Monday, May 09, 2011

US Manufacturing, Auto Industry Stage Comebacks

NEW GEOGRAPHY -- "This year’s survey of the best cities for jobs contains one particularly promising piece of news: the revival of the country’s long distressed industrial sector and those regions most dependent on it. Manufacturing has grown consistently over the past 21 months, and now, for the first time in years, according to data mined by Pepperdine University’s Michael Shires, manufacturing regions are beginning to move up on our list of best cities for jobs.

The fastest-growing industrial areas include four long-suffering Rust Belt cities Anderson, Ind. (No. 4), Youngstown, Ohio (No. 5), Lansing, Mich. (No. 9) and Elkhart-Goshen, Ind. (No. 10). The growth in these and other industrial areas influenced, often dramatically, their overall job rankings. Elkhart, for example, rose 137 places, on our best cities for jobs list; and Lansing moved up 155. Other industrial areas showing huge gains include Niles-Benton Harbor, Mich., up 242 places, Holland-Grand Haven, Mich., (up 172), Grand Rapids, Mich., (up 167)   Kokomo Ind., (up 177) ; and Sandusky, Ohio, (up 128).

One big driver of industrial growth has come from the source of so much pain in the past: the auto industry. Although production remains 25% below its 2007 peak, the industry, which accounts for roughly one-fifth of the nation’s industrial output, is on the rebound.  Ford Motor is achieving its best profits in over a decade, and both Chrysler and General Motors are officially in the black.

Long-depressed industry center Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, Mich., topped our list of manufacturing job-creators, with an impressive 8.2% increase. Second place went to the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn area, which experienced 3.5% growth."


MP: The chart above helps tell the story of manufacturing's comeback this year.  Compared to the overall real growth rate of the U.S. economy during the first quarter of 2011 at 1.8%, the manufacturing sector is growing at 9%, or five times faster than the overall economy (based on the annual growth rate of Industrial Production: Manufacturing series from the Federal Reserve). 

75 Comments:

At 5/09/2011 4:47 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I've noticed as of late the folks formerly outraged about the auto bailouts have quieted and are not saying "I told you so", eh?

 
At 5/09/2011 5:16 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Well, I don't know if Pepperdine really qualifies as a "University" but I guess in this age of lowering standards so everyone feels good about themselves....
That said, you gotta love the trade-enhancing dollar...and wages going up now in China...the yuan will rise...

Could be a long boom in America coming. A global bull market too.

Larry G--

Bailout? You mean like the $8 billion annually taxpayers hand over to rural telephone companies?

BTW, rural infrastucture used to be Donkey-party thing. Now?

1957 -- Authorize federal construction of Hells Canyon dam. Passed 45-38 (D 40-5; R 5-33) June 21. John Kennedy and LBJ FOR.

 
At 5/09/2011 10:08 PM, Blogger Rising said...

The bailout of the auto companies -- Chrysler for a second time -- is a moral failure. Politicians have no right to transfer money to failing businesses, and it doesn't matter a whit if the result is economic success. Despite what some economists might think, economics isn't everything.

 
At 5/10/2011 5:14 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Do China, Korea an Japan help their car companies and other manufacturing?

 
At 5/10/2011 7:38 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I've noticed as of late the folks formerly outraged about the auto bailouts have quieted and are not saying "I told you so", eh?

Nonsense. When you forgive the debts it is expected that the bailed out auto companies will do better than they did going into the bankruptcy. The price was still way too high and the apologists for government meddling make an assumption that they cannot support. They assume that in the absence of a bailout the assets would not have been used as productively by the creditors and purchasers that wound up with them. That is obviously not true.

 
At 5/10/2011 9:34 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

also worth noting is that GM stock has to be $52 for shareholders to break even.

we are a LONG way from there.

there is no way GM will ever make profit (even with the huge tax credit they were allowed to keep contrary to BK law) equivalent to the bailout.

anyone can look good for a little while if you give them 30bn worth of free physical plant. what's astounding is how little money they are making in light of that.

long before they ever get to a positive ROIC on the bailout, they will be mired in losses again. we'll be looking at a 3rd bailout within 15 years.

 
At 5/10/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

all things considered IMHO, if GM and Chrysler had gone done, they would have taken a lot of other jobs with them - and we would have descended into a depression.

 
At 5/10/2011 11:43 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Larry,

"all things considered IMHO, if GM and Chrysler had gone done, they would have taken a lot of other jobs with them - and we would have descended into a depression."

Well, that IS the standard apology for government interference in an otherwise normal process.

 
At 5/10/2011 11:48 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

not an apology - but a recognition of the probable realities - and we've seen it before and most every other country in the world including our toughest competitors would and have done the same.

We have this idea that the best world is one that is unabashedly raw capitalism and that world simply does not exist except in places like Yemen or similar.

When our manufacturers are trying to pay health care and retirement costs are up against manufacturers that don't because their respective countries do.. then other countries have placed our manufacturing at a severe competitive disadvantage -

.. and our response?

let OUR companies go broke....and let the companies that are subsidized by their respective countries take the jobs....

right.. that makes good sense, eh?

I'm all for the free market but I'm also all for facing the realities and adapting accordingly.

We don't need no STINKIN "pure capitalism".

 
At 5/10/2011 11:54 AM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

".. and our response?

let OUR companies go broke....and let the companies that are subsidized by their respective countries take the jobs....

right.. that makes good sense, eh?"

No. Our response is let free markets and liberty loose and we'll clean their clocks, no matter what government trickination other countries employ. Imitating their central planning nonsense is a long-term loser.

 
At 5/10/2011 12:00 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Our response is let free markets and liberty loose and we'll clean their clocks, no matter what "

what a bunch of horse manure.

When our companies have embedded health care and pension costs, how can we "clean their clocks" when their countries handle these issues separately from commerce?

We're living in a dream world here.

There are no pure capitalistic countries in the world except for 3rd world... and most companies won't invest there because of the gross bribery and corruption and likelihood that their company will be appropriated if they don't pay.

 
At 5/10/2011 12:33 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"not an apology - but a recognition of the probable realities"

Based on ... what?

"- and we've seen it before and most every other country in the world including our toughest competitors would and have done the same."

Then you favor government running car companies?

"We have this idea that the best world is one that is unabashedly raw capitalism and that world simply does not exist except in places like Yemen or similar."

That's funny. What makes you think Yemen has free markets?

"I'm all for the free market but..."

Obviously, you're not. Your comment says otherwise. You are advocating mercantilism.

You know, it's worse than just a problem of markets. In the US we have rule of law, and a Constitution that limits the power of government. When you say: "I'm also all for facing the realities and adapting accordingly.", you seem to be saying you are in favor of casting all that aside when it's expedient. That is the way to fascism and tyranny.

If you understood what happens in a normal bankruptcy, you might not be so insistent that government meddling was the correct solution.

 
At 5/10/2011 12:37 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Then you favor government running car companies? "

Nope.

but we compete in a world economy and if we insist on making our car companies less competitive by not dealing with the realities of the competition that they face what are we doing?

Do we want such a pure capitalistic ideal that we're fine even if it results in no car companies and no jobs?

that's the problem with ideology.

I favor pragmatism.

strive for the goals but don't take your own feet off at the knees to prove your purity.

 
At 5/10/2011 1:07 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

not an apology - but a recognition of the probable realities - and we've seen it before and most every other country in the world including our toughest competitors would and have done the same.

It is a delusional view that ignores both theory and reality. When bad behaviour and incompetence are bailed out you get more of both. Had Toyota wound up with GMs assets instead it still would have made cars. It would just have made them with more cost effective labour.

We have this idea that the best world is one that is unabashedly raw capitalism and that world simply does not exist except in places like Yemen or similar.

I take it that you mean a free market. We already have capitalism but it is the bad kind where government and company management are in bed together and harm workers, investors, consumers, and taxpayers.

When our manufacturers are trying to pay health care and retirement costs are up against manufacturers that don't because their respective countries do.. then other countries have placed our manufacturing at a severe competitive disadvantage -

.. and our response?


In the US GM plays under the same rules as Honda. Both companies cover health care for their workers. But one winds up bankrupt and having to be bailed out by the government while the other prospers.

let OUR companies go broke....and let the companies that are subsidized by their respective countries take the jobs....

right.. that makes good sense, eh?


It is not YOUR company. The company is owned by the shareholders and has obligations to its lenders. If it goes bankrupt because it is not competent good riddance. Let someone who is competent get the assets and use them wisely.

I'm all for the free market but I'm also all for facing the realities and adapting accordingly.

Actually, your words show that you are not for a free market. You are a big government meddler type who believes that governments can plan more effectively than private interests with their own skin in the game.

