ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 mary 
|
Electrifying Wisdom
For the *No Shit* Files:
“It sure seems like the areas that have the most reliable electricity at this point are the ones that still have regulated utilities,” said an aide to Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who is leading the charge to stop FERC.
[ posted by mary at 08/23/2003 08:32:19 PM ] [ trackback ]
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
Michael said at 2:03 AM 08-24-2003:
Deregulation is the wave of the future. The free market guarantees accurate pricing and efficient supply/demand curves.
And I also believe in the Easter bunny. |
 | andrew [email] said at 2:19 PM 08-24-2003:
there was a softball team in baton rouge called the regulators. |
 | ed [email] said at 2:36 PM 08-24-2003:
I'm friends with a band named The Regulators. |
anotherben.. said at 3:32 PM 08-24-2003:
true deregulation never happened in california. the wholesalers knew that demand would increase over time. so they never built any new plants, because they would invariably be selling an increasingly scarce commodity which would result in skyrocketing profits. the suppliers had fixed price caps so they could not increase their prices accordingly with increasing costs to themselves... which would have driven down demand, caused more public outcry before the power started going off, and generally caused the populace to rebel against the unsavory practices of the big guys who were raking it in. if the suppliers had had the right to increase prices, the wholesalers would have had incentive not to sit on their asses because their would have been a hardwire connection between supply and demand. that hardwire was severed by californias price capping of utlility costs to the public. price controls anywhere in the ladder does not equate to deregulation. |
anotherben.. said at 3:34 PM 08-24-2003:
their, there, they're. arg. |
 | josh [email] said at 6:49 PM 08-24-2003:
Ben is right. True deregulation happened in the savings and loan industry and that worked really well. |
|
| andrew [email] said at 10:03 PM 08-24-2003:
i've heard that louisiana has far better electrical facilities than the northeast because they have been upgraded more often due to a higher frequency of power outages. |
 | mary [email] said at 10:45 PM 08-24-2003:
All of the Southeast has more reliable, cheaper power supplies than the rest of the country.
That's one reason the Southern politicians (such as Sen. Shelby) oppose deregulation. It will raise power prices in the South and destabilize our grids.
Dereg might have a time coming, but it isn't now. No matter how many donations the owners of FirstEnergy make to Bush's campaign. |
martin said at 1:11 PM 08-25-2003:
if power prices go up, why would that destabilize our grids? wouldnt more capital for the suppliers result in their capacity to provide more reliable services? how does restricting what they can charge encourage them to upgrade? i get better products when i pay more and i enjoy it. |
|
| mary [email] said at 2:33 PM 08-25-2003:
You live in the South, right, Martin? Well, what's going to happen is that you're going to pay more for the exact same service, probably worse service. Because why would Southern power producers sell to you cheap, when they can sell to us yanks for a higher price?
Hear that giant sucking sound across the wires? That's your AC turning off so that the AC at the Washington Post stays on.
Fuck Southern residential customers. They don't have any money anyway. |
martin said at 6:00 PM 08-25-2003:
no, i used to live in baton rouge but now i live in jersey city NJ on the hudson river. anyways, i think i can see that not everyone agrees with me and i will leave it at that. |
wade [ url ]
said at 12:19 AM 08-26-2003:
i come from a long line of southern residents you yankee bitch. I have more money than GOD and I generate my own fucking power in my scrotum that you deserve a shot of. the average Cajun folk in the spillway have more goddamn money buried in mason jars in their back yards than you will have in your lifetime working at that commie rag you write for, the post. Bow down prostrate before the great southern blue blood lineage. We have lots of money, we just arent stupid enough to waste it on minks for fall and boarding school spunk bread. Dont you ever ever ever ever slander the south again you clan of the cave bear cunt. I WILL send for you. |
|
| mary [email] said at 1:20 AM 08-26-2003:
Wow. You're like, more brandon than brandon. I never thought I'd see such a thing! |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:20 PM 08-26-2003:
The funny thing is he didn't even get the fact that you were speaking AS the hypothetical Northerners, who want to diss the South.
What a maroon. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:23 PM 08-26-2003:
Yeah, and goddess knows how much I hate Southerners. |
wade c [ url ]
said at 3:09 AM 08-27-2003:
the funny thing is, josh, that i dont read any of this tripe. i peruse the page as quickly as possible to find the weakest and sickest in the herd, the one left behind, the crippled, the injured, the confused and tired. i then
move in for the kill. funnier still, you didnt get the fact that all my attacks are deeply and irrevocably personal and have nothing to do with the HYPOTHETICAL substance of the posts. i would never profane my MIND with reading such whorishness. university of phoenix pays people with no other hope to read and critique this shit. the sport and pastime for me, anyway, josh, lies in spending 30 seconds or so per page, finding the person who, by virtue of their fetid sqwawk and shrill banter, reveals their inner fairyness and intellectual impotence. then i like to fuck with them. since i am busy stalking mary, and the blood is already in the water, i will let you slide. its hard tho, cause you look so tasty, and easy to catch. dont twist the lion's tail.
what a pink boy
mary, the chum is in the water. swim.
