how is this fair?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

the only issues i see happening with that is when the govt. picks the wrong industry, creates to much artificial demand, and when the govt bails on the program it ends up costing thousands of jobs and overall wasted money.

When they get it right it works really well, the problem with our govt anyway is that they don't usually get it right.

You realize this, yet you label yourself as a democrat? Doesn't that imply that you are FOR the government spending?

Thanks for blowing my mind

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Right now seems like a no brainer. Alternative energy. We all know with certainty that there is a global shift going on right now. Demand for oil will outstrip supply as both China and India grow and develop. Forget global warming for a second and just talk about commodities. oil as a commodity will become incredibly expensive and probably the subject of even more warefare. If the US can position it self as a leader in alternative energy we stand to gain from it. The free market is reactive. It will only move towards alt. energy when the price of oil is already painfully high. Once that happens it's too late. We can get ahead of the curve by using our brains and making a judgement that this particular technology will soon increase in importance.

What I find problematic about some approaches I've read to achieve this (namely Obama's who wants to mandate 25% nationwide usage of renewable energy by 2025) is that through forcing companies to move to something they're not doing naturally causes them to ineffectively use their resources. That is, if they can make money doing something one way and they haven't found it useful to move to another way yet, then by forcing them on the other way, they are losing money which ends up destroying jobs.

IMO, the better way to promote alternative energy is to pull back some of those energy-focuses regulations and legislation that prevents people from doing the research effectively.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, you're afraid of currency going to other countries?

You realize that our currency isn't usable in other countries, right. It's sorta only good for American goods. It all comes back eventually.

Don't condescend to me without thinking through your own post. You think the only use for dollars is buying durable goods? The "goods" most affected are wheat, corn, oil, beans, and most of the things this country runs on. If you're not scared of $200 oil and $60 wheat you'd better start. The fact that "it all comes back eventually" is exactly the problem.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Don't condescend to me without thinking through your own post. You think the only use for dollars is buying durable goods? The "goods" most affected are wheat, corn, oil, beans, and most of the things this country runs on. If you're not scared of $200 oil and $60 wheat you'd better start. The fact that "it all comes back eventually" is exactly the problem.

Oh, I AM scared of $200 oil, but our currency going offshore isn't creating that problem. It's us creating more and more currency. The fed dropped the rate by 3/4 of a point again today, and look at the market soar, right? Yeah, for a couple days until all that extra money gets absorbed into the market and the dollar isn't worth as much anymore. What's oil now, $110 or so? Yeah, give it a couple weeks and we'll be WISHING for $110.

If you want to complain about the increasing cost of foreign goods, then you're misplacing your rage in the offshoring of money.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, I AM scared of $200 oil, but our currency going offshore isn't creating that problem. It's us creating more and more currency. The fed dropped the rate by 3/4 of a point again today, and look at the market soar, right? Yeah, for a couple days until all that extra money gets absorbed into the market and the dollar isn't worth as much anymore. What's oil now, $110 or so? Yeah, give it a couple weeks and we'll be WISHING for $110.

If you want to complain about the increasing cost of foreign goods, then you're misplacing your rage in the offshoring of money.

The investment class has been steadily moving their dollars out of the country for years now. I don't see how you can argue with the fact that this has a direct effect on the value of the dollar. You decried government spending which is spent here in America to support giving the investment class more dollars to move to Europe and Asia. That's not going to help us out at all.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What I find problematic about some approaches I've read to achieve this (namely Obama's who wants to mandate 25% nationwide usage of renewable energy by 2025) is that through forcing companies to move to something they're not doing naturally causes them to ineffectively use their resources. That is, if they can make money doing something one way and they haven't found it useful to move to another way yet, then by forcing them on the other way, they are losing money which ends up destroying jobs.

IMO, the better way to promote alternative energy is to pull back some of those energy-focuses regulations and legislation that prevents people from doing the research effectively.

I think that is too short sighted. That seems to be the problem with the market. It's focused on now. It MAY result in job losses now. However 5 or 10 years from now we would hope our economy will be doing much better because of investment we make now.
It's like your 401k. Sure I could be spending that money now and using it to remodel my house, pay for groceries, but my hope is that a small sacrifice now will pay big dividends in the future.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a reason I decided againts a degree in business or economics, it's a joke, and everyone knows it's not a real academic profession, liberal arts or hard science (or a hybrid)...as the saying goes "The only people who think there should be a nobel prize for economics...are economists"

You "decided against a degree in business or economics?"

