Hi Lang. i like your idea of taxing a number of things, but I would reduce the rate for a wealth tax to something less than 1%. An the big problem with a wealth tax is what wealth do you tax? cash? Stocks? bonds? real estate? boats? jewelry? antiques? books? cattle? standing timber? tools? collections (stamps, coins, butterflies, baseball cards, etc.)? And how would you measure the value of all these things? And if you taxed every form of wealth except butterfly collections, they everyone would be buying butterflies.!
And i don;t think that we need to collect anything more than about 20% of everyone's income in order to completely fund the federal government.
So, now you agree with Prof. Stavins, and you also think that the summary for policymakers that his group was working on was watered down and it did not fully represent the real scientific content of the IPCC report?
As he said,
"the crucial IPCC products — the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 — retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. "
"Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all "controversial" text"
"I believe that tremendous public good would arise from publicizing the key findings of the Technical Summary and the individual chapter Executive Summaries, instead of the Summary for Policymakers."
Essentially, he thinks that the Summary for Policymakers was so watered down and so much of the real scientific content was removed, that it's worthless. People should look at the rest of the IPCC document, instead!
Glad to see that you are putting more weight on the science, and not the political beliefs now!!!
If you had read the letter, and Stavins' blog, where he published the letter, you would have read that no facts were changed, but simply, "Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.", as you reported. Stavins did not like that because it, essentially made their document (the Summary for Policymakers) content free, as you can see in the few quotes from the letter and blog that i included above.
We do need to look at those numbers in a little more detail if we really want to understand what is happening.
First, output in service, manufacturing, and construction increased, while output in agriculture decreased. In addition, both spending and employment by governments decreased. In fact, I read recently that if government spending and employment were what they were 10 years ago, then right now, unemployment and the GDP would both be near normal. And if service, manufacturing, and construction companies can increase output, while not having to hire many people, that is perhaps a sign that they are replacing workers with computers and automation of various types.
If it's really true that private industry and less government is what we need to make this economy strong, then now is the time for the corporate world to show their cards, prove it, and do what they do best. The government has not been smaller and the availability of cheap workers has not been better in decades. And American companies have never, ever had as much cash sitting on the sidelines doing nothing, ready to easily increase the GDP and employment..
But, i do agree, employment and economic activity are still not what they might be, while our infrastructure is falling apart. What do we need to do to make the economy like it was in the 1990's, again?
I don't know much about Texan utilities, either, but I do wonder if this has anything to do the recent court ruling that said that Texas, and other, utilities must clean up their mess, and stop putting their pollution in the air to be sent east to neighboring states.
In addition, how can gas be a problem for them, when it is at it's lowest price in years. Did thet sign an agreement for gas 10 years ago that kept their prices high?
In any case other utilities are doing very well with gas, wind, and other new energy sources. My WEC shares have jumped up by 20% since the beginning of the year, so there are people around who can do it right!
Right. all those anti-socialism doctors who find their $500K a year incomes threatened are going to move to France or Peru in protest.
Lang, you've posted some very good things recently, but this time you have stretched things a bit much - at least fr me ;)
Yes, imports are at a "record" high, but that is only about 2% above what they were in 2008, when we say a previous record. That 2% increase doesn't even cover the nearly 10% inflationary decrease in the value of the dollar. When inflation is included we are probably importing slightly less, but paying slightly more for it.
And i can't imagine bill and Dave replacing Us workers with foreign ones when they were around 25 years ago, but if they were here now, they would have certainly had to both fire and hire. For example, the US has just 4.5% of the world's population, but much, much, much more than 4.5% of HP's employees. Bill and Dave would certainly have known that they had to move some manufacturing and offices to other countries if they ante to grown and attract customers in other parts of the world.
Also, 25 years ago, HP and the companies that HP has since bought/merged with created and maintained at least 2 or 3 dozen operating systems, and many more compilers and programming languages. Now, HP actively supports only about 3 operating systems and just a few compilers. Thousands of software positions have gone away with those changes. Bill and Dave would have had to get rid of those employees. Back then, I was working with a big operating system group, with employees on 3 continents, and in at least 6 countries. All of those jobs are gone now, although a few of the people in that group remain with HP working on other projects now.
