Don Boudreaux Responds to O'Reilly's Nitwitery
Don Boudreaux writes a classic and brilliant response to some nonsensical whining by Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs who complain on Fox News (see video above) that "working Americans are getting hosed at the pump" by high gas prices because U.S. oil companies are sending their products overseas to make more money:
"I was amused, by the way, that in your Feb. 17th discussion with Lou Dobbs, Mr. Dobbs shared your anger at rising U.S. oil exports. This is the same Mr. Dobbs who repeatedly complains that the problem with America’s involvement in the global economy is that foreigners stubbornly refuse to buy sufficient amounts of American exports. Go figure.
Now about your ethics. You’re paid so handsomely because there’s a large nation-wide demand for your commentary and bombast. In your career you’ve worked for broadcasters in Boston, Dallas, Denver, Hartford, and elsewhere. And before moving to Fox you were a correspondent for ABC News. You apparently never hesitated to sell your product to the highest bidder; you never hesitated to export yourself from one market to another in search of higher pay; you never resisted the bidding for your services by buyers (i.e., employers) far and wide which put upward pressure on the amounts of money that you are paid, both to appear on television and to deliver lunch and dinnertime speeches.
So I ask: are you guilty of an offense against those many Americans who – as a result of your responding to market signals regarding the value of your services – must now pay higher prices for the privilege of hearing your commentary? Should you return to your long-ago job at a local Scranton television station, at your long-ago lower salary, and apologize to the good people of Lackawanna County for your greedy and evil habit of exporting yourself to wherever and whoever offers to pay you more money?"
75 Comments:
Gee! I wonder if O'Reilly understands the full impact of quantitative easing?
"You apparently never hesitated to sell your product to the highest bidder..."...
Get some Boudreaux!
LMAO!
what kind of "conservative" is O'Reilly anyhow?
all this time..he yammers on about the private sector and the free market and then when gasoline does EXACTLY what the free market ..has ALWAYS done ..the man loses his mind.
one can only surmise... WTF?
gee.. is quantitative easing an OPEC concept?
:-)
That is excellent.
The number one U.S. export is petroleum products as a result of refining (manufacturing). These products range from jet fuel to lubricants, and are mainly exported to Mexico and Latin America.
Regardless that petro products are America's #1 export, the fact is that the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal are chokepoints for much of world's oil supplies. The risks of a shutdown seem to be very high right now, and along with much higher demand in Asia are the main drivers of higher prices for any oil.
When it comes to an understanding of economics, Bill O'Reilly is a pinhead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fox News has the best reporters in the country, that is where I get all my information on Obama.
Too right, Don. It is painful listening to O'Reilly's pinhead musings on oil and other economic issues. He claims he was once a teacher - sad day for his students! From his abysmal grammar to his bombastic economic ignorance, fox should be ashamed to display such small mindedness!
Thanks for the facts.
Is this solely because of the huge spread between Brent and WTI?
If US producers can sell at Brent prices overseas, why not?
what kind of "conservative" is O'Reilly anyhow?
A Republican who goes leftist is loved by no one.
The free-marketeers now dislike him, but he fails to curry favor with leftists who share his opinion too.
Just look at Sarah Palin, a feminist in all but name, is still hated by the 'official' feminists who agree with her on all female-centric issues except abortion.
juandos
your recent links aren't working.
O'Reilly is obviously a big government Republican and certainly an economic ignoramus.
Who is this Bill O'Reilly you speak of?
if it was really true that they were selling oil overseas because they thought they could make more money there, the stock market would arbitrage that trading opportunity instantly and prices would converge. O'reilly is talking complete nonsense.
America uber Alles. No price is too great.
Has O'Reilly been commenting here under the pseudonym "sethstorm"?
Che: "Has O'Reilly been commenting here under the pseudonym "sethstorm"?"
No, but if my sources are correct, sethstorm is O'Reilly's economic advisor.
"your recent links aren't working....
Which ones ron h?
I meant to answer you sooner but I forgot...
pardon the width and depth of my ignorance but I, for one AM having a difficult time understanding how oil cos can continue to make record profits (from whichever segment of their bizness)?? I also wonder why we refine oil/gas, etc in SE Texas and ship it overseas-why not keep it and sell it here? Fact is, higher fule prices are a tax on Americans-at a time when we/they can least afford it.
juandos: "Which ones ron h?
I meant to answer you sooner but I forgot..."
Well, they are now working. Must be me.