As in, "My GPA wasn't good enough to transfer into Wharton?"

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What I find problematic about some approaches I've read to achieve this (namely Obama's who wants to mandate 25% nationwide usage of renewable energy by 2025) is that through forcing companies to move to something they're not doing naturally causes them to ineffectively use their resources. That is, if they can make money doing something one way and they haven't found it useful to move to another way yet, then by forcing them on the other way, they are losing money which ends up destroying jobs.

IMO, the better way to promote alternative energy is to pull back some of those energy-focuses regulations and legislation that prevents people from doing the research effectively.

The other critiques are correct in that you are thinking way too short-term.

WickedLou said that the free market is reactive, rather than proactive, and he is certainly correct. The reason that corporations aren't moving to alternative sources of energy yet is that there isn't yet a benefit for them to do so. They have to fund most of the (very expensive) research on their own, and that simply isn't worth doing when they can still use good old oil, as oil isn't yet expensive enough to cause a serious problem.

The problem is, since the free market is reactive, the private sector won't do anything about a move to alt. energy until they are forced to. You might say an "early move" would cause them to inefficiently use resources, and you may be correct. But, WITHOUT an early move, nothing will happen until it's already too late, and everyone is screwed.

No one ever got rich in investing ANYTHING by being reactive. You have to look at the situation and understand what will happen in the future, what problems it will cause, and how to avert those problems. If the free market won't do it, then government has to, if for no other reason than to save the free market from its own idiocy (as paradoxical as that sounds). Heads of industry can always take their profits and run when the market gets too uncomfortable for them, and the rest of us get screwed by it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

The other critiques are correct in that you are thinking way too short-term.

WickedLou said that the free market is reactive, rather than proactive, and he is certainly correct. The reason that corporations aren't moving to alternative sources of energy yet is that there isn't yet a benefit for them to do so. They have to fund most of the (very expensive) research on their own, and that simply isn't worth doing when they can still use good old oil, as oil isn't yet expensive enough to cause a serious problem.

The problem is, since the free market is reactive, the private sector won't do anything about a move to alt. energy until they are forced to. You might say an "early move" would cause them to inefficiently use resources, and you may be correct. But, WITHOUT an early move, nothing will happen until it's already too late, and everyone is screwed.

No one ever got rich in investing ANYTHING by being reactive. You have to look at the situation and understand what will happen in the future, what problems it will cause, and how to avert those problems. If the free market won't do it, then government has to, if for no other reason than to save the free market from its own idiocy (as paradoxical as that sounds). Heads of industry can always take their profits and run when the market gets too uncomfortable for them, and the rest of us get screwed by it.

As usual, your ideas are disproved by history. It is the government who is ALWAYS reactionary, not the market. The market, unless blocked is anticipatory (I bolded the really important part). We are not on more "green" power solutions now because it has been blocked by the government. The demand has been there for quite a few years now.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

As usual, your ideas are disproved by history. It is the government who is ALWAYS reactionary, not the market. The market, unless blocked is anticipatory (I bolded the really important part). We are not on more "green" power solutions now because it has been blocked by the government. The demand has been there for quite a few years now.

It's the government's job to be reactionary. If the market were so forward-thinking there wouldn't ever be anything for the government to react to.

Repeating the same mistakes again and again is for the Austrian School adherents. Here in America we like to try to avoid Groundhog Day as much as possible.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

As usual, your ideas are disproved by history. It is the government who is ALWAYS reactionary, not the market. The market, unless blocked is anticipatory (I bolded the really important part). We are not on more "green" power solutions now because it has been blocked by the government. The demand has been there for quite a few years now.

Please show me one example in the modern era (read: 1946 and on) where the free market has acted in a proactive fashion to stave off some sort of budding economic disaster.

You keep saying my ideas are disproved by history but never offer any examples. It makes all your arguments ring as nothing but hollow rhetoric.

Also, please remember that while I am a left-leaner, I'm also someone very interested in (and intending to work in) Finance and an investor myself. Just like you, I like making money, and must understand how the markets work or I'd never be able to do that.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's the government's job to be reactionary. If the market were so forward-thinking there wouldn't ever be anything for the government to react to.

