EPA?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The EPA?

So the EPA should get to override the democratically elected leadership of the country?

[The Progressive]

So the EPA should get to override the democratically elected leadership of the country?

Sure. SCOTUS does that all the time.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Heh, no kidding.

[The Progressive]

We are facing a near future catastrophe and the absolute best our politicians can come up with is pointless idiotic squabbles while traiterously ignoring mounting problems.

A now deceased poster on another site put it best:

'a politician will walk ten miles out of his way rather than make a hard decision.'

So for batteries, I see plenty of economic incentive for companies to develop better batteries. That's the type of thing I don't think we should be subsidizing. And if a company managed to make solar panels affordable, they'd make a ton of money. So if we've got private incentive there already, why toss in taxpayer money that may just go to some demonstration project in the district of an influential member of Congress?

Lol, with the majority of voters like that, we got the politicians we deserve.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, don't all citizens have the right to be heard and have their opinions count in a democracy? Or is it just people that agree with you? It would seem the progressive president disagrees with you as to the value of the externalities, as does the EPA. If not them, who should get to decide what the value of externalities is?

The rulemaking process specifically requires that there be a "notice and comment period", and all interested parties are encouraged to give their input prior to the regulation being enacted. A regulation enacted without going through this public comment period is legally invalid. Anyone who criticizes attempts to influence legislation through that process just doesn't understand that it was intentionally built into the process.

Doesn't make me any less opposed to the idea of administrative agencies essentially having the power to legislate, though.

[Iskaral Pust]

Just over a year to the 2012 election and the jobs report is still ugly. If this continues the odds of a GOP victory will rise, no matter how weak their candidates. This new jobs initiative needs to be effective quickly.

At least the stronger GOP candidates can't jump into the race after the party primary if the economy is still weak next year. They have to gamble now.

[Ser Reptitious]

DG,

Some dickhead conservative columnist has finally taken the mask off the GOP's vote fraud alarmism: they really just don't believe poor people should vote at all.

http://tpmmuckraker....s.php?ref=fpblg

Pretty much what I knew -- conservative blowhards like this guy just hate the vast percentage of America that consists of people darker and poorer than them. They don't love America or Americans. They just love the parts they know and are familiar with, and fear and loathe the unwashed seething masses that actually make up the rest of America.

You know, I really wonder how far this relentless attack towards all segments of American society that do not fall into 'wealthy and upwards' can be sustained before provoking some serious blowback. I guess as long as it's just rhethoric it can be fairly easily ignored, but as more and more people struggle to make ends meet, and with wages and benefits shrinking in real terms and the likes of education costs skyrocketing (thereby preventing many from improving their lot in life) and social programs being cut back or eliminated in order to cut yet more taxes for the rich and uber-rich, a breaking point is bound to be reached at some point, and boy will things get interesting when that happens...

[awesome possum]

Just over a year to the 2012 election and the jobs report is still ugly. If this continues the odds of a GOP victory will rise, no matter how weak their candidates. This new jobs initiative needs to be effective quickly.

And that's why many members of the GOP will do everything within their power to make sure this new jobs initiative is as ineffective as possible.

You know, I really wonder how far this relentless attack towards all segments of American society that do not fall into 'wealthy and upwards' can be sustained before provoking some serious blowback. I guess as long as it's just rhethoric it can be fairly easily ignored, but as more and more people struggle to make ends meet, and with wages and benefits shrinking in real terms and the likes of education costs skyrocketing (thereby preventing many from improving their lot in life) and social programs being cut back or eliminated in order to cut yet more taxes for the rich and uber-rich, a breaking point is bound to be reached at some point, and boy will things get interesting when that happens...

Maybe another 10-15 years, when the generation who have lived with internet/social-media their whole lives are grown up. This will coincide with the continuing decline in population among baby boomers.

[Commodore]

the Solyndra case gets more interesting:

Congress requested documents related to the Solyndra loan from the Office of Management and Budget. After three months and zero documents produced, a hearing was scheduled. An OMB deputy director was asked to attend but didn’t show up, claiming a scheduling conflict. Finally, OMB allowed that congressional staff could view some of the requested documents on site, but when they arrived in mid-July not all the documents were available and some that were made available had been redacted. Specifically, the information on risk ratings had been lined out. Given that this was exactly the information congress had been looking for the entire exercise was becoming a waste of time. At this point the committee held a hearing to consider issuing a subpoena for the documents.

In a letter to the White House, committee Chairman Fred Upton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns requested a scheduled briefing on the matter by no later than September 12 and asked for all documents related to the loan guarantee between Solyndra and the White House.

...

“We have learned from our investigation that White House officials monitored Solyndra’s application, and communicated with DOE and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials during the course of their review in 2009 and when those officials were restructuring the Solyndra deal this year,” Upton and Stearns wrote. “Documents received by the Committee also show that DOE and OMB officials were aware of the White House’s interest in the Solyndra loan guarantee. In addition, we are also aware that a major investor in Solyndra, George Kaiser, was a bundler for President Obama’s 2008 campaign.”

reminds me of the Serious Materials scandal

[lokisnow]

Still doesn't compare to losing an entire shipload of cash.

[The Undead Martyr]

Reminds me of a quote from somewhere.

"the problem with capitalism is too few capitalists."

The market, IMO, is as necessary as the government, up to a point. I personally favor a co-op business model, with no external private investors and/or ownership of stock. The stock market, or rather its natural tendency towards consolidation, is the heart of the economic (capitalist) problem.

I feel like bashing my head against the wall whenever I hear "green tech is economically unfeasible" or "they should be more productive" in reference to economic debates. The existence of the government- indeed, society itself- is for the general welfare. EVERYTHING is subordinate to the concern for public good- defense, education, the economy, everything. If it isn't helping improve human lives, then it isn't an improvement.

:commie:

[Shryke]

That's true to some extent, but then the reality is that all of us are getting that free ride in some sense because we all take advantage of those products/services produced by those businesses, which would be much more expensive or perhaps unavailable entirely otherwise. Those products are only being made because we want those things.

The Industrial Revolution enabled humanity to become a lot more productive, which meant more people could, well, live. But one downside was more pollution.

Certainly, there is a line to be drawn, and I think controlling environmental externalities is a legitimate function of government. People can disagree on exactly where that line should be drawn depending upon how the balance those various factors. And generally, it's not really a question of profits, because manufacturers would still make profits from the alternative. It's a question of cost to consumers.

So sure, you could have less pollution if everyone had solar power. But the cost of that means that a great many people wouldn't have a lot of other things they need/want, because so much more of their income would go towards energy. And that's why it's not as easy as just saying we need to eliminate all externalities, because as a people, we are willing to tolerate some of those in exchange for making some things we value affordable.

So sure, less smog. But not enough electricity to heat people in winter or keep them from dying from the heat in summer.

Except it won't just cost more. It will shift resources towards things that cost less. It's just right now the cost of things that cause, say, smog are kept low because all the results of them aren't taken into account.

This is the point of regulation, to force externalities to be reflected in the cost of a product/policy/etc.

If the current business model doesn't continue, a newer one that can accomidate the actual cost of, say, coal power will emerge. Go free market!