!!!!!!*****now i just tried to post the above to find my ip blocked. i understand you had a tough time at the dentist, but dont be bitter w/ me. let it be. live and let live. anyway, i have more IP's than i have money, so go back to your finger painting. you read and run this site by my grace and mercy alone. dont obsess about the great white whale and the steps you can take to thwart the inevitable karma explosion joe t has ordered upon you all. it will be the death of you, or at least give you a bleeding ulcer. and i hate to see that because everyone emails me and tells me you are a great guy josh. lies lies. give me a head to keep them honest you greeny art fag. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:53 AM 08-27-2003:
Uhm, no, the reason I'm blocking your jonx is BECAUSE you are making personal attacks, silly. |
andrew d said at 10:01 PM 08-27-2003:
this guy is a malicious idiot. |
Michael said at 10:47 PM 08-27-2003:
not bright enough for malicious, just an idiot. It sucks because its guys like him who are eventually going to get all the non-heads kicked off of Killoggs for good. |
wwc said at 12:06 AM 08-28-2003:
oh joy, michael is back. i see your pussy still hurts. and what if you get kicked off killoggs? will you cry? like you cried when you got kicked out of LA school? if i recall you got kicked out because you wee not bright enough. in fact wasnt the final ruling "the kid is an idiot"??? any post that attacks generally reflects the feelings someone has about themselves. i hate myself right now, so i dish hate. you think of yourself as an idiot, so... at least you are honest with yourself. why do you think jane thinks you are such a pussy? is because you ARE? why dont you leave her alone and quit fucking stalking her? |
Michael said at 12:11 AM 08-28-2003:
that would hit a little deeper had I ever actually attended LA school. |
martin said at 1:03 PM 08-25-2003:
this is obviously correct. price capping anything will always be bad. exactly like rent control leads to housing shortages. the landlords/powersuppliers lose the motivation to provide a reliable service if the government will tell them how much the things they are producing are worth. its too bad the government will not let private citizens and corporations decide what they would like to sell their products for.
"why should i reliably produce product x if i cant charge what i want for product x" - fictional capitalist, justifiably irritated.
as long as any price caps exist, we dont have real deregulation. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:44 PM 08-25-2003:
The thing is, Martin - there are also rules that say it's illegal to not have electricity in your home in many states. I know my aunt almost got evicted because she couldn't pay for her electricity bill.
So, again - it's a case where there are certain rules that might need to be there because of other rules that already exist.
I certainly don't support removing regulations that keep power costs low if that means that lots of people will be evicted from their homes when they can't afford to pay for the new, higher rates - like my aunt almost was.
Now, if those rules that would result in those people being evicted were removed, then maybe I would support easing of regulations. But I'm sure there are other things to consider as well.
Same thing for rent controls - you might complain that rent controls cause housing shortages, but they also keep people in their homes when weird bubbles happen - if it wasn't for rent controls, I doubt that many people who were native to San Francisco could have afforded to live there during the Dot Com Boom. Now, all the people who moved there in that 5 year bubble to pay insane inflated rates are all gone. They contributed nothing long-term to the city. However, the middle-class worker who was able to stay in their home because their rent was controlled is still there, still paying taxes, still part of the community that they were a part of BEFORE the bubble. In that case, in that city, rent control did some good. Without it, (more) families that had lived their for years would have had to uproot and move elsewhere... Which would have hurt the city as a whole when all the dotcommers got the hell out of dodge.
There are also, of course, examples of these things doing harm - but basically I'm saying you should watch out when you say "_____ is ALWAYS bad" OR "_____ is ALWAYS good". Because there are always exceptions AND there are often other considerations. (And things are rarely black & white in the real world).
For example, an other consideration of why the government can regulate power costs is the fact that the power companies are using public lands to run their lines. Now, since the power companies have a contract with the government to use their land, why can't the government include in those contracts pricing minimums/maximums? Something to the effect of "if you raise your prices above a certain level, you can no longer use our land for your power lines." Do you think that it is fair for someone to have conditions on the use of their property by others? |
myriam said at 2:05 PM 08-25-2003:
heh, was going to make same point about rent control limiting the potential damage of artifically-inflated prices. often price caps exist to protect the market from, essentially, false outside stimuli... (ha, phooie on those silly 1920s brokers!) |
martin said at 6:32 PM 08-25-2003:
"Which would have hurt the city as a whole when all the dotcommers got the hell out of dodge"
but it doesnt hurt the city when all the property owners get far far less than the market value of their property? all those millions in profits lost?
rents fluctuate. if you dont like it, sign really long leases or move around alot or buy a place. property owners deserve the right to charge rents consistent with market value. private property should be private, and not manipulated to help one group (renters) over another (landowners). landlords deserve freedom becuse they are the one who risked their capital to build or buy propoerty. if their property value goes way down should we pay them? they can be hurt by market fluctuation but not helped? why not just not interfere at all? |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:28 PM 08-26-2003:
"when all the property owners"
No city has anywhere near 100% rent control. In fact, in many cities, many buildings that ARE rent controlled are rent controlled because the building owner accepted a loan or a tax credit. Why cry about rent control if you accepted a loan or a tax credit knowing you were going to have to fufill an obligation?
why not just not interfere at all
San Fran's economy would have collapsed even further if that had been the case. What happens to a city where all real business is replaced by a phantom business when the phantom business leaves, leaving nothing behind? It would take years to recover, maybe decades.