Repeating the same mistakes again and again is for the Austrian School adherents. Here in America we like to try to avoid Groundhog Day as much as possible.

I've always found it funny how Austrian School adherents tend to be professors who "don't understand reality" just like those whom the libertarians often decry as socialists.

Actual market-driving investors are neither. They know arbitrage and nothing else, and leave theory to the people making less than 6 figures. You're not going to change the market. You just have to understand how it works

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Please show me one example in the modern era (read: 1946 and on) where the free market has acted in a proactive fashion to stave off some sort of budding economic disaster.

You keep saying my ideas are disproved by history but never offer any examples. It makes all your arguments ring as nothing but hollow rhetoric.

Also, please remember that while I am a left-leaner, I'm also someone very interested in (and intending to work in) Finance and an investor myself. Just like you, I like making money, and must understand how the markets work or I'd never be able to do that.

I know you're new, so feel free to view my previous posts on these forums to find plenty of examples. I'm not sure why you chose 1946, but I have given examples such as miner regulations and unionization. It becomes more and more difficult the more power the government takes because then people become dependent. I wrote a big post 2 years ago about that very thing because people literally died in mines BECAUSE of government involvement... which was kinda what the government involvement was trying to stop.

[Ardentfrost]

And you guys can attempt to marginalize Austrian School economists and monetarists as much as you want, but history doesn't speak as well on your choice of economic theory as it does those.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And you guys can attempt to marginalize Austrian School economists and monetarists as much as you want, but history doesn't speak as well on your choice of economic theory as it does those.

The problem isn't day-to-day operation but sustainability. There's nothing built in to the model that keeps us from methodically exhausting resources. There's no foresight and that's why it has been abandoned. It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it isn't a viable option for this planet. Or any planet, for that matter.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

The problem isn't day-to-day operation but sustainability. There's nothing built in to the model that keeps us from methodically exhausting resources. There's no foresight and that's why it has been abandoned. It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it isn't a viable option for this planet. Or any planet, for that matter.

It most certainly DOES account for limited resources. Price prevents exhaustion of supply.

Governments do use price capping to ruin that, eh?

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I know you're new, so feel free to view my previous posts on these forums to find plenty of examples. I'm not sure why you chose 1946, but I have given examples such as miner regulations and unionization. It becomes more and more difficult the more power the government takes because then people become dependent. I wrote a big post 2 years ago about that very thing because people literally died in mines BECAUSE of government involvement... which was kinda what the government involvement was trying to stop.

I chose 1946 because the Financial world has been relatively stable since that time, and the degree of government involvement in the free market had fluctuated wildly in pre-WW2 times. Not to mention the major period of technological innovation in America was ushered in in 1946 with the creation of ENIAC, the first computer, which I think is a good symbol of the dawn of a new American economy.

I would like to see an example that illustrates your point that isn't archaic, economically-speaking. Things that happened 100 years ago don't evidence a good picture of current conditions and what regulations (or lack thereof) might do to them, since we do live in a different financial world than we did years ago (globalization, among other things).

I don't think that's too much to ask. I also see your contention that since people are now dependent on government, there can be no examples, as a complete and total cop-out. If, as you say, the free market can act proactively to stave off certain economic problems, surely in the 60 years of history I'm discussing, you can find one or two examples? If not, I'd have to just say that you're wrong.

edit: I'm not going to go search for year-old posts because you can't think of any good examples off the top of your head.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It most certainly DOES account for limited resources. Price prevents exhaustion of supply.

Governments do use price capping to ruin that, eh?

No, it doesn't.

There will never be a price someone isn't willing to accept for a given resource. It doesn't matter how much of it is left.

That is, of course, until our nation is left with no resources whatsoever and money is worthless. Even your precious gold isn't worth anything in a total economic failure.

In fact, gold isn't worth anything, PERIOD. It's no more a conception of existing value than fiat currency is. The only difference is how much we dig out of the ground, or synthesize in labs, versus how much we have the treasury print.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It most certainly DOES account for limited resources. Price prevents exhaustion of supply.

Governments do use price capping to ruin that, eh?

But not proactively. The market will only respond when prices become too high. Research into alternative energy will take time. There is no alternative we can just swtich to right now. Sure the free market approach will eventually find a solution but in the mean time, people have to bear the high cost of oil and the damage that will do to our economy. We have the ability to head off some of that pain by investing now ahead of time.