We don't need no STINKIN "pure capitalism".

And you have never had it in your lifetime. What you have had is a bastardized version that has failed. From what I see, you support more of the same.

 
At 5/10/2011 1:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

giving US auto assets to Japan who subsidizes their auto companies ?

and who is delusional?

Look at the world competition.

Are they pure capitalistic enterprises or are they protected by their respective countries?

Show me a world car company competitor that truly operates in a pure capitalistic mode.

I personally think it is delusional to believe that the rest of the world operates in purely capitalistic modes especially the car companies.

We are in a competition with the rest of the world.

We have to compete - on their terms not ours.

that's a reality that is far more relevant than ideology.

 
At 5/10/2011 1:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" We don't need no STINKIN "pure capitalism".

And you have never had it in your lifetime. What you have had is a bastardized version that has failed. From what I see, you support more of the same. "

Do the Chinese or the Japanese have it?

Do they lose if they don't have it?

Those countries want jobs for their people and they are not hung up on whether or not their form of competition is "capitalistically" pure or not.

 
At 5/10/2011 3:37 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"" Then you favor government running car companies? "

Nope.
"

"I'm all for the free market..."

I'm confused. You say things like the above, and then you say things like the following:

"We have to compete - on their terms not ours."

"Those countries want jobs for their people and they are not hung up on whether or not their form of competition is "capitalistically" pure or not."

And:

"let OUR companies go broke....and let the companies that are subsidized by their respective countries take the jobs....

right.. that makes good sense, eh?
"

Which suggests you prefer that governments subsidize or operate car companies.

Which is it? Do you even understand your own position? If, in fact, you prefer a socialist model in which government controls business and industry, you should say so, and then defend that position, instead of trying to have it both ways.

And then there's this.

""giving US auto assets to Japan who subsidizes their auto companies ?"

Do you understand how a bankruptcy works? Assets are bid on by interested parties. Nothing is "given", and the country "Japan" is unlikely to be among the bidders.

If reading the name Toyota causes you to stop thinking clearly, pick another auto company name that allows you to read and comprehend the whole comment.

You seem to be blaming the demise of GM on cruel foreign competitors, instead of the incompetent management that allowed labor costs to reach unsustainable levels. How do you account for the success of other auto makers in the US but not GM and Chrysler?

As for subsidies, do you understand that if Japanese car companies are subsidized, then all those poor Japanese taxpayers are helping pay for someones new car. They should be thanked.

"but we compete in a world economy and if we insist on making our car companies less competitive by not dealing with the realities of the competition that they face what are we doing?"

That's a lot of WE in one sentence. Who exactly is this collectivist WE? And, how are WE making car companies less competitive? That just doesn't make sense.

Speaking of ideology, I think your tribalistic "us" vs "them" mentality is getting in the way of understanding.

 
At 5/10/2011 4:47 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" hich suggests you prefer that governments subsidize or operate car companies."

No.

I'd suggest you are not understanding.

I want the free market to work as much as possible but one of the ironies here is that other countries will interfere with world "free market" principles to favor their own industries and workers and what I am suggesting is that in the real world, you must be pragmatic and address that issue.

Stepping back and allowing your own countries industries to fail against other countries industries on the basis of "free market" principles that the other countries are not following is economic suicide.

You want the world to be as free market as possible but when it is not - you have to be pragmatic enough to accept that reality and do what you must to protect your own industry also.

To do otherwise in the name of "pure" ideology is just plain dumb.

 
At 5/10/2011 4:51 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

What I am espousing is at the fore of many issues such as currency manipulation, govt universal health care and outright subsidies that some countries employ to preserve valued industries.

It's been suggested by more than a few folks with credentials that China and other Asian countries may well be tipping the scales in some industries to NOT use free-market principles.

To not recognize this and to insist that this country always follow free-market principles no matter what - even if we lose industries to countries who have no such capitalistic purity concerns is..... dumb.

I'm for free-market but I'm also for pragmatism an recognizing realities and adapting to them accordingly.

 
At 5/10/2011 8:03 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

What I am espousing is at the fore of many issues such as currency manipulation, govt universal health care and outright subsidies that some countries employ to preserve valued industries.

You are forgetting that the US is the biggest currency and market manipulator in the world.


It's been suggested by more than a few folks with credentials that China and other Asian countries may well be tipping the scales in some industries to NOT use free-market principles.

Who cares? If other countries want to give us free stuff we are not being harmed. If foreign lenders and taxpayers subsidize the steel that makes GM's cars cheaper, GM's workers, shareholders and customers are better off.

To not recognize this and to insist that this country always follow free-market principles no matter what - even if we lose industries to countries who have no such capitalistic purity concerns is..... dumb.

No. What is dumb is still believing in mercantilism. I take it that you never bothered reading Bastiat's Candlemaker's Petition.

I'm for free-market but I'm also for pragmatism an recognizing realities and adapting to them accordingly.

Have the courage to admit what your words show. You have no interest in free markets and are a mercantilist through and through. Cowardice is a vice; do not succumb to it and defend your mercantilist position honestly.

 
At 5/10/2011 8:23 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

the only thing I need to defend is the idea that the world is a competitive business environment and that the so-called "free market" is not pure and the are millions of examples where, as a business, if you want to survive, you have to adapt to the environment or perish.

what constitutes "unfair" is irrelevant unless you are into forensics and study of the business corpses.

That's pragmatism verses ideology.

This business world operates pragmatically and it just plain dumb to pretend otherwise.

If another company in another country is subsidized in some way such that that company becomes a more effective competitor on world markets - accept it as a reality that you have to deal with even though it's not "free market".

ideologically pure mindsets are the bane of civilization and commerce.

You'd kill GM for not doing what Japan does for Toyota or Korea does for Kia and lose hundreds of thousands of job to "prove" a point that is totally laughable.

Who would advocate giving jobs in America to other countries - to prove we have a "free market" here even as they take the jobs?

that's dumb.

Using words and phrases like "Mercantilism" does not impress either.

I choose whatever system that we can effectively compete for jobs - no matter what name the idealogical purists choose for it.

You do what you must to maintain your economic health first and then critique your form and style.

Sustainability counts.

If your point is that ultimately what we do needs to be sustainable economically, I'll buy into arguments to that effect.

 
At 5/10/2011 9:30 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"What I am espousing is at the fore of many issues such as currency manipulation, govt universal health care and outright subsidies that some countries employ to preserve valued industries."

Do you believe the US should adopt these destructive policies?

Do you understand that countries that manipulate their currencies are harming their own people, and not others? And, subsidies are paid by taxpayers, but you knew that, right?

You have failed to address most of the issues, including legal ones, raised by several people on this thread, but instead continue to recommend mercantilism. Do you know what the word means? I get the feeling you don't really know what it is you are talking about.

I would suggest that you learn more about the position you are espousing, so you could discuss it and defend it properly, instead of making vague appeals to emotion.

You would be much more fun if you had a better understanding of economics.

 
At 5/10/2011 9:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Do you believe the US should adopt these destructive policies?"

in whose mind are they destructive, the countries that practice them to their advantage?

I'm not advocating that we adopt these policies as much as I ask what do we do in response to them.

idealogical purity and blathering about Mercantilism does not convince me that youse folks acknowledge economic realities as much as you seem to love theories.

" You have failed to address most of the issues, including legal ones,"

ha ha ha... are you going to arrest China and Japan?

" You would be much more fun if you had a better understanding of economics"

oh you mean the way things actually work.. or the way you think they should?

the most fundamental aspect of ANY "free market" is that if you want to survive, you have to compete and competition is not based on theory and idealogical beliefs near as much as it is based on your competition's tactics.

sorry I'm not as much fun as you hoped.. the world is not fair sometimes.

 
At 5/11/2011 5:59 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"ha ha ha... are you going to arrest China and Japan?"

Either you have forgotten, or you didn't understand my earlier comment in which I questioned the legality of the US government nationalizing a private auto manufacturer.

"oh you mean the way things actually work.. or the way you think they should?"

I meant that you would be more fun if you understood the economics of the real world better, but I'm not really disappointed, as I've had low expectations of you from the start.

 
At 5/11/2011 6:21 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"Either you have forgotten, or you didn't understand my earlier comment in which I questioned the legality of the US government nationalizing a private auto manufacturer."

nope. I wanted to know if it was illegal for other countries to do it as an economic weapon against our interests?


"oh you mean the way things actually work.. or the way you think they should?"

I meant that you would be more fun if you understood the economics of the real world better, but I'm not really disappointed, as I've had low expectations of you from the start."

my apologies.

