Letters to the Editor
-
@walter_map re: modern economics
A particular politician's or administration's use of economic theory to further an agenda you don't like does not count as a component of the theory itself.
That's like getting a salary cut and blaming math.
Would love to see some examples of actual economic theory that calls for rapacity.
We all know the Bush administration is anti-science, I would hope that readers of Salon would not be.
-
McCain's Gas Attack
US demand for petroleum is absolutely inelastic. If prices at the pump were to reach $100 per gallon we'd see people shooting each other over it, but driving would not abate. Hooked is just that, hooked. But telling Joe Six-Pack that gas prices could go DOWN, even a little, is a lot like telling him those dirty illegal aliens are taking his job (never mind the wholesale export of jobs to India)! It gets the old sound-bite knee-jerk blood pressure reaction. And it gets Republicans elected! But hold on; just how would we pay to maintain the nation's roads, which are vital to the economy? After all, "if you've got it, a truck brought it." Or so the Teamster's Union bumper sticker said. Since Sen. McCain has no good looks with which to keep up the highways, perhaps this alone tells us who his running mate will be. Hint: he last held office in Taxachusetts.
-
dawdler
Would love to see some examples of actual economic theory that calls for rapacity.
What precisely would you call 'supply-side economics' if not a smokescreen for rapacity?
Were you aware that 5% unemployment is considered 'full employment' by standard economics texts? Were you really? That's right: 95% = 100%.
Moreover, the presidency has the perogative to set the rules for obtaining economic statistics any way the president likes, and the Bush administration has definitely exploited that perogative. That's how 12% unemployment = 5% unemployment = 100% employment.
You're probably also unaware that almost no economic accounting is made for permanent depletion of natural economic resources. You may wish to consider that capitalism as currently constituted is inherently unsustainable precisely because it positively requires that economic growth, based on natural planetary resources, must continue indefinitely - even though those planetary resources are quite finite. This condition automatically constitutes rapacity.
That said, if you're unaware that modern 'economic theory' are a whitewash for rapacity on the part of the hyperwealthy, then I'd in all honesty have to say that you don't know much about economics.
Frankly, I'm not up to the task of remediating your education. You'll have to do that yourself:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/02/18464823.php
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/256.html
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/regionalization/conquering_canada%3a_the_elite_re-configuration_of_north_america_2007071671/Don't believe me. Google up 'economics' and 'Mike Whitney' and 'Paul Craig Roberts' yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.
And keep your snarky little insults to yourself, child.
-
1guru1
US demand for petroleum is absolutely inelastic.
Not true:
It turns out that the demand for gasoline does actually have some elasticity in it. James Hamilton of EconBrowser shows that the recent run-up in gas prices actually has reduced the quantity of gasoline consumed — both from level before the increase, and the level at the same time last year (so what we are seeing is not merely a seasonal effect.) He even has a great chart showing the prices this summer and last summer. (Hat tip: Knowledge Problem.)
So, people are actually driving less. If the higher prices persist, we should see the demand drop even further.
http://differentriver.com/archives/2005/09/20/elasticity-of-demand-for-gasoline/
In the future, check your facts before making pronouncements that are easily refuted. Or somebody like me will come along and make you look really, really stupid.
-
dawdler
A particular politician's or administration's use of economic theory to further an agenda you don't like does not count as a component of the theory itself.
Statements like this make your handle remarkably appropriate. Is all your thinking so lazy?
Look up 'political economy' and get back to us.