Htowner,
Oil is a global commodity. Oil companies are price takers in the oil market. Moreover, if you were an investor in an oil producer, would you prefer management sold the commodity at a higher or lower price? Do you choose to sell your own labour at a price below market value so that the consumers of your end product may benefit from lower prices? If not, why would you expect anyone else to do so?
Further, what the press defines as "record profit" is absurd. In its intractable ignorance, the press routinely looks only at the absolute dollar amount of profit. If it takes billions of dollars of investment to make tens of millions of dollars of profit, the profit margin is single digits. In fact, Apple is far more profitable than an oil company.
Finally, don't mix oil and natural gas. Because of the difficulty of transporting a gas, natural gas is a continental commodity. North American natural gas prices are, unlike oil prices, not determined in the global market but by the supply and demand in North America.
you have two distinct groups of people in the US.
1. those who benefit from higher commodity prices for oil
2. those who consume refined producs from oil.
the messages about the Keystone Pipe line and expanded drilling on Federal Lands and offshore as "helping" the second group has been successfully sold to much of the country.
but the reality here is that the keystone pipeline and expanded drilling will not help US consumers at all except in a minor ancillary way in that whatever extra is added to the world supply might have some downward effect but since the percentage is not large, the effect is very small.
keep in mind also that regardless of the politics of drilling in the US - the rest of world also drills for oil... in Brazil, in Thailand, in Africa... and those other places likely constitute 90+% or more of the total world drilling activity that COULD affect the overall supply and availability of oil.
also the continuing implication that Bernanke's policies somehow affect the price of a worldwide commodity seems at best silly unless someone is going to show how Bernanke's policies affect the world price of oil.
Oh, Larry, Larry.
Printing more dollars inflates the price of everything in dollar terms - regardless of whether it's a global commodity or not.
Of course the Keystone pipeline helps the consumers of oil. It also helps the producers. It's mutually beneficial.
More supply means a price lower than it otherwise would be. Works for the consumer because it lowers his expense and works for the producer since he can sell more volume.
They're both better off. Who cares if it's by a small amount? Would you prefer to pay 1% more or !% less for the exact same thing?
Methinks,
got it. So, is the price of oil a 'pure' price or is it driven up by the 'speculators'? With more oil being drilled around the world-shouldn't prices be coming down? (Albeit Asia is using more...) Lastly, I am still not understanding, if the refiners/oil co's 'make' the gasoline/oil in SE Texas/SW La and the price of crude is roughly the same worldwide...why do they not sell it here instead of shipping it across the ocean?? This to me is nonsensical-but alas I am at the beginning of a learning curve it appears.
The correct response is a carbon tax on purchases of Russian natural gas by EU countries. Fight silliness with silliness.
The populist National Socialist type. Obama is the populist Socialist type.
Htowner,
"speculators" benefit the market by adding liquidity and reducing transactions costs. Speculators don't determine the price - supply and demand does that. Speculators merely make bets on what will happen to supply and demand.
While more oil is being drilled around the world, as you noted, demand is also rising, putting upward pressure on prices.
In the long term, this should work itself out through innovation. I think it bears remembering that it was human innovation that led to a nasty, viscous sludge becoming such a sought after commodity in the first place. Had we not been able to figure out how to use oil, it would remain worthless.
With regard to exporting gasoline, clearly, there is not enough demand in the United States to sell all of the supply and there is demand from abroad.
Just over 50 years ago, the United States became a net importer of gasoline. U.S. supply could no longer keep up with demand.
Recently, U.S. refiners began to export again as U.S. demand dropped. Part of that drop is attributed to the recession and part to fuel efficiency. So, refiners now export the excess they are unable to sell in the U.S.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that your (or someone's) natural next question will be "why not lower prices in order to sell the excess in the U.S.?"
That's what Bill O'Reilly would like them to do. They don't because they don't have to. There are willing buyers at the market price outside the U.S. O'Reilly would like to point a gun to their heads and force them to sell their excess production in the United States.
How long do you suppose there will be excess production if that happens? How much new investment in gasoline production do you think there will be when investors know that they will not be able to control their own property? What will investors in other industries learn from this use of force and what effect will that have on all investment? That's just off the top of my head. I think it's safe to say that O'Reilly's dumb idea will have a very negative effect on investment in the United States. The only thing it won't do is lower gasoline prices.