 
At 5/11/2011 6:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" in which I questioned the legality of the US government nationalizing a private auto manufacturer."

I suppose one could quibble about the term depending on the extent and duration of the govt involvement but my question really pertains to such actions by foreign countries as a way to make their own companies tougher competitors on the world market and thus leaving other countries (like the US) in the position of either passively allowing their own industry wither in the face of unfair competition or taking some action.

I do not think your theories are worth much when you seem to insist that the "free market" means that the US should let companies like GM die if the can't survive without govt help.

I repeat my initial assertion that if GM had gone under, we would have had hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work, an economic depression and an even worse deficit because out of work people do not pay taxes and, in fact, require entitlements.

Other countries like China well understand this and in China's case they strike a balance with the govt taking on some responsibility to ensure that their job-supplying industries survive and continue to provide jobs to people and revenues to the govt.

I also think you totally do not get it.

I am not an ADVOCATE of this kind of enterprise but I do ask how competition should work in that environment and I do not believe that this country should walk away from it's jobs-providing industry over economic theories about the "free market".

Thank Gawd, folks like you are NOT in govt policy positions and reside in blogs instead.

 
At 5/11/2011 7:23 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I do not think your theories are worth much when you seem to insist that the "free market" means that the US should let companies like GM die if the can't survive without govt help.

It seems to me that GM showed that it deserved to go under. It was run very badly and could not make a profit with its existing workforce and management. It would have been much better had its assets been bought by Ford, Nissan, or Honda and used more efficiently.

It seems to me that you favour bailing out incompetent companies no matter what the cost to taxpayers or to consumers. But that only encourages mediocrity and bad judgements.

I repeat my initial assertion that if GM had gone under, we would have had hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work, an economic depression and an even worse deficit because out of work people do not pay taxes and, in fact, require entitlements.

So what? The GM workers and management deserved to get turfed out because they failed to satisfy customer demands. The new owners should have been free to hire new employees to develop and assemble vehicles that consumers actually wanted to buy.

Other countries like China well understand this and in China's case they strike a balance with the govt taking on some responsibility to ensure that their job-supplying industries survive and continue to provide jobs to people and revenues to the govt.

Please. China has moved forward because its government has stepped back from running companies. When bureaucrats ran everything China was very poor. Its advances came because of market liberalization, not the adoption of the fascist model that you favour.

 
At 5/11/2011 7:37 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"It seems to me that GM showed that it deserved to go under. It was run very badly and could not make a profit with its existing workforce and management. It would have been much better had its assets been bought by Ford, Nissan, or Honda and used more efficiently."

in theory......

"It seems to me that you favour bailing out incompetent companies no matter what the cost to taxpayers or to consumers. But that only encourages mediocrity and bad judgement."

Actually, I'm the opposite. I'm totally opposed to subsidies for companies and people for any purpose including things like Govt Flood Insurance, Govt Student loans and Govt mortgage deductions to name a few.

There is a time and place to let companies who deserve so - to fail. It was a very bad time for GM and other companies to fail. It would have put the country into a depression and that's just dumb to do that without regard to consequences. That's where the theory has to come second to pragmatism and common sense.


"I repeat my initial assertion that if GM had gone under, we would have had hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work, an economic depression and an even worse deficit because out of work people do not pay taxes and, in fact, require entitlements.

So what? The GM workers and management deserved to get turfed out because they failed to satisfy customer demands. The new owners should have been free to hire new employees to develop and assemble vehicles that consumers actually wanted to buy."

It would have hurt many, many totally innocent companies and workers.

If Japan or Korea ended up buying the assets for Toyota or Kia, we would have permanently lost all of it.

That's the difference between you and I.
theories are nice but ideology is not.

"Please. China has moved forward because its government has stepped back from running companies. When bureaucrats ran everything China was very poor. Its advances came because of market liberalization, not the adoption of the fascist model that you favour."

You're dreaming (again) if you think that is true. They've stepped back but not much and they are still very much hands-on.

Do you think the U.S. Nuclear industry should stand on it's own like you say GM should or not?

That's a PURE domestic "free market" issue, eh?

so what say you?

how about Coal? Who do you think should pay for the damages to those harmed by burning coal?

is that "free market"?

 
At 5/11/2011 8:46 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

your arguments are baseless. you are regurgitating a pile of populist talking points that are not supportable in reality.

national health care helps buisnesses? no, it doesn't. where does the money for national healthcare come from? business and individual taxes. those taxes decrease corporate income, reducing competitiveness and they decrease individual income, meaning you have to pay a worker more to get him to the same level of real well being.

it all nets out.

the same is true of subsidies etc as well as trade barriers.

these just encourage mediocrity and drive firms under in the long run while harming the rest of an economy.

even if your trading partner has tariffs on things you export to him, you are better off letting his goods in for free.

this is an immutable truth. all tariffs, even retaliatory ones, are negative sum.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/econ-101-protectionism-for-dummies.html

anyone arguing otherwise is either agenda driven (protect MY industry at the expense of others) or economically illiterate.

every time airbus gets a subsidy, it keeps them from getting disciplined. might it help them, sure. but it hurts the rest of the economy more than it helps. there's a net loss.

arguing that we emulate this for boeing is arguing that we should make the same mistake our competitor did. engaging in negative sum behavior just because someone else does is the height of stupidity.

i'm going to agree with the guys who are claiming you need an economics education.

what you call "pragmatism" is really wrongheaded populism driven by special interests. there is no substance at all behind your claims.

 
At 5/11/2011 8:55 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"your arguments are baseless. you are regurgitating a pile of populist talking points that are not supportable in reality."

but they are and that's my point.

If universal health care was a failure 40 other countries would stop doing it and none of them could beat us in the car business.

"national health care helps buisnesses? no, it doesn't. where does the money for national healthcare come from? business and individual taxes. those taxes decrease corporate income, reducing competitiveness and they decrease individual income, meaning you have to pay a worker more to get him to the same level of real well being."

the problem is that without universal care - we end up paying twice as much per capita for health care, have a shorter life expectancy and it consumes 16% of our GDP - as well as adding direct costs to our products that we sell overseas.


"it all nets out."

nope

"the same is true of subsidies etc as well as trade barriers."

if true then why do we have them?


"these just encourage mediocrity and drive firms under in the long run while harming the rest of an economy."

and you call my views baseless?
ha ha ha

"even if your trading partner has tariffs on things you export to him, you are better off letting his goods in for free."

not the way the real world works guy.

"this is an immutable truth. all tariffs, even retaliatory ones, are negative sum."

only in theory. I've yet to see proof.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/econ-101-protectionism-for-dummies.html

"anyone arguing otherwise is either agenda driven (protect MY industry at the expense of others) or economically illiterate."

or perhaps they don't buy conventional wisdom authored by dolts.....

"every time airbus gets a subsidy, it keeps them from getting disciplined. might it help them, sure. but it hurts the rest of the economy more than it helps. there's a net loss."

really? can you show this with numbers?

"arguing that we emulate this for boeing is arguing that we should make the same mistake our competitor did. engaging in negative sum behavior just because someone else does is the height of stupidity."

I never argued that we emulate it for Boeing. I asked how do we respond to it in a competitive environment.

And we DO "nationalize" Boeing. If you don't believe it - check again how many Boeing planes us taxpayers own.

"i'm going to agree with the guys who are claiming you need an economics education."

add one more dolt to the discussion?

"what you call "pragmatism" is really wrongheaded populism driven by special interests. there is no substance at all behind your claims."

lord.

 
At 5/11/2011 10:00 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Actually, I'm the opposite. I'm totally opposed to subsidies for companies and people for any purpose including things like Govt Flood Insurance, Govt Student loans and Govt mortgage deductions to name a few.

OK. Here we agree. But, and there is always a 'but' in there somewhere with people like you. I wonder how far we have to wait to hear it.

There is a time and place to let companies who deserve so - to fail. It was a very bad time for GM and other companies to fail. It would have put the country into a depression and that's just dumb to do that without regard to consequences. That's where the theory has to come second to pragmatism and common sense.

That didn't take long. The voice against subsidies and bailouts now justifies subsidies and bailouts because he is ignorant of economics. Liquidation does not put countries into depressions, malivestments and credit expansions do. Liquidation is necessary to cleanse the system so that sustainable growth can start again.

It would have hurt many, many totally innocent companies and workers.

Really? GM's investors, workers, and managers were hardly innocent. And if China can transport iron ore from Brazil, turn it into steel, load it on ships, transport it back to the US where it sells it to American companies without going bankrupt the investors, workers, and managers of American steel companies are not innocent either. They are incompetent.

