Letters to the Editor
mike_labonte
Published Letters: 21
-
the greenhouse gas intensity IQ test
[Read the article: Bush's lame-duck climate change proposal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The President's speech writers threw an IQ test at us:
In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I'm pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.
Since greenhouse gas intensity is defined as greenhouse gas emissions divided by economic output, Bush is effectively claiming that emissions have been nearly flat. But how many people will assume emissions have been cut, "even as our economy has grown"?
In fact, emissions have been just about flat since 2000. Assuming they remain so, Bush's goal can only be achieved through economic growth. Using the 17% growth number claimed, we would need another 1% of GDP growth by 2012 to claim that flat emissions are an 18% reduction. But I can't verify the 17% claim.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_Trends.pdf
-
He's a news broadcaster and he should be fair and objective
[Read the article: In defense of Lou Dobbs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to agree with the claim that "He's a news broadcaster and he should be fair and objective". But I agree with Glenn that this is not the case for many people who appear on news channels. Many of them are little more than entertainers. Now and then Dobbs pulls out some useful info, but most of the time I just can't watch.
On the other hand, what if the day came that there was no real news on TV? Free speech is a fine principle, but airwaves are precious, and too many people get their news only from TV.
It's like the "war on drugs": politicians want to go after the "dealers" (newscasters), and somehow the "users" can't tear themselves away and make the right choices. Dobbs is pandering and the people are smoking it.
-
Why fill the SPR faster when the price goes up?
[Read the article: The Strategic Pandering Reserve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush said the SPR was being filled at 67,000 barrels per day. True for April, but he didn't mention that the plan for May is to nearly double that rate. The SPR charter calls for managing the fill rate so as not to affect price. So why fill faster when oil seems to be on an upward trend? I think it should be filled at a level dollar rate.
-
establishment vs population index
[Read the article: 500,000 new jobs -- are we supposed to be impressed?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Using the BLS population survey, which asks people if they have jobs, the situation is stark. From March 2007 to March 2008 the working age population grew by 1.96 million and employment fell by 215,000. Using the current employment-to-population ratio of about 63%, 1.23 million jobs should have been added just to keep us on a level track. I call that a 1 year deficit of 1.45 million jobs, which 500,000 jobs will not erase.
So I am certainly not impressed. We should stop using the BLS establishment survey numbers altogether. That series is supposed to provide the best month-to-month accuracy, but it falls short. It excludes much of the population, such as the self employed. And all results are corrected twice, then mostly ignored. It just fails as a useful metric.
It would be much better to use the population survey, and always look at the 12 month change so that seasonal adjustment is not required. I go for the CPS numbers every month, and the employment problem was clear last August. It is also clear that this stimulus package is an expensive band-aid place near, but not on, the wound.
-
MarketPlace botched it
[Read the article: The Strategic Pandering Reserve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually I was yelling at my radio when that MarketPlace segment played. As usual they discussed supply and demand completely avoiding the obvious: supply is meeting demand because prices are high enough. People who try to analyze demand separately are just kidding themselves.
I end up listening to MarketPlace quite a bit on the way home, and I believe you have to be pretty ill informed to get anything out of it most of the time.
-
avoid seasonally adjusted numbers
[Read the article: Fun and games with inflation numbers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just avoid seasonally adjusted numbers altogether. I'm not saying they're completely wrong. The intention of them is to more easily analyze month-to-month changes in some quantity.
But if we can suppress our desire for up-to-the-minute change reports, taking the 12 month change using unadjusted data is much more valid. And often I find that the trends some people are just now discovering have been noticeable for some time.
-
Yes, we are drilling
[Read the article: George Soros explains the oil bubble]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So we ARE drilling??? I thought drilling had all but stopped because judges were saying we couldn't drill.
Drilling in the U.S. has just about doubled since 2001, recently reaching a 22 year high. This is why the production decline rate has more or less halted in the last 2 years.
The recent fuss about "opening up federal land" is an albatross - land leasing has increased dramatically, but most of it remains unexplored. They want the land as collateral to secure more debt.
-
Laffable
[Read the article: All the president's economic advisors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to laugh at people who crow about the Laffer curve to justify supply-sider claims. They of course assume that we are on the high tax side of the curve. Maybe we are actually on the low tax side of the peak, and increasing taxation to fund well implemented programs will increase prosperity. Or maybe we are at the peak and anything we do will reduce GDP!
It's more about how the money is spent, than the level of taxation. In a world where the consumption of a growing population is unsustainable, maybe even the idea of seeking higher GDP is wrong.
-
44 percent is nnot a majority
[Read the article: Where do all the old cellphones go?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Minor correction: 44 percent may be a plurality but not a majority, as stated.