Methinks, nice-thanks. Last thing-with the Prez and others who feel that higher gas prices are a good thing-is there any conspiratorial logic behind the higher prices-doubling since the POTUS took office, his insistence on 'investing' in Green Co's and his reticence in more drilling-Anwar, Gulf of Mexico, etc?
HTowner,
How would such a conspiracy work? To effect such a price move would require collusion among a huge group of producers.
We know from our experience with cartels such collusion doesn't work.
As the price rises, the potential profit margin does as well. The desire to cheat and sell more than you've agreed to in order to reap the extra reward becomes overwhelming and grows more intense as the price of the commodity rises further. Soon, everyone is cheating and supply exceeds the agreed upon level, serving to lower price.
Moreover, beyond a certain point, rising prices don't help oil producers because people begin to seek substitutes, engage in conservation and invent fuel efficient alternatives.
the 1970's oil embargo backfired on the Saudis. As a result of the demand shock and associated price spike, Americans began to drive more fuel efficient cars, more fuel efficient appliances were invented and demand was permanently reduced as a result. By the time the Saudis ended the embargo, worldwide demand had dropped.
Htowner,
In addition, as "speculators" are betting on the direction prices will move due to supply and demand, they provide the rest of us with early warning signals by helping move prices in the direction of their bet. They are our friends, not evil creatures.
Those who blame high prices on speculators are doing so for political, not economic reasons.
The same early warning is provided by insider trading, although that's a more controversial subject.
"you have two distinct groups of people in the US.
1. those who benefit from higher commodity prices for oil
2. those who consume refined producs from oil."
"Distinct" may not be the right word here. Have you considered XOM stockholders who drive to work?
"Printing more dollars inflates the price of everything in dollar terms - regardless of whether it's a global commodity or not."
so if Bernanke prints more dollars, it costs China or France more for oil?
;-)
how does that work?
" Of course the Keystone pipeline helps the consumers of oil. It also helps the producers. It's mutually beneficial."
okay. how about we put a price on it.
If the US INCREASEs the world supply of oil by allowing the Keystone Pipeline how much would that LOWER the price of fuel for US buyers?
10 cents
1 cent
.00000001 cent?
which is closest?
Larry, stop playing at captious. You're not very good at it.
Just come out with it. What deep, dark intellectual hole are you digging for yourself this time?
hey...they are NO OBJECTIONS.
I'm merely asking to put some numbers on the claim.
surely if folks want to seriously claim some benefit.. they must be willing to make their case.
I mean otherwise, we'd see you as an ideological zealot who fervently believes regardless of facts.
LOL
The great battle of wits between Methinks and Larry G. in pictures.
LOL
The great battle of wits between Methinks and Larry G. in pictures.
More warning next time, Ron H! Please. I laughed so hard I choked on my cookie! It took a moment to see what that mouse was doing.
Larry, I want to ask you what the hell you're talking about, but you never seem to know.
As evidenced by this:
"so if Bernanke prints more dollars, it costs China or France more for oil?"
Whuuuuuut?
WRT to Keystone...
Look, Lar, it's pretty much just this simple: supply and demand.
More supply means downward pressure on prices. Prices will be lower than they otherwise would be. You kinda fooled me into thinking you almost got that in your first post.
Why is this suddenly too complicated for you to understand?
You don't need to go to the trouble of pretending you even know how to begin to "put numbers on it."
The producers who are investing their own capital "put numbers on it" and thought it was worth the risk.
Is there some reason you, a consumer of petroleum products, think you're going to be forced to pay higher prices if supply of oil increases? If you do, then I think you're going to need to explain this new Larrynomics to a mere mortal like me.
re: Bernanke, printing money, and the price of fuel - in the US ...and other places.
the conventional wisdom cited here says that Bernanke's policies affect the price of oil...
prove it.
re: put numbers on it
no sliding sideways guy.
if you think drilling for more oil in the US will result in lower pump prices in the US - then put more meat on the table beyond your fervent beliefs.
re: " the problem right now is that lots of big fields have dropping production, some from resource depletion, some from a failure to invest to keep them up (like mexico and VZ).
thus, you need to run to stand still."
why does this sound like a bit like "peak oil"?
"so if Bernanke prints more dollars, it costs China or France more for oil?"
Hint: The correct answer starts with the letter N.
Please, Larry, the correct answer is no. Just say NO.
"re: Bernanke, printing money, and the price of fuel - in the US ...and other places.
the conventional wisdom cited here says that Bernanke's policies affect the price of oil...
prove it.
re: put numbers on it"
"if you think drilling for more oil in the US will result in lower pump prices in the US - then put more meat on the table beyond your fervent beliefs."