The world is a much different place now than it was when Bill and Dave were in charge.
You are right, Springer, the news is not all as good as the single unemployment number seems to show, but the labor force participation rate is probably not nearly as big a problem as you seem to think.
The participation rate reached a high at about 67% in 1998, and it has been falling ever since then, including throughout the Republican administrations of GWB. The biggest and most important reason for the drop in the participation rate now is the fact baby boomers are retiring by the thousands every day now. The participation rate will continue to drop over the next few years or decade to somewhere well below 60%, which is where it was in 1960, and throughout the 1950's. The participation rate did not reach 63% until Jimmy Carter's term in the late 70's, as the boomers began to enter the workforce in force.
It demographics, not he party of the current White House resident that controls the participation rate.
The other big reason for this big drop is health care. There are now thousands, if not millions, who can leave jobs they don't like, but that they were keeping only because they provided family health insurance. Health insurance is now available elsewhere, so housewives are now staying home with the kids (or grandkids); boomers with enough savings are retiring early; and some are dropping out of the existing workforce to create their own businesses. Many have been waiting for this possibility for a long time, and they are now taking advantage of it.
Our oil distribution infrastructure is stressed to the max. All the oil pipelines are filled and moving as fast as they can - in spite of many recent ruptures and leaks, such as those in Arkansas, the Kalamazoo river, and the Yellowstone River. The volume of crude moved by rail has increased by a factor of 40 - yes, 40. for every filled tank car moved 5 years ago, we are now moving 40 tank cars full. And much of it is in old, and unsafe tank cars that Canada won't even allow on their tracks now.
A further problem is that a lot of the crude being moved now is of a composition that makes it highly explosive, which results in the huge explosions seen in Lynchburg, Va, Lac Megantic, QE, and elsewhere. Thousands of miles of pipelines need to be inspected and strengthened - even replaced. At the same time thousands of miles of railroad tracks must be upgraded and made safer, while 10's of thousands of old tank cars need to be replaced or made safer and stronger. Who's going to do this? No need to bring up the Keystone pipeline. That pipeline won't solve 2% of this problem. And the proposed Keystone pipeline may or may not be safe enough for this new crude, anyway, assuming it would be like all the others in use today.
One of the trains that exploded was Canadian. The tar sands crude is of a similarly explosive nature, as that Lac Megantic explosion showed. I think that the problem with the tar sand crude is that they must add a lot of volatile stuff to it to make it thin enough to pump and move, especially in cold weather.
Wait, wait! Aren't they all working to change Obamacare and repeal it, while hoping that they don't get sick??
Isn't that the new hope and change?
Tens of thousands of soldiers home from Iraq; and thousands more returning from Afghanistan - Failure.
Millions of Americans now have health insurance that they never has before, and the national cost of health care is dropping from the double digit increases of the past decades. - Failure.
Jobs shifted from a monthly loss of 750,000 jobs at the start, to gains of more than 200,000 a month now - Failure.
A federal budget that has improved by the removal of more than a trillion dollars worth of red ink. - Failure
Republicans may have a hard time talking about "failures" like these. And at the same time, if new polices are really wanted, they will need to come up with some good new policies to propose. Talking about failures like those listed above is not going to get Republicans far, not without some good new polices to propose. These changes are already part of Obama's legacy.
Truth and reality would be a good starting point for today's Republicans.
She wasn't the Sec. of State the last time she testified before Congress on Benghazi, either. Should we expect any other differences from the last time she testified?
It's only racist if you use the Americana flag to put down, defame, smear, or belittle someone of a different race or ethnicity. Was that how you were using it?
Otherwise it might be used to represent a nation where everyone is created equal, and where all have the same unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Which use are you defending here, Springer?
It's really a shame that today's Republicans are no good at organizing and reporting facts.
Then it sounds like they thought it was being used in the former way, and not the later, and they didn't like their flag being used in that way. Doesn't it!
Yep1 Just like Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, and the minimum wage. Maybe you can repeal all 5 of them at the same time to save yourself some time in your effort to return American to its leadership position in the world.