If Japan or Korea ended up buying the assets for Toyota or Kia, we would have permanently lost all of it.

WE? Who the hell is WE? I did not own any shares in GM. And even if I did, I still would have lost everything because Obama wiped out the shareholders (as he should have). That means that WE did not get GM. GM went to the UAW and the government instead. Who was hurt? The idiots who were stupid enough to buy GM bonds. (That includes widows and orphans and American pension plans.) Had GM's assets gone to the creditors those bond holders would have done better.

So what you are now justifying is stealing from the lenders to give money to the UAW and having the taxpayers foot the bill. I don't know about you, but the way I see it, the WE that you are talking about got screwed while the UAW got paid off for its contributions.

That's the difference between you and I.
theories are nice but ideology is not.


You are damn right that your mercantilism is not a nice ideology. It gets you all mixed up and gets you to keep making contradictory statements. And in the end it gets you to justify the fascist/socialist models that Americans once gave their lives to defeat.

Do you think the U.S. Nuclear industry should stand on it's own like you say GM should or not?

Yes I do think that the US Nuclear industry should stand on its own. I also think that the government needs to get out of the way and let it do what it can to solve our energy problems.

how about Coal? Who do you think should pay for the damages to those harmed by burning coal?

Real damages should be paid by those that created them. Imagined damages should be ignored.

 
At 5/11/2011 10:11 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

in terms of jobs lost - I was speaking about the logistics chain - the hundreds of thousands of jobs producing everything from tires to windshields - would have been lost - at the same time we were entering one of the worst recessions in the history of the country.

When those people - and their companies which may have been well run and not even unionized go under - they do't pay taxes for schools, police, etc.

And at the same time - they require "subsidies" from others so that we don't see families with their kids on the streets begging for money like is common in 3rd world countries.

That's not the time for ideological "solutions".

contradictory statements?

ha ha ha - only in the way you choose to interpret them...

they're pretty clear and consistent.... I'm a free-market advocate but not an idealogical absolutist.

Then in your world - we'd have ZERO Nukes, correct?

AND, we have 20% more mercury pollution and NOx and S0x to replace the 20% nukes we lose?

Do you think wind/solar should "win" on a straight-up competitive contest where they get credit for NOT releasing damaging emissions that harm people's health?

If electricity were provided on a true free market basis - you and I would be paying about 3 times as much for it as we do now.

Do you not agree that our non-free-market approach to electricity generation HARMS renewables and that if we did not "subsidize" Nukes and Coal that we'd all have to pay more in a true "free market" economy?

 
At 5/11/2011 10:13 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

your arguments are baseless. you are regurgitating a pile of populist talking points that are not supportable in reality.

Our friends makes Benny look like a genius. Why is it that this blog attracts so many economic illiterates and big-government proponents?

 
At 5/11/2011 10:28 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

I know..I know.. it's a real cross for you idealogical purists to have to bear...

SNORT!

 
At 5/11/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"they're pretty clear and consistent.... I'm a free-market advocate but not an idealogical absolutist"...

Is that you Barack Obama?

"AND, we have 20% more mercury pollution and NOx and S0x to replace the 20% nukes we lose?"...

According to what credible source?

"Do you think wind/solar should "win" on a straight-up competitive contest where they get credit for NOT releasing damaging emissions that harm people's health?"...

Hmmm, those two sources can't stand up in a free market without government subsidies but more importantly if you'll take the time to look you'll see that some of the manufacturing of wind & solar can be quite toxic...

"If electricity were provided on a true free market basis - you and I would be paying about 3 times as much for it as we do now"...

Again according to what credible source?

BTW what's your definition of 'renewables' since it takes a certain amount of raw materials to be fashioned into something that can use these so called renewables?

World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud

'PEC has pulled out all the stops to overturn the EPA findings ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’ made on December 7, 2009. Those findings were in turn premised on the Supreme Court decision of April 2, 2007 of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), where the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.'...

 
At 5/11/2011 11:12 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"AND, we have 20% more mercury pollution and NOx and S0x to replace the 20% nukes we lose?"...

According to what credible source?

ummm.. if you take away the 20% Nukes and replace it with coal that is generate the same rate of pollution as before?

"Hmmm, those two sources can't stand up in a free market without government subsidies but more importantly if you'll take the time to look you'll see that some of the manufacturing of wind & solar can be quite toxic..."

so can the MANUFACTURE of coal and Nukes. We're talking about AFTER the manufacture - the dail use

do you have a comparison of how much more "toxic" wind and solar is compared to coal and Nuke in the manufacturing process?

apples to apples, right?

"If electricity were provided on a true free market basis - you and I would be paying about 3 times as much for it as we do now"...

Again according to what credible source?

According to the critics who say that if we have to clean-up the mercury emissions it will skyrocket the cost of electricity. Your own folks say this, right?


"BTW what's your definition of 'renewables' since it takes a certain amount of raw materials to be fashioned into something that can use these so called renewables?"

see apples to apples above

"World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud

'PEC has pulled out all the stops to overturn the EPA findings ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’ made on December 7, 2009. Those findings were in turn premised on the Supreme Court decision of April 2, 2007 of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), where the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.'..."

the EPA findings are wrong?

aren't the proponents essentially arguing that the EPA has no right to regulate even though the pollution has been shown to be equivalently damaging as the other toxics that the EPA does also regulate ...that the same group of folks also opposed in years past?

so.. according to these folks, the govt, representative of people who are damaged by the activities of so called 'free-market' types is not a legitimate representative of people when pitted against those who want to make profits even if they harm others in that quest?

 
At 5/11/2011 1:13 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Larry

Just so you know, when someone asks you for a "credible source", they are asking you to cite a serious reference, preferably with a link or URL. This is especially important when you use numbers, as in the following example:

You wrote: - ""If electricity were provided on a true free market basis - you and I would be paying about 3 times as much for it as we do now"..."

People are skeptical that you reached this result through serious work of your own, and believe you are relying on the work of others who have published that work. You are being asked for the source of your information.

"According to the critics..." is not good enough. If you can't or won't provide a proper reference, people are likely to believe you just pulled such a number out of your ass, and are making things up.

That's not helpful to a meaningful discussion. If you wish to be taken seriously, and not just laughed at for your ignorance, provide "credible sources".

 
At 5/11/2011 1:25 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" 2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually

A Feb. 2011 report, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal," led by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, found that accounting for the full costs of coal would double or triple its price"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=External_costs_of_coal


ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Issue: Ecological Economics Reviews
Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/pdf

somehow I'm betting this won't satisfy, eh?

 
At 5/11/2011 1:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"the EPA findings are wrong?"

Yes, the EPA findings are wrong. As you will recall from Massachusetts vs. EPA, the EPA was forced to consider CO2 as a pollutant, due to the excessively broad language of the Clean Air Act, which can be read to consider almost any substance emitted into the air a pollutant, whether or not any actual harm has been demonstrated. Surely this is beyond the original intent of the act, and should be corrected to narrow it's scope.

This decision has put the EPA in a position of regulating such a vast array of activities, on such a massive scale, as to be impossible.

The idea that CO2 is a pollutant is just silly. There has been no connection shown between it and any harmful effect, and such suggestions have been thoroughly debunked by now.

Note that I provided a link to suppport my narrative.

 
At 5/11/2011 1:52 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

The courts said the EPA was the one to make the determination - right?

What entity would you designate to make the determination instead?

Do you support the rule of law?

 
At 5/11/2011 1:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

in terms of jobs lost - I was speaking about the logistics chain - the hundreds of thousands of jobs producing everything from tires to windshields - would have been lost - at the same time we were entering one of the worst recessions in the history of the country.

Only if we no longer made any cars. But clearly that would not be the case even if GM went bankrupt because the companies who purchased the assets would have continued making cars and dealing with parts suppliers just as before.

When those people - and their companies which may have been well run and not even unionized go under - they do't pay taxes for schools, police, etc.

So this is about funding government? By using billions of taxpayer funds to bail out inefficient companies? Some free trade supporter you turned out to be.

And at the same time - they require "subsidies" from others so that we don't see families with their kids on the streets begging for money like is common in 3rd world countries.

Who says that people with skills who make things that are in demand will wind up on the streets?

That's not the time for ideological "solutions".

So says a hypocrite who proposes ideological "solutions".

contradictory statements?

Absolutely.

ha ha ha - only in the way you choose to interpret them...

No. In your own words.

they're pretty clear and consistent.... I'm a free-market advocate but not an idealogical absolutist.

Of course you are. Your ideology is anti-liberty and anti-freedom. It is one that supports meddling by government because you believe that government knows best. It is the ideology of looters who would live off the consumers and taxpayers. You certainly do not want the markets and the courts to determine what happens because you want the government to pick winners and losers.