OK, here's the thing: You are asking two different questions, but they have the same answer.
Supply and demand: It's not often someone questions the laws of supply and demand, as they are well understood by almost everyone on the planet, but let me give this a shot.
More supply of something or lower demand for something, generally causes the price of that something to decrease.
Less supply of something or greater demand for something, generally causes the price of something to increase.
So, a greater supply of oil on the global market, whether it's from US drilling or from anywhere else, should cause the price to decrease.
Here's the tricky part - those laws apply to every commodity, including money.
So, the answer to your first question is this: If Bernanke prints more dollars, thus increasing the supply of them, then the price of them will decrease, relative to things you buy them with. A bushel of wheat, an hour of your labor, a barrel of oil, or a gallon of gasoline will all buy more dollars.
We generally refer to this as "higher prices".
So yes, if Bernanke prints more dollars, US buyers will spend more for oil or gas, in terms of dollars, as the price of dollars has decreased.
The answer to your second question about France and China is this:
French wine sellers will get more dollars for the same bottle of wine from US buyers, and Chinese sellers will get more dollars for rubber duckies from US buyers, and they will both spend more of those dollars for a gallon of gas, but the price of gas in bottles of wine hasn't changed, and the price of gas in rubber duckies hasn't changed.
So, no, it doesn't cost the Chinese or the French more for oil, they will just trade more US dollars for it.
Bernanke's policies don't affact the price of oil, they affect the price of dollars.
You want numbers? OK, here you go:
In the simplest possible terms - which are good enough for this discussion - If Bernanke doubles the US money supply, then each dollar will be worth 1/2 as much. A US buyer will see a gallon of gas will go from $4 to $8, a barrel of oil will go from $100 to $200, a rubber ducky will go from $2 to $4, and a bottle of wine will go from $ $30 to $60. All that, with no changes in any price except the dollar.
" So yes, if Bernanke prints more dollars, US buyers will spend more for oil or gas, in terms of dollars, as the price of dollars has decreased."
are Bernanke's policies the CAUSE of the INCREASE in the price of oil worldwide?
Bonus Question: are his policies the cause of increased prices for fuel in the US?
super dooper bonus:
how much on a per gallon basis does the oil in North Dakota affect the price of gasoline?
ballpark numbers guys..
is it
10 cents a gallon?
1 cent a gallon?
.00000000000001 cent a gallon?
provide some reasonable support and evidence for your answer.
super dooper daily double:
do the same math for the Keystone (since both the Keystone and expanded drilling in the US as they are being sold to the public via the media as a way to reduce pump prices).
Bonus question? Math?
This from someone who can't work out simple supply and demand. Still.
I don't think Ron H can dumb it down anymore than he has, Lar.
No amount of Supercalifragilistic to the power of a zillion bonus questions is going to help poor humpty Larry.
oh, it's not math or supply and demand.. it's ideology... what one believes... no matter the facts or realities.
if there were facts to support the beliefs, they'd be flying like flies over carrion ... but since they are not.. the answer is "you don't understand".
that's okay. I know how that works guys.
you sell the pipeline and more drilling on the concept that it will help consumers but when asked to provide evidence.. it then becomes all about supply/demand and understanding it, eh?
yup.
I'm impressed!
Ron distinguished himself earlier by demonstrating his abject ignorance about the social security trust funds so I'm not particularly impressed with his "knowledge" either.
"oh, it's not math or supply and demand.. it's ideology... what one believes... no matter the facts or realities."
Well, I guess we're done here. There's Larry's signal that he really doesn't understand the subject and isn't interested in learning about it.
You know, Larry, when you ask people for help with something, and they respond, you can't just call them ideologues if you don't understand them.
When people tell you you don't understand something, it's because it's painfully obvious that you don't.
It's not insulting to tell you that.
I spent 20 minutes composing that last comment to make sure every part of your question was covered, and that I wasn't talking over your head, and even that wasn't enough.
If you really want to learn things you need a different approach. If you just enjoy trolling people, you're doing a great job.
Let me ask you a question about how much an increased supply will affect prices:
If E&J Gallo Winery has a particularly good year and increases production from 76 million cases sold worldwide to 93 million cases sold worldwide, how much less will you spend for a gallon jug of your favorite wine?
10 cents?
1 cent?
.0000000001 cent?
Do you see the problem with that question? It can't be answered, because there are too many other things you don't know that affect the price of wine at your store.