Detroit hasn't recovered from it's industry leaving, though that's very different circumstances, of course.
As I said, San Fran is a concrete example of where rent controls were beneficial to the city (and thus it's citizens) in the long run. There are, of course, counter examples I'm sure. But that doesn't matter because my point was that you should watch out when you make statements that are absolute, because in the real world, there are few, if any absolutes. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:52 PM 08-26-2003:
I have no problem with rent controls. And I'm a landlady. |
martin said at 8:22 PM 08-26-2003:
i like to throw money in the river. doesnt mean we should force others to. what you like as a landlady has no relevance. |
|
| mary [email] said at 8:51 PM 08-26-2003:
Well, actually it does. I live in a city with rent controls. I rent out rooms in my house. I plan on buying more property here within the next few years (a small apartment building, most likely). Land owners still can make plenty of money with rent control, because people move in and out of apartments all the time. When they do, you raise the rent to market value. The level of harm to an individual property owner is minimal, compared with the gain to a renter who's spared homelessness.
Also, people can always be bought out of their leases. It happens routinely in cities with high real estate prices. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:00 PM 08-26-2003:
That's terrible logic. A city's laws should be decided on by the people who live there, either by direct vote or by electing officials.
As a citizen of DC _AND_ a property owner, Mary's opinion has a LOT more weight on the issue of rent control in DC, since you don't even live there.
Or do you think people in NYC should somehow have the right to tell people in other cities what rules they should have and what laws they should pass? |
martin said at 9:09 PM 08-26-2003:
i believe that no government should take the rights of individuals do what they wish with their private property except for extraordinarily extreme circumstances.. i belive mary should be able to charge whatever she wants for her property. i do not believe that she or anyone should tell other property owners what to charge.
i believe she should be able to keep her rent as low as she wants if she believes its great for the community. i do not believe others should be forced to do what she does because she likes it. i dont believe in taking peoples freedom to profit market value from things they own. if you like to make less than maximum profit, that is nice of you, dont hold others to your standards. why take their freedom? |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:17 PM 08-26-2003:
That's the beauty of state's rights, Martin : you can live in a state that fits in with your person viewpoint. There are 50 different ones to choose from, and the laws and beliefs of each one are different, all based upon the opinions of those who live there.
It's nice that you feel like ALL 50 states should follow YOUR views, but luckily that's not the system the founding fathers set up for us.
And remember, too, Martin : if someone DOESN'T like rent control, they are ALSO free to buy property elsewhere. No one is making anyone buy property in a place that has rent control. You know, or you should know the laws when you buy property.
Do you also think we shouldn't be able to have rules in municipalities that say things like, for example, I can't have insanely loud rock concerts at my home at all hours? Or run a moving business out of my residence?
What's the difference between a city saying you can't run a business out of your home, or have loud rock concerts and saying you can only raise rent by certain increments? Both tell you what you can do make use of, and to profit off of your property.
In all the above cases, I think the city is within it's rights in making those demands, and AGAIN - the property owner knew, or should have known the rules before buying the property. |
martin said at 9:32 PM 08-26-2003:
"the property owner knew, or should have known the rules before buying the property."
exactly. this is why for many years not nearly enough people invested in property in new york and there was a huge housing shortage, and a black market for apartments.
i certainly would never invest in any development of any property that would be rent controlled. i do not like to own things that the government will tell me the value of. i like to determine the value of my items. since many other people agree with me, there was a housing shortage in new york, and it was so bad that landowners would just abandon their property because it wasnt worth it.
"What's the difference between a city saying you can't run a business out of your home, or have loud rock concerts and saying you can only raise rent by certain increments?"
because one infringes on the rights of others and the other doesnt. i have the right to not have you blasting my apartment with noise. however i should not have the right to pay you much much less than market value for soemthing you own. because you own it, i do not. |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:29 PM 08-26-2003:
Again - you aren't arguing on my point - the point that you shouldn't speak in absolutes. I'm sure rent control doesn't always work - but it has widely been cited as being a huge boon to SF in the wake of the dot com bust.
Second, how does it infringe on your rights if you knew the law when you bought it? If I want to live somewhere where i can be loud at any hour, or have a business in my home, or anything else - I can.
Just like some neighborhoods or cities say things like you can't build two story buildings on your property - you DON'T have to live in those places.
Also - how is having loud music playing infringing on anyone's RIGHTS, Martin? Find that one in the Bill of Rights for me... |
|
| mary [email] said at 9:22 PM 08-26-2003:
Because "freedom" isn't something that everyone can have unlimited amounts of. When my exercising my "freedom" to do what I want with my property conflicts with the freedom of someone else, to, I dunno, not be homeless, government steps in. And the cool thing about living in a democracy (and local governments are about as democratic as it gets) is that we all get to choose the rules those decisions are going to be made by. I'm OK with that, even though the ruling might not always be to my immediate benefit.