Then in your world - we'd have ZERO Nukes, correct?

Not at all. In my world there would be a lot more nuclear power generation than we have today.

AND, we have 20% more mercury pollution and NOx and S0x to replace the 20% nukes we lose?

See my statement above. You made an assumption that is clearly wrong. I do support nukes. I also support coal, oil, natural gas and whatever source of energy is appropriate and competitive.

Do you think wind/solar should "win" on a straight-up competitive contest where they get credit for NOT releasing damaging emissions that harm people's health?

I certainly would not subsidize them. That would limit the use of solar and wind to niche applications where they are appropriate. And I would reconsider the 'damaging emissions' argument. You haven't seen how some of the materials that are essential to making solar/wind equipment are mined.

If electricity were provided on a true free market basis - you and I would be paying about 3 times as much for it as we do now.

What a maroon. The free market provides the highest quality goods at the cheapest price. I suggest that you reexamine your anti-market ideology and get an education.

Do you not agree that our non-free-market approach to electricity generation HARMS renewables and that if we did not "subsidize" Nukes and Coal that we'd all have to pay more in a true "free market" economy?

'Renewables' are harmed by lousy economics and the laws of nature, not markets.

 
At 5/11/2011 2:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Only if we no longer made any cars. But clearly that would not be the case even if GM went bankrupt because the companies who purchased the assets would have continued making cars and dealing with parts suppliers just as before."

they'd move those jobs overseas to their own company just like the logistic chain for Toyotas is right now.

"So this is about funding government?"

It's about providing kids with an education so they can ultimately be in the work-force.

How would you propose to pay in the absence of property taxes?

"Who says that people with skills who make things that are in demand will wind up on the streets?"

have you consulted the unemployment rate in many cities and former manufacturing areas as of late guy?

"So says a hypocrite who proposes ideological "solutions".

.... practical, pragmatic solutions even if they lack "purity".

"Of course you are. Your ideology is anti-liberty and anti-freedom. It is one that supports meddling by government because you believe that government knows best. It is the ideology of looters who would live off the consumers and taxpayers. You certainly do not want the markets and the courts to determine what happens because you want the government to pick winners and losers."

I do not believe you can educate kids and produce an educated workforce without govt - among other things that the private sector will not do.

Only an idiot would equivalence education with "looting".

"Not at all. In my world there would be a lot more nuclear power generation than we have today."

not if your world did not allow govt subsidies of Nukes.

AND, we have 20% more mercury pollution and NOx and S0x to replace the 20% nukes we lose?

"See my statement above. You made an assumption that is clearly wrong."
IYHO only.

"I do support nukes. I also support coal, oil, natural gas and whatever source of energy is appropriate and competitive."

Nukes and Coal are govt subsidized guy.

"I certainly would not subsidize them. That would limit the use of solar and wind to niche applications where they are appropriate. And I would reconsider the 'damaging emissions' argument. You haven't seen how some of the materials that are essential to making solar/wind equipment are mined."

any more or less than the "damaging" materials that go into coal and nukes ?

"What a maroon. The free market provides the highest quality goods at the cheapest price. I suggest that you reexamine your anti-market ideology and get an education."

maroon? and you're telling ME to get an education? ha ha ha

'Renewables' are harmed by lousy economics and the laws of nature, not markets.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/pdf

so you support subsidies for coal and nukes?

 
At 5/11/2011 2:11 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

do you have a comparison of how much more "toxic" wind and solar is compared to coal and Nuke in the manufacturing process?

You were asked for a source. You failed to provide it. You also ignored the other problems with wind, like the killing of thousands of bats and birds, the flicker effect, and the damage to health by low frequency sound. Think of the farmers who have to use more pesticides because the wind power generation killed the bats that kept the insects in check. How do you account for those pesticides in your equation? Or for the energy that has to be used to create, transport, and distribute the pesticides?

That is the problem with you central planning types. You assume that the world is very simple and that a few relatively bright people can plan properly, even when those people are ignorant of economics, physics, or simple facts that are material to the issues being examined. The fact that you are a wind/solar proponent tells us that you have no idea about economics. And explains why you hold the idiotic views that you do. No wonder you want governments to meddle. Without their meddling your investments or your livelihood would be at the mercy of the free market, which is intolerant of failure and has little mercy for those with bad judgements.

 
At 5/11/2011 2:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

do you have a comparison of how much more "toxic" wind and solar is compared to coal and Nuke in the manufacturing process?

"You were asked for a source. You failed to provide it."

I'm not the one who claimed that wind/solar were more harmful than coal/nukes, now was I?

"You also ignored the other problems with wind, like the killing of thousands of bats and birds, the flicker effect, and the damage to health by low frequency sound."

got some sources? do you know the difference between the loss of a ordinary bat verses an endangered one?

"Think of the farmers who have to use more pesticides because the wind power generation killed the bats that kept the insects in check."

do you understand how nature replaces and replenishes itself?

Can you provide evidence that the bat populations have been reduced?

"How do you account for those pesticides in your equation? Or for the energy that has to be used to create, transport, and distribute the pesticides?"

In your world you'd claim that the EPA should not be regulating them, right?

"That is the problem with you central planning types. You assume that the world is very simple and that a few relatively bright people can plan properly, even when those people are ignorant of economics, physics, or simple facts that are material to the issues being examined. The fact that you are a wind/solar proponent tells us that you have no idea about economics. And explains why you hold the idiotic views that you do. No wonder you want governments to meddle. Without their meddling your investments or your livelihood would be at the mercy of the free market, which is intolerant of failure and has little mercy for those with bad judgements."

well, you earned the BLATHER award on that ... fair and square, congrats - maroon.

 
At 5/11/2011 2:22 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

" 2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually

A Feb. 2011 report, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal," led by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, found that accounting for the full costs of coal would double or triple its price"


You are kidding, right? You cite a report that claims that CO2 is a pollutant and expect anyone outside of the green industries to take you seriously?

A true accounting of the harm done by coal would not use models based on faulty assumptions but would include real measurements. The report takes seriously suggestions of CCS, which no sane individual would suggest as appropriate unless you wanted to sell teh CO2 to energy companies for enhanced recovery programs.

And if you want to look at the entire picture correctly take a look at the effects of removing the coal produced power from the system. Do you really think that without the coal based electricity we would see longer life spans and a higher standard of living? And what if we tried to replace that power with electricity from solar or wind? How much would we have to pay for the distribution system that could gather all of that dispersed power and bring it to consumers? Without coal, how would you even get the energy to create that system in the first place?

Thank you for proving exactly how clueless you really are. I am sure that Benny thanks you because the stupidity leader-board has a new name at the top. Congratulations.

 
At 5/11/2011 2:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

let see.. you said from a credible source right?

Is the:

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

a credible source - Maroon

or do you decide what is credible or not based on their results that you agree or disagree with?

you're losing here guy...errr.. Maroon

 
At 5/11/2011 2:34 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: Carbon - there are different views about this and some of them from CREDIBLE entities.

You can disagree of course but the real issue here is that there is disagreement among even credible entities.

" And if you want to look at the entire picture correctly take a look at the effects of removing the coal produced power from the system."

Europe and Japan use 1/2 per capita what we use.

"Do you really think that without the coal based electricity we would see longer life spans and a higher standard of living?"

Europe and Japan have longer life expectancies than us.

"And what if we tried to replace that power with electricity from solar or wind? How much would we have to pay for the distribution system that could gather all of that dispersed power and bring it to consumers?"

the grid needs to be upgraded anyhow - even to efficiently use natural gas turbine generators- right?

"Without coal, how would you even get the energy to create that system in the first place?"

Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, peak-hour electricity pricing, etc.

you know.. the old free market principles of not subsidizing and charging the full cost for something...

 
At 5/11/2011 2:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"somehow I'm betting this won't satisfy, eh?"

No! No! Those links are just the ticket. Such references are exactly what's called for. I'll respond later when I've had time to study them at greater length.

At this time, however, after reading a few pages of the "Full Cost Accounting" article, I can find a small nit to pick with your claim that in a free market our electricity costs would be triple what they are now.

The article claims a true cost of electricity of 2-3 times what we now pay for electricity generation - from coal. As only 40% of electricity is generated from coal, you could have avoided exaggeration by claiming that our true costs are 1.2 to 1.8 times as much.

Incidentally, I'm all in favor of "user pays" for everything, rather than all of us paying, perhaps for something we don't use or benefit from.

 
At 5/11/2011 2:46 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

What entity would you designate to make the determination instead?