The same problem makes your question about the price of gas meaningless. All anyone can say is that an increase in supply should put downward pressure on prices.
You really should familiarize yourself with supply and demand, as well as the role of money if you are to successfully discuss economics. I would recommend some reading for you, but I know you don't read things that are recommended to you, so I won't waste my time.
" Do you see the problem with that question? It can't be answered,"
no.
it's that you want to be a smart butt and I won't let you.
there IS a reasonable answer here.
but your ideology won't let you answer it...reasonably.
you claim there is a supply/demand "elasticity" ...."in theory" but when asked to demonstrate it.. it defaults back to "you must believe" or you have not "learned".
:-)
fuel prices are going up at a tremendous rate even as we use less and even as drilling ramps up.
What I'm pointing out to you is that many people do not understand this and would like some kind of reasonable understanding of why.
what we get from folks like you is that "you must believe" in basic economics, supply/demand, blah, blah, blah
that's nitwitery.
Technically, Ron H, it can be answered.
You would have to be privy to more information that we have and it would have to be worth your time (indulging Larry isn't), but based on that information you could come up with estimates.
Which would be irrelevant to what Larry says he wants to know. He's for some reason latched on to the idea the magnitude of difference is what's relevant. If it doesn't halve the oil price, it's not worth it for him - even though he's totally irrelevant in all of this.
Lar, I get it, man.
There's also a lot of nitwits stumbling around irrationally believing in gravity and all these other laws of physics.
A lot of people don't understand why objects dropped fall toward the ground and all the "experts" just keep throwing that voodoo gravity blah blah blah at them.
Dude, it's sad, man.
"there IS a reasonable answer here."
What is it, then? What's the answer?
"fuel prices are going up at a tremendous rate even as we use less and even as drilling ramps up.
What I'm pointing out to you is that many people do not understand this and would like some kind of reasonable understanding of why.
what we get from folks like you is that "you must believe" in basic economics, supply/demand, blah, blah, blah"
That's all it is, Larry, basic economics. Supply and demand as well as anticipation of future supply and demand affecting current price.
Well, that and inflation of the money supply, but I won't try to explain that to you again.
You claim to have studied economics, but I've got to tell you, my 10 year old grandson has a better grasp of the basics than you seem to.
The economic laws of supply and demand aren't theory, they work all the time every time. There are no exceptions. They depend on human nature, which hasn't changed in tens of thousands of years.
If you think something else is causing gas prices to rise, then PLEASE tell us what it is. Everyone would love to know.
What's YOUR answer?
Methinks: "
Technically, Ron H, it can be answered.
You would have to be privy to more information that we have and it would have to be worth your time (indulging Larry isn't), but based on that information you could come up with estimates. "
You are correct on every point: Yes, I could make estimates based on much more information than I currently have, and yes, providing Larry with the answer isn't worth my time, especially since I'm not even particularly interested in the answer.
In any case it seems that I'm just an ideologue , who asks people to believe the blah blah blah, and Larry's way too smart to be taken in by such nonsense, so I'm obviously wasting my time here. :)
you boys are just proving what you are and it ain't pretty.
here's a step by step for you.
1. - if you don't like what Larry says..
2. - move your mouse and adjust your rump and keep your mouth properly aligned.
3. move on
repeat after me...
you know.. for guys who "fret" over "wasting your time" ..ya'll are comical....
;-)
" but based on that information you could come up with estimates."
geeze..you guys first said it could not be done..then it did not matter.
all I really asked was that if you were going to claim that supply/demand was in play ....
that you provide some evidence to explain why prices are going up while demand is tanking...
and we get into this big ding dong about the color of hair on a rats butt.
ya'll are hilarious.
Supply and demand is in play?
Next thing you kow, Ron H. is going to break out that "earth is round" mumbo-jumbo.
Thank goodness Larry's too smart to be taken in by that claptrap.
"that you provide some evidence to explain why prices are going up while demand is tanking..."
Demand isn't tanking, Larry, It is down somewhat in the US. Look this stuff up yourself.
Did you miss this from 3 days ago?
That might explain part of the problem you can't seem to figure out, but keep in mind that under these unusual circumstances. supply and demand may be in play, so be careful.
You might also try to find someone you trust to explain inflation to you. That might be in play also.
I also have a theory, but it requires some faith in blah blah blah, that despite what we all see is obvious, it's just possible that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around, but don't go anywhere with that yet, as I'm not finished concocting my appeal to the rubes.
speaking of claptrap:
" What do Republicans support?
