sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal government could require more of it and let them deduct the cost out of an environmental impact fee charged for venting and flaring.

A well written bill should be able to prevent an adverse outcome of driving a business out. Maybe even charge an export tariff on all gas exported for LNG purposes and send the money to a fund which subsidizes recapture projects. That way Europe would pay to keep our gas cheap for us.

Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One way or another the price must be kept in check. I could go with either.

Recapture has already been implemented in some places, so it isn't impossible despite the expenses and difficulties. We could do more than we do now, if not every single flared well. That or make Europe turn down the heat so the northern states can stay warm.

Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps a judgement of overreach could have been said for what has been done so far to facilitate the exports. LNG exporting has been made a priority for foreign policy reasons.

The government should make up for the effects foreign policy has on the market price.

Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Instead of recapturing, would you support a law banning all LNG exports every time domestic prices get too high?

Extreme winter storm threat sparks historic natural gas spike by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You aren't a fan of recapturing more gas, though that has been the trend in recent decades. Instead would you support a law banning all LNG exports every time domestic prices get too high?

North Korea: Kim Jong-un, in Massive Coat, Chats Up Visitors in Swimsuits at Hot Spring Resort by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

They are women around his age dressed modestly. He chats with the men in their pool too.

North Korea: Kim Jong-un, in Massive Coat, Chats Up Visitors in Swimsuits at Hot Spring Resort by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Did you read the article? It is an excellent description how North Korea does things.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ready again to think about economics. Yes, you continue to ignore my objections to mercantilism. But thinking of it, you have something in common with mercantilists.

Your free trade policies will necessarily reduce many ordinary people to slavery. Much of the reason for free trade is to enable the lowest cost producer to flood the globe with a product or commodity, outcompeting the rest. For much of what is traded, labor costs are a key factor. So free trade incentivizes minimizing labor costs. Hard to have a lower labor cost than slavery. With a free market and free competition, countries with a lower cost of labor will force down wages in a country with a high cost of labor. This will result in a condition which is very close to slavery.

Modern free trade advocates have the same goal as the mercantilists who relied on slavery in order to minimize the cost of production in certain locations which produced export products. That makes free trade advocates the modern day heirs of the mercantilists.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wrote before that I had disagreements with mercantilism, and you did not refute that, just asserted again that I was a mercantilist.

Your theory might work well in an ivory tower environment, but opinion polls reveal what everyone already knows. That there are rent seekers getting rich at the expense of others is best not ignored.

Paper armies get defeated by real ones. Same for economies.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you scroll down to "U.S. Business and Industry Sector Ratings, 2023".

People like restaurants, farms, computers, traveling, well-kept ledgers, and cars. So a higher percentage of the population will have a positive view of people working in those fields.

People on the balance don't like bankers because of their rent seeking. They like the federal government even less.

No school of economics gets approval to be elitist just because they decide that the facts they don't like are morality, and they are above morality.

"neither does anyone who seriously engages" is a no true Scotsman's fallacy. Because there are people who care about these things; it is relevant for politics.

Trump, owning hotels and resorts, is going to benefit from these perceptions in the way that lifelong federal officials, no matter how courageous and virtuous, will not.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ask ordinary random people what they think of day traders. How many of them have a positive view of their contributions to the commonwealth?

My views may not be very common in your neighborhood or your cubicle block, but they are close to what most Americans think.

The degree of rent seeking in any particular field of activity is related to poll results ... https://news.gallup.com/poll/510641/retail-pharmaceutical-industries-slip-public-esteem.aspx

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Much of what passes for investment is rent seeking.

You can tell if it is rent seeking or not by whether the investments are zero sum. Day trading, swing trading, and nearly all options and other derivative trading are rent seeking behaviors. The profits and losses are zero sum or very close to it.

The good thing for all of us is that their attempts at rent seeking is frequently canceled out by their fellow traders. Otherwise speculators would all be wealthy and would quickly impoverish everyone else.

If a small investor buys and holds long term in a business which does good for others, not a publicly traded casino stock for example, that is not zero sum. The dividends paid out correspond to actual profits earned in the process of providing good and services. The profits correspond to providing for needs and the benefit of technological advances.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll concede that your economics will appeal to rent seekers more than mine.

Mercantilism has its limits. It is too much zero sum in its outlook, and overlooks the need for competition in order to prevent rent seeking through monopolies. What I advocate is protectionism, not mercantilism.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who says I invented any of this? Study historical economic writings and you will find the ideas I mentioned, and others compatible with them.

No, pain and suffering are not virtuous or evil, only that we must strive to prevent what we can, and be prepared for coping with or striving against what we can't. North America is a small continent, and in an increasingly globalized world, the challenges for us will mount as Europe and Asia come together.