I would actually have the courts hear the arguments that CO2 is a pollutant first. There is no way that it can be defined or such because the courts allow greenhouses, private homes, and offices to have three or four times the levels that are found naturally at this time.

Do you support the rule of law?

Not when the law violates the rights of individuals. But suppose that you do support it. That means that the EPA has the right to order you and your employer to lower the CO2 concentration in your home or your workplace by a factor of two. It means that tenants can sue condominium owners for exposing them to dangerous pollutants and demand that more fresh air is pumped into their residences.

How long do you think it is before the country falls apart because of the application of stupid regulations? Or that you ask that we protect workers from foreign governments that choose not to be as stupid as the US government?

 
At 5/11/2011 2:49 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" you could have avoided exaggeration"

I'll man-up to that sin....

 
At 5/11/2011 2:58 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"What entity would you designate to make the determination instead?

I would actually have the courts hear the arguments that CO2 is a pollutant first. There is no way that it can be defined or such because the courts allow greenhouses, private homes, and offices to have three or four times the levels that are found naturally at this time."

Didn't the courts rule in favor of the EPA?

you say what you say but others, science, the law and the courts don't agree with you.

"Do you support the rule of law?

Not when the law violates the rights of individuals. But suppose that you do support it. That means that the EPA has the right to order you and your employer to lower the CO2 concentration in your home or your workplace by a factor of two. It means that tenants can sue condominium owners for exposing them to dangerous pollutants and demand that more fresh air is pumped into their residences."

so you don't believe in our system of governance?

"How long do you think it is before the country falls apart because of the application of stupid regulations? Or that you ask that we protect workers from foreign governments that choose not to be as stupid as the US government?"

I don't agree with all of it but I support our governance.

I do not believe in minority zealots putting in place what they believe - to rule everyone else.

We have a Constitutional Republican that operates as a representative Democracy with 3 levels of govt.

At times - the whole mess sucks but it's way, way ahead of what is in second place.

You have your view.

Your job is to convince enough others so as to build a significant enough block of voters who will change the way the country works.

I don't think you have a prayer but it's your job if you believe in your views.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:13 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

they'd move those jobs overseas to their own company just like the logistic chain for Toyotas is right now.

Many of Toyota's cars have a much higher North American content than GM's.

Sorry but your credibility is lacking. You keep making statements that you can't support and expect people to believe your narrative. Try again.

I do not believe you can educate kids and produce an educated workforce without govt - among other things that the private sector will not do.

Of course the private sector will educate kids. It always has and continues to because government does such a poor job.

Only an idiot would equivalence education with "looting".

It is looting when you force people to pay for things that they want no part of and you limit choice.

It's about providing kids with an education so they can ultimately be in the work-force.

How would you propose to pay in the absence of property taxes?


Have parents pay for education directly. Do not give anyone a monopoly on the provision of education. You certainly do not need to spend $10K per year to educate kids only to have them graduate without being able to read or do math.

have you consulted the unemployment rate in many cities and former manufacturing areas as of late guy?

Yes. What does that have to do with the issue? People who have marketable skills do not stay employed for long. I know of few competent machinists or tool makers who can't get a job for very long.

Nukes and Coal are govt subsidized guy.

They are over-regulated and produce electricity at a higher price because of all of those regulations.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:16 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

.... practical, pragmatic solutions even if they lack "purity".

Theft and meddling may be pragmatic but it does not solve any problems for very long.

maroon? and you're telling ME to get an education? ha ha ha

Yes, I am because you are clearly economically and scientifically illiterate.

so you support subsidies for coal and nukes?

Not if government gets out of the way. And no, articles that claim that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant are not credible.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

""In your world you'd claim that the EPA should not be regulating them, right?"

The EPA should be eliminated. Are you aware that one of the first actions of the newly formed EPA and its first administrator William Ruckelshaus, was to ban DDT, used widely and effectively to eradicate malaria?

His decision was reached after attending none of the meetings in which a possible ban was discussed, and with total disregard for the conclusions his own scientists had reached, that DDT was essentially harmless when used properly.

This ban eventually resulted in the elimination of DDT world wide, and has since then resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, most of them children.

Is this the kind of agency you want protecting your well being?

 
At 5/11/2011 3:25 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I'm not the one who claimed that wind/solar were more harmful than coal/nukes, now was I?

They are more harmful because you can't replace the amount of power generated by solar and wind without destroying the environment. Do you have any idea how many wind turbines you will need to replace all of the coal generated power in the US? How many birds and bats will that kill? How many tons of rare earths will have to be produced? How many tons of copper, iron, nickel, and steel will you need to gather the diffuse power and send it to the grid? Where will you get all of the energy to mine the ore and produce the finished metal products?

You assume that we can get rid of the coal or nuclear power plants and replace them with wind generation plants and solar farms without doing any harm. But people die installing and maintaining wind turbines. The equipment requires huge diesel powered trucks and cranes to install. They require many tons of reinforced cement. All these have a cost that you are ignoring.

I believe that Mark posted on this subject not that long ago. (I have certainly referenced sources that explain this.) Look at the site and find the discussion. If you can't find it I will provide a source when I get back from playing with the kids.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"Many of Toyota's cars have a much higher North American content than GM's.

Sorry but your credibility is lacking. You keep making statements that you can't support and expect people to believe your narrative. Try again."

computers, TV's, textiles, furniture, steel etc?

"Of course the private sector will educate kids. It always has and continues to because government does such a poor job."

How many industrialized countries do that? How many of the industrialized countries clean our clocks on education?

"It is looting when you force people to pay for things that they want no part of and you limit choice."

really? how many industrialized countries do that?

How many do what you advocate?

"Have parents pay for education directly. Do not give anyone a monopoly on the provision of education. You certainly do not need to spend $10K per year to educate kids only to have them graduate without being able to read or do math."

How many industrialized countries pay LESS than that and ALL of them best us in reading, science and math achievement and they do it with govt standards like national curriculum.

"Yes. What does that have to do with the issue? People who have marketable skills do not stay employed for long. I know of few competent machinists or tool makers who can't get a job for very long."

there are a LOT of people with genuine skills of which there is no longer a demand for because the jobs have gone overseas.

What do you do with these folks in terms of food, shelter and medical care?

Do we end up looking like Yemen?

Nukes and Coal are govt subsidized guy.

They are over-regulated and produce electricity at a higher price because of all of those regulations.

Coals pollutes big time and if they had to pay for damages would have to charge a lot more.

The 'regs' are a "little agreement" ....

and Nukes won't work in a free market because no insurance company will insure them.

Take the govt out of Nukes an we have no Nukes.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:30 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" .... practical, pragmatic solutions even if they lack "purity".

"Theft and meddling may be pragmatic but it does not solve any problems for very long."

really? how many industrialized countries and our competitors do this?

"Yes, I am because you are clearly economically and scientifically illiterate."

if so you sure are spending a lot of words on a lost cause, eh?

so you support subsidies for coal and nukes?

Not if government gets out of the way. And no, articles that claim that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant are not credible.

forget the Co2.. look at the rest of it

an you ARE SUPPORTING subsidies here - for your preferred things, no mistake.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:35 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" ""In your world you'd claim that the EPA should not be regulating them, right?"

"The EPA should be eliminated."

and no regulation of what it now regulates?

" Are you aware that one of the first actions of the newly formed EPA and its first administrator William Ruckelshaus, was to ban DDT, used widely and effectively to eradicate malaria?"

so how come we don't have Malaria in this country?

"His decision was reached after attending none of the meetings in which a possible ban was discussed, and with total disregard for the conclusions his own scientists had reached, that DDT was essentially harmless when used properly."

blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda

process..decisions.. lessons-learned, changes made.. the system works.

"harmless when used properly"

who decides? who enforces?

"This ban eventually resulted in the elimination of DDT world wide, and has since then resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, most of them children."

The EPA ... BANNED IT WORLDWIDE?

how did they do that?

"Is this the kind of agency you want protecting your well being?"

are you for real Dude?

the EPA banned it worldwide?

is that what you believe?

lord.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:43 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I'm not the one who claimed that wind/solar were more harmful than coal/nukes, now was I?

"They are more harmful because you can't replace the amount of power generated by solar and wind without destroying the environment."

You're evading the issue. You made the claim then said it was up to me to provide the source and now you making specious claims and still not providing sources.

"Do you have any idea how many wind turbines you will need to replace all"

I do.. I never advocate all.

" How many birds and bats will that kill?"

I'm getting a strong whiff of FAUX News here.

there is a difference between birds killed and endangered birds killed.

Millions of birds are killed by Cats, cars, bridges, buildings, powerlines, etc but many more birds are born to replace. them.