The U.S. can help insulate ourselves from these energy spikes and help our economy by actively producing our own American energy resources. This includes more American produced oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear, along with alternative sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal. Producing more American energy will lower prices, create new American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and raise revenue to help tackle the $14 trillion national debt."
What can be done to increase American energy production and provide families with relief at the pump?
End De Facto Drilling Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
Increase Offshore Production.
Increase Alaskan Production.
Increase Onshore Production.
Stop Blocking Access to North American Resources.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=32333
so... what does this mean about the Republican "plan" for oil?
are they ignorant?
are they lying?
how come a bunch of Americans believe this?
are a bunch of Americans "ignorant" on oil supply and demand?
what say you folks?
I can't abandon this thread for 10 seconds.
When did this become about Republicans?
Methinks: "I can't abandon this thread for 10 seconds.
When did this become about Republicans?"
Oh yeah. I blinked a while ago, and there it was. A brand new subject Larry want's to talk about for some reason.
Now that he understands global markets, supply & demand, money, and inflation, he wants to study the next chapter, which is titled "Republicans".
Apparently Larry has encountered a bit of political speech, and wants it explained to him.
This should be easy:
Larry, it's all nonsense. Don't pay any attention to it, it's merely an appeal to emotion by a politician seeking votes.
Did that about cover it?
" I can't abandon this thread for 10 seconds."
sure you can.. you keep saying it's not worth your time, right?
so what's you deal here?
"When did this become about Republicans? "
when the title of this thread talked about O'Reilly's blather attack on gasoline prices and how "something" should be done ...
and the GOP keeps saying that the Keystone Pipeline and opening up drilling will lower gasoline prices and you guys in this blog support that view - without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Note the GOP uses narratives like
" Producing more American energy will lower prices, create new American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and raise revenue to help tackle the $14 trillion national debt."
and
"What can be done to increase American energy production and provide families with relief at the pump?"
and here.. the word is that we don't keep the oil ..we sell it worldwide but by increasing the worldwide supply, we lower prices.
but when I expressed skepticism about this and ask for some evidence to show it.. people get their hindsides in an uproar and start blather "ignorance".
you boys claim superior intellect... I'm not at all impressed with you.
the best I can say is that you blather a lot for the amount of actual knowledge that gets out.
so..asking for some evidence to back up these mindless claims is "ignorant"?
ya'll have a good night....and rest those tongues a bit or at least don't let them get ahead of the brainpower.
;-)
"and here.. the word is that we don't keep the oil ..we sell it worldwide but by increasing the worldwide supply, we lower prices."
We? Who is we? I don't have any oil to keep or sell, and neither do you. Neither the US, nor America, buys oil or sells oil, or keeps oil.
When you get a clearer sense of who the actors are that are actually doing those things with oil, you will have an easier time understanding the whole picture.
"but when I expressed skepticism about this and ask for some evidence to show it.. people get their hindsides in an uproar and start blather "ignorance"."
But Larry, you didn't express skepticism, you expressed ignorance. I'm sorry about the uproarious hindside, but persistent, willful ignorance always does that to me. Get a clue before you object to what others write.
Ron distinguished himself earlier by demonstrating his abject ignorance about the social security trust funds so I'm not particularly impressed with his "knowledge" either.
I was just sent an e-mail by a friend that illustrates your ignorance. You and a few idiots on this board seem to think that funding is not an issue for SS and that any shortfalls can be covered easily in the future. That is because you don't understand what the term 'unfunded liabilities' really means.
Well, this story in Defence News illustrates the problem. Read and learn dumdum.
re: expressing ignorance.
I was expressing the very same skepticism that MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING our friend O'Reilly has expressed.
I understand the demand/supply argument but it is done demonstrated by anyone who makes the claim that by drilling more it lowers prices at the pumps - as the Republicans and backers of more drilling and Keystone have said.
they say basically: "drill more and it will lower pump prices".
I challenge anyone who makes that statement to put some numbers on it - to back it up.
re: SS and unfunded liabilities.
you are STILL an idiot.
OUT of ALL the Programs in the Federal Budget - SS is the ONLY ONE that LIMITS payouts to no more than what revenues bring in.
that's NOT a unfunded liability - that's the OPPOSITE!
your tortured logic is that because benefits are automatically reduced - it's not fair and therefore we cannot allow payments to reduce and it's the reduced amount that you want to restore that then becomes the unfunded liability.