What you're describing, Martin, is the antithesis of civilization. We put lots of limits of people's "freedoms" in the name of the greater good of society. And rent controls are one of those things that, by limiting the "freedoms" of a few, create a much more stable society, for the benefit of all. Even the very concept of owning property is dependent on everyone accepting these rules. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from just *taking* my land? I mean, if they have more guns than I do, who am I to infringe upon their freedom to use them and occupy that little parcel of the earth? |
martin said at 10:12 PM 08-26-2003:
"I mean, if they have more guns than I do, who am I to infringe upon their freedom to use them and occupy that little parcel of the earth?"
i think i already described how i feel about the near sanctity of private property so that red herring is less effective than you might hope.
"by limiting the "freedoms" of a few, create a much more stable society, for the benefit of all. "
of course. my freedoms end where i infringe upon yours. i do not dictate to you how much your things are worth. they are not my things. so you are free to decide what your things are worth and i decide what mine are worth. we are conveniently both free. sure, i dont get the "freedom" to take your things at less than their value, but i think i already covered that part of where my freedoms end. thats the way me and my fellow wingnuts see things. |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:20 PM 08-26-2003:
No, that's not the reason you are a wingnut - You are a wingnut because you think that people should be able to pay to have laws be enacted that effect everyone, thus sidestepping the Democratic system our forefathers set up - the same Democratic system that has made America the most powerful and influential country the world has ever known. By the people, for the people. This is the most important tenet of our society, one that I'd think you would believe in, since it follows other things you post, but you don't. |
martin said at 8:35 PM 08-26-2003:
so your point is that in fact it was good that the landowners had to rent their property for far below market value and lose the profits they would get for correctly speculating on the market.
i dont see why its good to force people to sell products at below market value. it does not help the community to discourage investment by removing potential profits. the government shouldnt pick teams and help one group at the expense of another. |
|
| mary [email] said at 8:46 PM 08-26-2003:
Sure it should, when the power balance is out of wack!
Property owners have oodles and oodlers of power in our society. Laws protecting renters are just little tips back in their favor. |
|
| josh [email] said at 8:57 PM 08-26-2003:
My point is that you shouldn't speak in absolutes, Martin - are you now arguing that any point you make is always right, that there is never any exception?
Because I would say that most people would agree that few rules or guidelines are true 100% of the time.
If you feel that everything you espouse is true 100% of the time, I'd say that would hurt your credibility in the eyes of most people... Especially since you talk about a lot of things in which you have no formal training or even really a educated frame of reference. Which is no different than anyone else, except everyone else here isn't stating that their view is the right view in EVERY situation, at EVERY time. |
martin said at 9:19 PM 08-26-2003:
sure, i could be wrong. i think i am right, just like anyone else. my opinions are farther libertarian than yours but that doesnt make them wrong. i understand absolutes. i understand that private property rights are not 100% sacred, i just believe they deserves more respect.
as far as my education and experience goes, i'm not sure you are qualified to comment.
"If you feel that everything you espouse is true 100% of the time,"
i dont. |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:33 PM 08-26-2003:
as far as my education and experience goes, i'm not sure you are qualified to comment.
Yes, I am. We have covered a myriad topics on here, both now and in the past - I know that anyone who wastes as much time as you do posting on the websites of people they don't know cannot possibly be well versed in all of them. That and in the fact you have openly professed in the past to not having any hands on knowledge what you were talking about at the time.
"If you feel that everything you espouse is true 100% of the time,"
i dont.
That's not how you responded before. I made a point that not everything is as absolute as you make it out to be and you just trod forward... Think about how much less of your time you would have wasted had you just admited this from the start... |
martin said at 10:45 PM 08-26-2003:
ok. i see you do not enjoy being disagreed with. have fun. |
|
| mary [email] said at 10:56 PM 08-26-2003:
Haha. No way. He lives for this shit. |
|
| mary [email] said at 2:38 PM 08-25-2003:
The power system worked wonderfully when it was fully regulated. Basically, the power companies were very stable, guaranteed to make steady, if unexciting profits. All they had to do was make sure the power was always on. And they did a damn fine job, overall.
Now we have electric companies filing for bankruptcy protection. Ten years ago, the very thought would have been absurd.