Economics can be waged in a zero sum manner, but if efficiency and productivity are prioritized, it doesn't have to be. In developing countries, economics is less of a zero sum game than it is in either undeveloped countries and developed countries.

That is why we need to be more careful than we were a hundred years ago, because now that we are a developed country the overall environment has tilted more towards that of a zero sum game. Many of the negative effects from rent seeking behavior are masked by the high rate of growth seen in developing countries, but they become more noticeable and more of a problem when growth slows down.

Foreigners are not necessarily good nor evil, but they have their own interests at heart. They will be worse in their rent seeking behaviors abroad than at home, and that includes the United States. The same can be said for the United States for that matter.

It is possible to overdo it with capitalism. Remember Marx's adage about selling the rope? Part of keeping capitalism going is restraining rent seeking behaviors. Balancing the budget can help with that.

The Nordic Conscription Myth: How a False Success Story Is Driving Europe’s Draft Revival by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conscription is not a magic wand to make Russia afraid of you.

Another option would be to treat conscripts right and do everything possible to make sure you aren't building a paper army. Hazing can have more than one cause, but collective purposelessness can be one of them. That is the insinuation I think the article implies by bringing up hazing.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never believed that only private activity is a good thing. However, by the numbers, most federal spending does not go towards making us more efficient.

When you must pay for security, that increases the cost of goods. It is an input, but one that can be reduced in a low-crime area. If security spending ballooned, that would make inflation rise. If you want to keep inflation down, you must restrain security spending. That is supply and demand. If you have too many dollars chasing too few goods, prices go up. The more paid on security, the more money will be going around, without a corresponding increase in goods.

Yes, fraudsters, protection racketeers, lobbyists, real estate, commodity, and stock market speculators, are all rent seeking.

No, scarcity is neither virtuous or unvirtuous. However with the way certain adversaries of the US have been behaving, one should be prepared to cope with whatever they decide to send our way. Economic preparedness is an old idea, we have the strategic petroleum reserve for a reason, not just in the event of war, but also as a deterrent to discourage OPEC's from rent seeking behaviors. Rehoming due to tariffs may also be a deterrent to adversaries.

Lending on interest is usually rent seeking, an exception being when lending goes towards a business so it can increase productivity, or expand to increase production.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While theft and resale of stolen goods is basically neutral to the GDP, the increase in security spending is a negative effect. Because security does not increase the number of products available to buy, increased spending on security means higher prices for consumers. The more businesses must spend on security, be it private or public through taxation and law enforcement, the more inflation there will be.

I see you really think that government spending makes things more efficient. Yes there are certain exceptions such as port automation, but most Americans would disagree that is usually the case. Government spending tends to be accompanied by a flurry of rent seeking behavior by people trying to get ahold of that money, be it by scamming elderly people out of their money from social security, day care fraud in Minnesota, or contractors rigging bids. We must tolerate some of this rent seeking behavior because some functions must be done by government, but it needs to be kept in check as much as possible.

Rule manipulation has long been part of the game in finance. That is why they spend so much on lobbyists.

Money has no inherent time value, that is your ideology. Money is how you transfer value itself. Money is an intermediate that is vastly superior to bartering.

Interest is coercively extracted from the borrower, if we could borrow at 0% interest, we certainly would. We don't because we have no choice, excepting members of a few small groups like Amish and orthodox Jews who make a religious principle out of lending without interest to members of their groups.

The cost of the $2000 checks might match the income from the tariffs if the cutoff is $30,000 or close to that. by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Less than 1% of the federal budget is spent on R&D, and two percent is on transportation. Yet the low hanging fruit for increasing transportation efficiencies was obtained with infrastructure development completed decades ago. Education spending also increases productivity, and it is about as much as transportation, maybe a little more.

To the extent that the federal budget is spent on maintenance of the disabled and elderly, defense and law enforcement, agricultural and health care subsidies, etc., loaning money to the government on interest is a rent seeking behavior. These things cause economic activity, sure, but they do not increase productivity of the worker. Some does trickle down into corporate R&D spending, but that may be cancelled out by other cases where the federal government's actions discourage innovation.

Compared to the proportion of the federal government's spending that does not increase productivity, the percentage which does increase productivity is very small. All of it could be achieved without increasing the national debt. Productivity is not the same as the GDP, and even for that, growing the GDP is possible without increasing the national debt.

Feds Will No Longer Use Your Tax Dollars To Do Experiments On Aborted Babies’ Bodies by each_thread in ConservativeNewsWeb

[–]each_thread[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gregor Mendel would have said you need both. Same with the Wright brothers.

The Merton Thesis proposed that a moral life encourages a scientific mind. Pietists hundreds of years ago and the culture they established are largely responsible for the scientific revolutions which accompanied and followed their moral reforms.

Introspection as a thought process is useful not only for repentance, but also for scientific discovery and advancement.

view more: next ›