I say again.. if we do nothing - there will be NO UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
Then you fail to understand the difference between FICA-financed SS and Medicare A and Medicare B.
Medicare B is NOT funded from FICA but instead from appropriated revenues and that program is NOT mandatory but purely voluntary and the proposed solution to that program is to do what ?
increase premiums and cut benefits.
but you say that if we don't do that it is an unfunded liability.
but that's true for ANY insurance product private or public.
that's the entire purpose of performing an analysis and adjusting the benefits and costs.
you don't understand unfunded liabilities, SS, FICA or trust funds.
you started out IGNORANT and even though you've been supplied with NUMEROUS references to show how IGNORANT you are - you refuse to accept it because it does not fit with your ideology.
don't lecture anyone about ignorance guy.
it's not only ignorance.. it's just plain idiocy ... when the facts HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED to you and you continue with what you initially believed.
Morg's standard is that one must contribute.
By that standard, you not only do not contribute. You refuse to accept simple documented facts and continue to cite right wing propaganda from folks like Heritage.
I was expressing the very same skepticism that MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING our friend O'Reilly has expressed.
Many people are economic illiterates. The fact that you have the same sentiments is not a sign of knowledge or virtue. It is a sign of ignorance. Your friend O'Reilly makes his money by being popular, not by being knowledgeable and right.
" Many people are economic illiterates."
that's entirely true and what better place to get a valid explanation of the realities than an Economic's Blog frequented by people who seem to know ?
this Blog is full of smart asses who like to diss other people when it could be a decent place to learn and understand.
you guys seem to like making it a hostile forum unless one is already considered an expert.
and I say again.. many here are ignorant on a wide variety of issues and have no special virtues that set them apart for the average person other than their supposed expertise in economics.
telling someone they are "ignorant" because the basics involving oil supply and gasoline prices seem to run counter to conventional wisdom is not something any of you should be proud of.
get the politics of personalities out of the discussion and stick to the subject and if the guy you are dialoging lacks understanding and you are not willing to deal with it - then move on.
learn to live and let live and realize that you too are ignorant just on different subjects.
this Blog is full of smart asses who like to diss other people when it could be a decent place to learn and understand.
Not at all. They try to teach those who have no clue about economics and politics. But many if the illiterates have no interest in learning. More energy has been wasted on trying to teach you than any other poster that I know of. Yet, you still have no idea about economics and cannot even identify the issues and still remain as ignorant of reality as ever.
no they don't they pick on people, diss them and treat them badly when they don't have to.
you have options.
1. - dialog and explain
2. - be tolerant
3. - push on and ignore
4. - diss and belittle
all I'm telling you is that option 4 is available to everyone including those you say you "must" diss.
and you do not "teach" me dude.
I've had enough of you and your "teaching" when you clearly don't know shit from shinola on what you "teach".
no they don't they pick on people, diss them and treat them badly when they don't have to.
When they work hard to get information and provide it in a way that you can understand only to have you ignore everything and ask questions that shows that you refuse to learn they have every right to tell you that you have to try harder to shed your ignorance. Had your parents and friends actually done you a favour and told you the same things you would have been much better off than you are now.
You can't ignore the real world my friend, no matter how much you want to. It may be a comfort for a while to hide by treating facts and logic as just ideology but that comfort turns to misery when the consequences of ignoring reality have to be faced.
And when you ask but keep refusing to pay attention to the answers the people who spent time and energy to educate you have every right to point out your ignorance even if it hurts your feelings.
By the way, have you noticed that you do not have the option to follow the debate when you first post? I do not get e-mail notifications when someone new posts on any of the newer threads.
you do not get to decide and you do not get to diss.
it's not your right.
you can dialog, disagree, point out more but you cannot and should not pass judgement when you yourself have gotten it wrong.
YOU do NOT get to decide if others are "learning" or "listening" or "understanding".
and you certainly have no right under any circumstances to diss people.
I'm going to be here from now on and you better get used to it.
and I will treat others as they treat me.
If you want to disagree on the facts or promote your own views, fine but when you beging to use Ad Hominems and diss others..you are going to get it right back in your face - EVERY TIME.
re: following the new threads?
so? .... I pass on quite a few of the new posts - and others I weigh in on .
what's your point?
are you a "decider" on how folks should weigh in or not also?
behave yourself or hear about it guy and that goes for anyone else who cannot behave.