Many places still have well-regulated utilities. They're in great shape, as Sen. Shelby's aide pointed out. |
wade [ url ]
said at 12:03 AM 08-26-2003:
true deregulation never happened in california because the state is just too left leaning. this is a truism ofcourse, but it belies a more subtle point i am trying to make. see link:
http://www.tworetards.com/issues/030820_15/images/catatonia.jpg
and moreover, ahnold isnt going to help matters, (as much as we smash and grab opportunist wish), because he is a momma and papa in barry AuH20 clothing, also known as a closet democrat or, out plainly:
http://www.tworetards.com/issues/011212_6/images/total_retard.jpg
Finally, I see so much tripe about derugulation and free markets from a bunch of communist pukes it makes me want to take a beer shit. all republicans know true deregulation and laize-fair economic policy starts at home, with the women:
http://www.tworetards.com/issues/030820_15/images/free_market.jpg
Ben, why do i see you bothering? Dont you have some money to make? Who are you trying to save? Show em your republican nutz and walk away:
http://www.tworetards.com/issues/030820_15/images/collossal_republican_balls.jpg |
wade [ url ]
said at 12:06 AM 08-26-2003:
if i had a fucking head i wouldnt have to do that. im gonna get a fucking head. you fucks. |
|
| mary [email] said at 1:20 AM 08-26-2003:
That's never going to happen. |
wade [ url ]
said at 1:31 AM 08-26-2003:
i am so gonna get a head mary |
wade [ url ]
said at 1:38 AM 08-26-2003:
do you live at the dirt farm? |
Blah said at 1:40 AM 08-26-2003:
She lives at the ugly farm. |
wade [ url ]
said at 1:46 AM 08-26-2003:
well i am slated for a head then. i just dont want her to profane josh's mind with that muckraking squawk before i get dubbed. does she ever go to the dirtfarm? mary, you cunt, do you ever go to the dirtfarm? |
Blah said at 1:52 AM 08-26-2003:
When she's not hiding under bridges, sometimes she goes to the dirtfarm. |
|
| mary [email] said at 2:26 AM 08-26-2003:
This shit is so old. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:25 PM 08-26-2003:
Your IP just got blocked. |
Shell said at 4:47 PM 08-26-2003:
Hurray for Josh! |
Blah said at 4:59 PM 08-26-2003:
You people are no fun. |
Blah said at 5:04 PM 08-26-2003:
Hey apparently blocking my IP means I can still respond. |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:09 PM 08-26-2003:
That wasn't directed at you. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd fucking back off. I have no idea who you are, and it's pretty pathetic that your idea of "fun" is to show up on some weblog calling me ugly. What is your problem? |
wade [ url ]
said at 5:13 PM 08-26-2003:
i'll huff and i'll puff. whaaaaaaa whaaaaa |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:37 PM 08-26-2003:
Some hints if you want to not get blocked. Don't curse at people on killoggs for no reason. Even more, don't tell me what I'm going to do, or who is going to get a head. Especially if I've just had a run in with a Nazi fucking dentist. |
meenk said at 9:51 PM 08-26-2003:
Fuck that dentist, man. I can't believe that he just left you writhing in your seat like some kind of gremlin. I'd have kicked him in the nuts, twice. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:54 PM 08-26-2003:
Me teeth feel pretty normal now.
And now I want to go eat some fried chicken. And listen to DMX, which I'm doing now...
"X GON' GIVE IT TO YA!" |
Monobrow [ url ]
said at 2:35 AM 08-27-2003:
I have always believed in competition and the free market. Huge corporations have pretty much stamped out every "mom and pop" operation in the country, but those "mom and pop" operations always have much higher prices than Wal Mart, with its incredible buying power. Isn't it better to allow competition to shake out the less efficient and uncompetetive businesses? Isn't the huge corporation better at delivering goods and services at a lower price? Shouldn't the business world allow the strong to survive and the weak to die out, leaving only the leanest operations to thrive?
The answer is yes! I use this theory every day in my garden, and I am proud to say that I have a thriving patch of kudzu that is doing so well that it is even spreading into my neighbor's yard. Those green beans and strawberries were pussies.I'm not going to try growing tomato plants again. The little punks can't even stand up to a few insects. Same with the roses, the little pansies. What kind of bull is that? Pretty red things that serve no purpose whatsoever, and they might even stick you. Roses are a hazard! That little thorn stick could get infected and BANG! You get an infection, and your arm gets amputated.
Kudzu is an absolutely superior plant to all these little wuss plants and it has no thorns. It produces a uniform green, so I think I am going to let it spread out over my yard so that I don't even have to mow the lawn anymore. Sometimes I am so brilliant it scares me. The mega-corporation is the apex of business evolution. Let's get out of the way and allow it to flourish.
And, speaking of, George W. Bush is really blowing it. I supported the invasion of Iraq. I still support the invasion. But it is kind of difficult to support the occupation. How come there is still no electric in Iraq? Can you answer that?
Why aren't we winning the propaganda war? Why can't we establish a viable police force? Answer: Conservatives are happy to appropriate money to blow things up, but don't want to give a dime to build anything. You want to destroy, that's the government's job. You want to build something, leave it up to the private sector.
Wait! That's communism! I think the job of invading countries should be left to the private sector! I am sick of paying my hard-earned money to feed a wasteful military burocracy. I figure Lockheed or Chrysler should probably get the contract to do the next big invasion. They can sub-contract with the WWF to recruit and train an army of mullets to overrun North Korea.