Only in the case of endangered species is there an honest issue.

How much bird habitat is destroyed by mountain-top removal?

"How many tons of rare earths will have to be produced? How many tons of copper, iron, nickel, and steel will you need to gather the diffuse power and send it to the grid? Where will you get all of the energy to mine the ore and produce the finished metal products?"

are you nuts?

how do you think we build computers, cell phones and hybrid cars and Nuke reactors right now?


"You assume that we can get rid of the coal or nuclear power plants and replace them with wind generation plants and solar farms without doing any harm. But people die installing and maintaining wind turbines. The equipment requires huge diesel powered trucks and cranes to install. They require many tons of reinforced cement. All these have a cost that you are ignoring."

I do not assume anything nor ignore anything. I ask that all aspects be considered and that we take a hard, pragmatic look at what we are doing "in the name of" the so-called "free market" which is a myth in many respects but you guys are so blinded by your ideology you refuse to see the realities.

"I believe that Mark posted on this subject not that long ago. (I have certainly referenced sources that explain this.) Look at the site and find the discussion. If you can't find it I will provide a source when I get back from playing with the kids. "

Nukes are subsidized. Explain that.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:44 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Didn't the courts rule in favor of the EPA?"

No, the courts ruled in favor of a group of states and NGOs, led by Massachusetts. read the wikipedia link I gave you.

The courts ruled that EPA can REGULATE CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants, not that they ARE pollutants.

As I pointed out, this assigns to EPA the impossible task of regulating CO2 levels everywhere, in our homes and businesses, and opens the door to all manner of ridiculous lawsuits, such as those described by VangelV.

In addition, EPA now has responsibility for auto tailpipe emmissions and gas mileage standards, something formerly within the purview of the NHTSA.

To form a legal basis, the courts must decide that CO2 is, in fact, a pollutant, not just who should regulate it.

 
At 5/11/2011 3:49 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "Didn't the courts rule in favor of the EPA?"

No, the courts ruled in favor of a group of states and NGOs, led by Massachusetts. read the wikipedia link I gave you.

The courts ruled that EPA can REGULATE CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants, not that they ARE pollutants."

In effect, the courts DID RULE that the EPA can decide - right?

"As I pointed out, this assigns to EPA the impossible task of regulating CO2 levels everywhere, in our homes and businesses, and opens the door to all manner of ridiculous lawsuits, such as those described by VangelV."

as with any other substances that they deem to be potentially harmful - they have a similar task.

They know how to triage those tasks guy.

That's their job.

"In addition, EPA now has responsibility for auto tailpipe emmissions and gas mileage standards, something formerly within the purview of the NHTSA."

they've been doing the window sticker EPA ratings for quite a while, no?

"To form a legal basis, the courts must decide that CO2 is, in fact, a pollutant, not just who should regulate it. "

You know - your interpretation is bizarre.

you're saying the courts said the EPA could regulate it even though it's not determined if it is a pollutant.

Doesn't that mean the EPA can regulate it as if it were a pollutant?

Tell me what the ruling restricts the EPA from doing

 
At 5/11/2011 7:21 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

a credible source - Maroon

or do you decide what is credible or not based on their results that you agree or disagree with?


I decide on what is said in the paper, particularly when it contradicts what is actually known. CO2 is not a pollutant. If it were the government would not permit concentrations of CO2 in its offices to reach the 2,000 ppm that are normally measured.

This type of 'science' reminds me of the very sloppy drug studies that produced such flawed papers, also published in what you would consider credible journals. What made the papers bad was what was in them because it did not reflect the actual reality.

 
At 5/11/2011 7:22 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

""so how come we don't have Malaria in this country?"

If you were more educated, you wouldn't ask such silly questions. As I'm sure you know ---. Let me start over, as that's an unwarranted assumption. As you should know, malaria is primarily associated with extreme poverty, Where preventive and elimination measures aren't commonly used to good effect, and houses with screened windows aren't common.

In the US, between 1947 and 1951, an eradication program - using DDT - essentially eliminated malaria. While there are still approximately 1500 cases each year, most of them are transmitted by travelers from areas of the world where malaria is still common.

Before 1972, malaria was on its way to eradication worldwide, thanks mostly to the use of DDT. Since then, the disease has once again become common, and kills millions of people needlessly each year.

"blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda"

You can plug your ears and remain ignorant if you wish, but I can tell you it's hurting you, not me. My only concern is that you probably vote, and my guess is that you probably vote for what others tell you is best, without actually thinking for yourself. That kind of scares me. You owe it to yourself to get a better education. You will have to do some work yourself, as I can't possibly find for you information on everything you need to know.

""harmless when used properly"

who decides? who enforces?
"

It has already been determined that DDT is basically harmless to people and animals, but devastating to flying insects that land on treated surfaces such as walls. There is no "enforcement" necessary.

 
At 5/11/2011 7:45 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "This ban eventually resulted in the elimination of DDT world wide, and has since then resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, most of them children."

The EPA ... BANNED IT WORLDWIDE?

how did they do that?

"Is this the kind of agency you want protecting your well being?"

are you for real Dude?

the EPA banned it worldwide?

is that what you believe?

lord."

so did you answer that ?

how did the EPA ban DDT wordwide?

educate me. I'm still trying to figure out how that happened.

 
At 5/11/2011 8:40 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, peak-hour electricity pricing, etc.

you know.. the old free market principles of not subsidizing and charging the full cost for something...


You do not have enough natural gas rigs and pipe to make up for the power that would be lost from coal. And solar and wind are useless as viable alternatives because they produce far too little energy at far too high a price. Consumers would certainly riot if their prices went up as the more reliable and cheaper coal and nuclear were forced out of the markets by green idiots and foolish politicians.

This is the problem with the green movement. They keep complaining but have nothing of value to offer as an alternative.

 
At 5/11/2011 9:04 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"You do not have enough natural gas rigs and pipe to make up for the power that would be lost from coal."

I don't think we know that yet.

got any data?

"And solar and wind are useless as viable alternatives because they produce far too little energy at far too high a price."

right now, probably yes but later on - with a smart grid and natural gas - maybe not.

Solar can go into a LOT of places such as Interstate Medians and interchanges ..... lateral rights of way, etc...

if solar get's more efficient... it's a game-changer.

Then you'd be defending the status-quo subsidies for coal and nukes and we' be talking about reimbursing these companies for their "stranded" investments, eh?

"Consumers would certainly riot if their prices went up as the more reliable and cheaper coal and nuclear were forced out of the markets by green idiots and foolish politicians."

Nukes and Coal are subsidized though so which side are you taking? the "free market" or "rioting consumers"?

Peak Power on the grid - supplied by natural gas turbines - costs 7 times what coal costs but who pays that cost?

Do the people who want peak power pay those costs or do everyone who does not use peak power subsidize those who do?

If we charged peak hour prices for electricity - would we then more fairly allocate those costs?

On the Nukes - if we required each household served by Nukes to buy Nuke Disaster Insurance, would we think be charging the fair allocated costs of Nuclear or should all of us pay those insurance costs for Nuke disasters that the insurance companies won't touch?

these are realities... when it comes to the theoretical "free market".

The "free market" when it comes to electricity is far, far higher in cost when we take away the subsidies.



This is the problem with the green movement. They keep complaining but have nothing of value to offer as an alternative.

 
At 5/11/2011 9:09 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I support Nukes by the way but I admit they are subsidized.

Nukes are not "free market" is any way, shape or form.

Without the govt, there would be no Nukes - right?

 
At 5/12/2011 9:07 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I don't think we know that yet.

got any data?


Yes. Go to the threads where we debate the shale gas reserves and look at the links.

As I pointed out, wind and solar are not as safe as you think that they are. While nuclear power produces around 0.04 deaths per Terrawatt-Hour, mostly due to mining accidends, solar comes out to 0.44, and wind comes to 0.15. (That is without counting the mining deaths for the production of rare earths other specialty materials needed to make wind and solar work.) The big killer per TWH is coal, mainly thanks to the large number of mining accidents, mainly in China. I think that for a country like China you are looking at something like 250 deaths per TWH produced. (Versus 15 for the US.)

Keep in mind that each TWH produced goes to save lives that would be lost without access to cheap energy. Better lighting, heating, refrigeration, and air conditioning help save lives. That means that while you could save 15 lives for each TWH produced by using coal you have to account for the increased mortality rates due to the loss of access to cheap energy. (Note that I am not talking about mortality displacement here so let us not go there.)

And I am not even considering the carnage to birds and bats due to the presence of wind turbines, or the the fires and property damage that they cause.

right now, probably yes but later on - with a smart grid and natural gas - maybe not.