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
2. Please avoid offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or defamatory language.
3. follow the golden rule. treat others as you would like to be treated.
4. if you must be nasty, then expect it in return.
you do not get to decide and you do not get to diss.
it's not your right.
Not true. I have every right to point out things as I see them.
you can dialog, disagree, point out more but you cannot and should not pass judgement when you yourself have gotten it wrong.
When I have gotten it wrong you are right. But when you keep getting it wrong I have every right to point out your errors.
YOU do NOT get to decide if others are "learning" or "listening" or "understanding".
The fact that you are not "learning" or "listening" or "understanding" is quite obvious to most people. They have reached the same conclusion and have told you multiple times. The fact that you pay no attention and cannot learn is your problem, not theirs.
"Not true. I have every right to point out things as I see them."
politely and respectfully
"you can dialog, disagree, point out more but you cannot and should not pass judgement when you yourself have gotten it wrong."
"When I have gotten it wrong you are right. But when you keep getting it wrong I have every right to point out your errors."
you believe in natural rights but not for Native Americans. You believe there are worldwide conspiracies. You seriously do not understand what unfunded liabilities are.
you are free to "point out". you are ot free to insult and denigrate those you disagree with when you yourself may not have it right.
"YOU do NOT get to decide if others are "learning" or "listening" or "understanding".
The fact that you are not "learning" or "listening" or "understanding" is quite obvious to most people. They have reached the same conclusion and have told you multiple times. The fact that you pay no attention and cannot learn is your problem, not theirs. "
they are fine to believe what they want. they are not fine with insulting Ad Hominem attacks.
you do not get to decide who is right or wrong much less "punish" them for not "learning".
you are one arrogant SOB and you'll get back every bit of abuse you dish out.
Count on it.
if you do not like what I say - get your butt to the next post and keep your trap shut.
politely and respectfully
That is what was done the first 100 times. But when an ignorant person keeps ignoring all of the facts and the logic the politeness no longer has any room in the debate.
you believe in natural rights but not for Native Americans.
Anyone who believes in natural rights believes that they apply to all individuals. Groups have no rights. Only individuals do.
You believe there are worldwide conspiracies.
I do? I merely point out the obvious. When Greenspan says that the CBs stand ready to sell gold to keep its price from going up I believe him. And clearly when the information is public you do not have a conspiracy but a fairly public operation.
Some things happen because of the way the system is structured. You don't need a conspiracy for the outcome to come true. And no special insights to make very accurate predictions.
You seriously do not understand what unfunded liabilities are.
Sure I do. But you and your buddies certainly don't.
you do not get to decide who is right or wrong much less "punish" them for not "learning".
Since when is telling the truth 'punishment?'
politely and respectfully
That is what was done the first 100 times. But when an ignorant person keeps ignoring all of the facts and the logic the politeness no longer has any room in the debate."
no it was not. and it does not matter. it's pro forma is you want polite return treatment.
Learn THAT!
"you believe in natural rights but not for Native Americans.
Anyone who believes in natural rights believes that they apply to all individuals. Groups have no rights. Only individuals do. "
yeah we know.. you have your VIEW. It does NOT make you RIGHT but you ARGUE like you ARE AND you justify rude and insulting treatment because someone did not "learn" your silly views.
"You believe there are worldwide conspiracies.
I do? I merely point out the obvious. When Greenspan says that the CBs stand ready to sell gold to keep its price from going up I believe him. And clearly when the information is public you do not have a conspiracy but a fairly public operation."
you do dude. In your mind, consensus = conspiracy. Again.. you are certainly entitled to your your point of view but it does not make you right nor does it justify your bully behaviors.
Some things happen because of the way the system is structured. You don't need a conspiracy for the outcome to come true. And no special insights to make very accurate predictions.
"You seriously do not understand what unfunded liabilities are.
Sure I do. But you and your buddies certainly don't. "
no you don't there is NO unfunded liability for a program that is DESIGNED EXPLICITLY to reduce funding to stay within revenues.
where is the unfunded liability ?
there is NONE. You make it up and again it's your view not the facts.
you do not get to decide who is right or wrong much less "punish" them for not "learning".
Since when is telling the truth 'punishment?'
because it's not the truth guy. it's your version of it and it's clearly wrong at times.
you think if you believe it - it's true.
I can say without hesitation, it's not but in your arrogant mind you think so and then it's a short trip to diss people who dare to disagree with you and don't "learn".
wise up guy. you're going to get treated like you treat others.
Post a Comment
<< Home