George W. Bush has never been a fan of "nation building," but something strikes me as just plain wrong about how we can have the most efficient and lethal military machine in the history of the world, but once we win, we can't get the stupid electricity back on to save our lives. It's comical. And, since it's comical, maybe we should turn that over the private sector as well. The Three Stooges could handle the civillian administration of Iraq. At least we would get a few laughs, and the double eye-poke has proved to be an extremely effective crowd control technique.
We should have had special generators that fit in boxcars that we could roll right into Baghdad so people could turn on their televisions. We should have had a mobile television studio to roll in behind the tanks and win the propaganda war. We could have played Baywatch episodes and put commercials for democracy in the station breaks. They could feature images of chicks with American flag camel-toe bikinis, slices of apple pie between huge white brestasis, and blondes eating big fat steaming hotdogs real slow. And, slowly, we would have stolen their minds and souls... MUWAH! MUWAH HA HA HA HA!
But, no. The conservative ideology will not allow for spending public funds on constructive things, only on "defense." Well, if we followed my plan, we could get around it. Just paint everything desert camo, and sneak it into the military budget. Camo mobile television studios on tank treads. Camo hospitals with gun turrets. Camo electric generators on tank treads with huge howitzers.
Then maybe we could win the peace, instead of this stupid hope that Bush's buddies in the so-called private sector are going to make things better in Baghdad. Maybe we should just plant Kudzu all over Iraq.
The conservative ideology has made the free market a kind of god, and, like any god, its believers do not follow its commandments. The savings and loan debacle in the 80s is a perfect example. Even George W's brother was implicated in the scandal. See, as regular people with steady jobs were being refused home loans at savings and loans, the officers of those savings and loans were granting huge business and investment loans to their buddies. Their buddies would pay them a kickback, default on the loans, and the LLCs (Limited Liability Companies) went bankrupt after the executives figured out how to steal all the money. Then, the government used our money to bail out all the savings and loans that had loaned all their reserves to fly-by-night country club Republicans, and their incredible disappearing companies, instead of granting home loans to hardworking families. Maybe a few of the rich guys with truly collossal balls went to country club prisons, but most of these suits parachuted out safely, and everyone had to pay. Everyone, that is, except for those who can afford high-powered lawyers.
Funny, huh? Remember back in the 80s when... oh, I forgot, many of you guys were not even born back then. Anyway, in the 80s, Reagan, that union-busting cocksucker stepped in and broke the airline strike. But anytime upper management proves they are incompetent, the Republicans step in and pay off the incompetent management's million-dollar-a-day losses with our money. Break the worker's back. Cover the fat-cat's ass. Cut welfare to the poor. Increase welfare to the richest. Republicans are really nothing but Communists. They want to see the big corporations so protected and coddled by the government that they are really an arm of the government, or maybe the government just turns into an arm of the big corporations. You think? But, they scream, we must encourage the most motivated and dynamic individuals to go into business for a robust economy. Then, when the CEOs make millions each every year, they will spend money and we will see a "trickle-down effect." The money will trickle its way down to everyday dorks like you and me. Is that what these cocksuckers expect us to live on? A trickle? Well, first of all, is that what you think the people deserve? A TRICKLE? How about a flood, or we vote your thieving asses out? Second, where's the trickle? The only trickle-down I see is ejaculate mixed with blood dripping down our legs. Where money is concerned, I don't see anything but a trickle-up effect. Has anybody out there seen anything but a trickle-up effect whenever any Republican was ever in office?
So, if a Republican administration tells you they want to weed out the uncompetetive, they are talking about themselves and their big corporate buddies, and they have no intention of weeding themselves out. From uncompetetive savings and loans, to uncompetetive money-losing airlines, to a defense department that can't even tell us how many HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of our dollars it spends on Star Wars weapons that don't work to fight nuclear superpowers that don't exist, the Republicans bail them all out with my money, with your money, and then have the galactic, stupendous mega-balls to preach the free market and the trickle-down effect. They will impress me when they free up some of that money to defend us against the real threats, bail out a few working families, and provide some health care like the rest of the civilized world instead of sixty-nining with their HMO executive golf partners.
I know you Republicans will probably object to my characterization of your party and think that the GOP really believes in the free market. Well, I guess they really do believe in the free market in certain limited situations. I got your Republican free market right here. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:57 AM 08-27-2003:
See Wade, if all your posts were like this, you wouldn't bet blocked... |
 | kiche [email] said at 8:40 PM 08-28-2003:
dude, josh, you should give this guy a head. |
myriam said at 1:59 PM 08-25-2003:
can't price capping sometimes actually encourage the production of better goods? when limitations are placed on the market, doesn't the market respond by competing more strongly in the other areas? for example, the fed. reserve has capped interest rates for consolidated federal loans. i get mail every day from loan processing companies that want me to choose them for my business. no matter what, however, they can't charge any more or less than the next guy, so instead they seem to be competing on customer service. these companies have amazing customer service offers, and they admit to each trying to outdo the other in that regard. same would go for, say, a lamp, maybe, eh? were all lamps price capped at, say, $15, one way to get a consumer to buy your lamp would be to make it shinier than the next, or brighter, or easier to turn on and off. so couldn't price-capping maybe urge change in an otherwise stagnant, un-developing product category?