This reminds me of the shale oil and fusion arguments that I have heard all my life, "right now you are right but just wait a little while and we will have economic production in ten years. By 1985 energy will be nearly free." Well, I am still waiting for those predictions to come true.

 
At 5/12/2011 9:21 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Solar can go into a LOT of places such as Interstate Medians and interchanges ..... lateral rights of way, etc...

For a person claiming to provide practical arguments you sure miss some obvious problems.

What happens when a piece of gravel hits a solar panel in a median? All that junk along the side of highways is a potential missile that can fly towards an installation.

Or when dust and soot cover solar panels with a film that reduces the amount of light that can get to their surface? Think of all that abrasive material being whipped up by wind sand blasting panel surfaces day after day and night after night. Or when the first strong storm comes around and brings heavy winds, hail, or even indirect strikes that blow out inverters? What about ordinary vandalism or just plain old theft? All those copper wires have value. So do inverters and the panels themselves.

if solar get's more efficient... it's a game-changer.

IF, IF, IF... Aren't you arguing about practical solutions? In a practical world IF does not cut it. We have to deal with reality as it is, not the fantasy that you wish existed.

Then you'd be defending the status-quo subsidies for coal and nukes and we' be talking about reimbursing these companies for their "stranded" investments, eh?

I have never defended subsidies. All companies need to stand on their own. My argument is against regulations that prevent companies from producing cheap and reliable power.

Nukes and Coal are subsidized though so which side are you taking? the "free market" or "rioting consumers"?

In a free market consumers don't get ripped off by subsidy seekers and get the cheapest product possible. So I am with both the free market and the consumers.

Peak Power on the grid - supplied by natural gas turbines - costs 7 times what coal costs but who pays that cost?

The consumer always pays. But so what? It is still cheaper in the long run to have the baseline come from coal or nuclear and to use other means to satisfy peak load demands.

Do the people who want peak power pay those costs or do everyone who does not use peak power subsidize those who do?

They should. That is why we need to price power according to demand and need a free market rather than a regulated system that makes the wrong people pay.

On the Nukes - if we required each household served by Nukes to buy Nuke Disaster Insurance, would we think be charging the fair allocated costs of Nuclear or should all of us pay those insurance costs for Nuke disasters that the insurance companies won't touch?

The utilities should be able to purchase their own insurance. Of course they also need to be protected from fake claims and only responsible for the damage that they do.

these are realities... when it comes to the theoretical "free market".

The reality is that the freer a market is the better that it works. When you have regulatory agencies intervene you get bubbles, high prices, and shortages.

The "free market" when it comes to electricity is far, far higher in cost when we take away the subsidies.

No. It would provide the cheapest electricity generation and would be driven by consumer demand, not government bureaucrats.

As I said, the problem with the green movement is that they keep complaining but have nothing of value to offer as an alternative.

 
At 5/12/2011 9:23 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Have you seen this:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st334.pdf

I found it informative.

 
At 5/12/2011 9:25 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Without the govt, there would be no Nukes - right?

Only if the government prevented nuclear generation. Nukes are very cheap to operate and provide very reliable electricity. They are safer than coal, wind, solar, biofuel, hydro, natural gas, or oil and are great at meeting baseload demand. They don't kill birds, bats, and other animals, and have a much smaller footprint than hydro, wind, solar, biofuel, or coal.

 
At 5/12/2011 9:31 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" What happens when a piece of gravel hits a solar panel in a median? All that junk along the side of highways is a potential missile that can fly towards an installation."

geeze... the same thing that happens when a tree falls on a powerline or a Nuke shuts down?

" The consumer always pays. But so what? It is still cheaper in the long run to have the baseline come from coal or nuclear and to use other means to satisfy peak load demands. "

shouldn't the people who want electricity that costs 7 times as much to provide it pay for it like other services such as plane trips, etc.?

" The utilities should be able to purchase their own insurance. Of course they also need to be protected from fake claims and only responsible for the damage that they do. "

oh contraire. Now YOU need to be educated. Last I heard, no insurance company would sell the Nukes disaster insurance at a price that was affordable and so in every country in the world, the big, bad, nasty Govt has to be the insurer.

" The reality is that the freer a market is the better that it works. When you have regulatory agencies intervene you get bubbles, high prices, and shortages"

we agree on this.

but the reality is there are mucho subsidies already that do not provide a level playing field for competing products and services.

If you read the link I provided, you'll see direct and indirect subsidies for Coal and Nukes.

Taxpayers are actually paying the coal companies to develop "clean coal" rather than the investors of those companies.

" As I said, the problem with the green movement is that they keep complaining but have nothing of value to offer as an alternative. "

Do you have ANY green groups that you respect? EDF or NRDC?

 
At 5/12/2011 9:37 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Only if the government prevented nuclear generation. Nukes are very cheap to operate and provide very reliable electricity. They are safer than coal, wind, solar, biofuel, hydro, natural gas, or oil and are great at meeting baseload demand. They don't kill birds, bats, and other animals, and have a much smaller footprint than hydro, wind, solar, biofuel, or coal. "


" The effect of subsidies is difficult to gauge, as some are indirect (such as research and development). A May 12, 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated, "For electricity generation, the EIA(Energy Information Administration, an office of the Department of Energy) concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and 'clean coal' $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59."[63]

However, the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained remarkably consistent throughout the nuclear industry’s history, and distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[64]

In 2011, Benjamin K. Sovacool said that: "When the full nuclear fuel cycle is considered - not only reactors but also uranium mines and mills, enrichment facilities, spent fuel repositories, and decommissioning sites - nuclear power proves to be one of the costliest sources of energy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

" Nuclear Dilemma: Adequate Insurance Too Expensive"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13428045

so the FACTS ARE that Nukes ARE SUBSIDIZED

and my VIEW is that having an absolutist view about the free market rather than a pragmatic view would mean that a person who holds a staunch "free market" view would have to admit this and take a principled position against it because it clearly violates the inflexible "free market only" positions.

thoughts?

this goes way back to the beginning of this thread with respect to GM and free-market principles vs pragmatic realties.

 
At 5/12/2011 11:03 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Have you seen this:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st334.pdf

I found it informative.


Me too. I think that this comment tells us what we need to know:

Solar power has grown rapidly, but still accounts for less than one-half of one percent of U.S. electricity output.

Apparently solar's share of the $4.8 billion in annual subsidies for renewables have not been able to overcome the lousy economics. And note that the claimed 'subsidies' for coal are tax credits available to all kinds of industries while the solar sector gets direct cash subsidies and mandates that force utilities to pay much more for solar power than they would for power from other sources.

This is the type of sleight of hand that plays well to individuals who are far more trusting of official releases than they should be but not well to those that actually look into the the details.

 
At 5/12/2011 3:05 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

geeze... the same thing that happens when a tree falls on a powerline or a Nuke shuts down?

But we don't have many unscheduled shutdowns in the nuclear industry or even that many tree incidents. For what you are proposing the destruction of panels would be a regular course of events.

shouldn't the people who want electricity that costs 7 times as much to provide it pay for it like other services such as plane trips, etc.?

Yes they should. That is why we should eliminate all subsidies and all mandates to by a certain type of energy no matter what it costs. Let the producers choose the cheapest way to make their power.

oh contraire. Now YOU need to be educated. Last I heard, no insurance company would sell the Nukes disaster insurance at a price that was affordable and so in every country in the world, the big, bad, nasty Govt has to be the insurer.

Only because plants can be sued even when no damage is caused. Remember the worst incident in the US? Nobody was killed and there was zero harm done. With no fatalities over 40 years operating some plants that were inferior designs there would be plenty of insurance available for utilities wanting to buy it. But when good generation facilities can be shut down due to political fiat nobody will offer insurance. That is why we need a free market where government can't meddle.

but the reality is there are mucho subsidies already that do not provide a level playing field for competing products and services.

If you read the link I provided, you'll see direct and indirect subsidies for Coal and Nukes.

Taxpayers are actually paying the coal companies to develop "clean coal" rather than the investors of those companies.


I do not believe that taxpayers are paying coal companies to do research. The coal companies can write down the cost of their research from their earning just as other companies can write down the cost of research when they try to improve their own products. Writing off a cost is totally different than getting cash to sell solar panels or forcing utilities to use solar panels to create a certain part of the electricity that they sell.

Do you have ANY green groups that you respect? EDF or NRDC?

As someone interested in conservation and joined the green movement in his youth I used to respect groups that used to care about fixing the environment. But when the Marxists joined the movement once their argument against capitalism failed so miserably with the fall of the Wall and the destruction of the USSR the movement became political and lost my support.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home