ok, admittedly i know nothing about economics, i was a fine arts major. so i'm tossing this out there to further my education... please rebuff and explain if you will... teach me obe-wan. |
|
| mary [email] said at 2:34 PM 08-25-2003:
I don't think you need a bit of rebuffing. Welcome to Killoggs! |
wade [ url ]
said at 11:39 PM 08-25-2003:
mary, thats precisely the kind of hippy go lucky attitude that will be the death of this civilization. She doesnt need a bit of rebuffing, she needs a brain transplant. look, i cant read anymore of this. let my contribution be the following: the "cap" on intest rates is INFINITY. speaking of infinity, i wonder if there is a cieling or bottom or some boundary we may cross soon in the fabric of spacy time or the concience of god that will trigger the dumbass device. Are we approaching this bondary asymptotically are are we making a bee-line for it? Please god and muons above and below, god speed us there. god speed. |
wade [ url ]
said at 12:28 AM 08-26-2003:
mary would you like to suplement your measely journalist income by cheking my stuff for speling errors/ ? I type fast cause there is money to be made somewhere. usually in the north. selling power. |
|
| mary [email] said at 1:19 AM 08-26-2003:
No way, man. I'm gonna let you wallow in your poor grammar and spelling habits. |
anotherben.. said at 6:26 PM 08-25-2003:
oh my. i need to take a walk. |
anotherben.. said at 7:36 PM 08-25-2003:
ok. im back. im not entirely convinced you aren't brandon or kiche pretending to be the anti-capitalist. but, at the risk of answering a rhetorical question.. no. price capping will never encourage the production of better goods. in your capped interest rates example, al has indeed set the interest rate, but this is not a cap. it is a floor. it is an approximation of the future valuation of now dollars. the barrage of loan consolidation offers you are recieving is a result of a much declined interest rate from the dot.com boom. anyone who took out large loans in the 90's (students for example) would be a fool not to consolidate them now, because the rate they took the loan out on was (by todays economic standard) a severe overvaluation (this is because the economy is not clipping along on the sugar and cocaine high of 5 years ago). lenders know this.. and thereby they have an opportunity to get more borrowers underneath their tree (all of whom generate profits for them through the interest rate the borrower accepts). if you consolidated your student loans recently, you will of course have notices that you are paying a percentage or two higher than whatever the chairman declared the rate to be. there are however interest rate caps.. look at the going rate on your credit cards. i think this is a state by state thing, but it is (used to be?) limited by usury (anti-predatory lending)laws. usually around 18% - 20%. |
anotherben.. said at 7:38 PM 08-25-2003:
damn. i meant to hit preview.. more to come.. (oh..and sorry for the spelling foibles) |
anotherben kenobi said at 8:43 PM 08-25-2003:
same would go for, say, a lamp, maybe, eh? .. lamps are real goods. they have an associated material cost to produce. if you set all lamps at $15.. the best possible lamp any manufacturer is ever going to produce is a $15 lamp. if shinier or brighter costs more than $15 to make.. no one is going to make shinier or brighter lamps. price capping eliminates the incentive to improve things (e.g. california got no new power plants during the price-capped 'deregulation' period). let's say joe lampmaker makes a nice lamp and sells it for $15. if prices are set at $15 max.. no one is going to try to build a better lamp. some may try to build the same lamp for less and sell it at $15 in order to make more money, but there will never be any reason to improve upon the lamp as is. it is a $15 lamp. end of the line for lamp innovations except in minimization of production costs (which usually has the nasty side effect of diminishing quality ((think "made in china")) ). price capping is usually the result of entrenched bad business protecting itself from the inevitable. |
 | milky [email] said at 9:08 PM 08-25-2003:
Suck on this. Wait a second, you already have been sucking on it, for a very LONG and HARD three years.
GAO: Cheney stifled energy probe
Congress' investigative arm says vice president refused to turn over key documents.
August 25, 2003: 5:47 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional investigators said Monday that Vice President Dick Cheney had stymied their investigation into his energy task force by refusing to turn over key documents.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said it was impossible to tell how much energy companies or industry groups may have influenced the task force's 2001 report because the administration withheld important records.
So get them balls outcha mouth and wise up. |
anotherben kenobi said at 9:38 PM 08-25-2003:
it must be nice to have all your political thoughts and opinions tabulated each day by the press. |
|
| milky [email] said at 11:03 PM 08-25-2003:
The thing most people like about my work ethic is that I almost always could smell a ruse...or a rat. I know how systems work without being able to explain them. I note negative date. Positive data...flows. It's nice. It's pretty. It does nothing for me because it's boring. The abberations, however, are of particular note. They're fun. They demand attention and quashing.
So other errors in a system can be attended to.
I'm not good at much else. My political thoughts and opinions are _highly_ under-reported. So in that aspect, it's not nice. |
|
| mary [email] said at 1:17 AM 08-26-2003:
yeah, funny how the one thing that makes the press mad is when public officials are all squirrely about sharing public documents from publicly funded meetings with the, um, public. a bunch of commies, clearly.
who tabulates your political thoughts and opinions, ben? a hamster-powered Fox-o-meter?
It has always amazed me how someone who is otherwise so fucking smart can be so naive. |
anotherben kenobi said at 9:46 AM 08-26-2003:
the witness protection program is publicly funded.. should the information there be publicly disseminated? and then the poor bastard bunkered down in iraq scrounging for every bit of info he can and when he says he heard they are making bad stuff the press wants to know where his info came from and what his name is and maybe even get a photo?cheney met with a bunch of big-wig energy execs... and from those meetings compiled an energy plan. the plan is the result. why do you need to see the notes he jotted down in the meetings? read the report. if you find fault with the report.. that is fine, but why do you need to read the notes of the meeting and see his scribbles in the margins? if he is pulling one over on you and you arent clever enough to see it when it is plopped down in front of you, you want him to write down a play-by-play so that you can? c'mon. as for my political thoughts and opinions, they were kindly tabulated for me by bill watterson. he even drew pictures to make it simple. |
|
| mary [email] said at 11:10 AM 08-26-2003:
nice diversion, but the comparisons to the witness protection program or war aren't relevant. No one's life is in danger here.
Basically, Cheney sat down with a few major donors to his campaign and mapped out an energy plan. This entire meeting occured at public expense and is being used to set public policy. Yes, we absolutely have the right to know who was at that meeting, and what they said and what they demanded.
Historically, documents from these sorts of meeting have been freely published. This administration's secrecy is Nixonian. This is bad government. |
|
| milky [email] said at 11:28 AM 08-26-2003:
we can't subpeona the White House. it's a bad thing. |
martin said at 12:08 PM 08-26-2003:
since every discussion at the white house could be called "at public expense" do you contend that nobody can ever speak off the record there? are you saying that any time anyone consults with or wants advice from anyone you should know about it if it was conducted in a public place? if you do that then the result is that our leaders have meetings at their homes and you never know about it. you just arent gonna get to hear every conversation our leaders have. do you not want them to ever be able to speak candidly?. why cant you decide if you like their decisions when they make them? political figures deserve the right to speak to anyone they choose and not have you hear what they say. |
martin said at 12:15 PM 08-26-2003:
if the government pays for cheney's cell phone, does that mean we get to hear what he says to his wife? after all, your logic seems to be only concerned with what occured at "public expense". what if he asks his wife her opinion on his policies and she advises him in his office over lunch? are you entitled to that too?
basically any human that wants to talk to any other else privately and without the press should be able to do so. |
|
| milky [email] said at 12:20 PM 08-26-2003:
basically any human that wants to talk to any other else privately and without the press should be able to do so
On that same token, why can't I speak privately without the fear of my 'government' buggering in? |
martin said at 12:22 PM 08-26-2003:
of course you should. i'm on your team. also i meant "anybody else" not "any other else" oops.
i'm not saying senate proceedings should be closed down or anything silly like that. i'm saying any leader who wants to talk to anyone and get their opinion off the record should have that right. |
|
| mary [email] said at 12:51 PM 08-26-2003:
This isn't talking "privately."
This is discussing public policy.
If they were talking about their golf games, I don't give a shit. If Lynne Cheney is telling Dick which tie looks best with which shirt, I don't give a shit about that either. But if the VP is meeting with major campaign donors to set energy policy, yes, the public has the right to know what goes on at those meetings. And past administrations have shared that information pretty freely. This one doesn't think those rules apply to them. As a citizen, I think that's pretty fucked up.
This is not how we have traditionally done things. Not even other GOP administrations, so it's not a matter of partisan leanings. You *really* don't see why this is a problem? |
anotherben kenobi said at 3:45 PM 08-26-2003:
No one's life is in danger here. ... tell that to the 10,000 dead people in france who didn't have a/c the past few weeks. imagine a widespread power outage that lasted more than a few days somewhere like south louisiana. lots of dead old people. and so, yes, i think the government does have some responsibility in refereeing the countries energy suppliers, but, referees dont call plays, and they dont play sides. if the referee gets in the huddle with the players in an effort to improve his calling of the game, does that mean he should publish the plays he heard? the result of cheneys meetings is available for your review. read it. criticize it. whatever. we have meandered away from price capping tho... and the rebuff our dear myriam was asking for. i know, mary, that you know the fed interest rate is not akin to price capping in any way, yet, you simply accepted it as such in myriams response. why? |
|
| mary [email] said at 4:19 PM 08-26-2003:
No one's life is endangered by publishing the minutes of the meetings.
A stable, reliable power supply is fundamental to civilization as we know it. Energy policy is too important to be decided in secret. |
anotherben kenobi said at 4:23 PM 08-26-2003:
agh... it is the policy that counts.. the policy is public. sheesh... you either like the colonels chicken, or you dont. no need to know the secret ingredient. but still no comment on the fed rate question... |
Shell said at 4:44 PM 08-26-2003:
still no comment on the fed rate question
You have neglected to answer my last two questions, yet I'm not addressing that publicly ;).
Anyway, perhaps you misread Mary's response to Myriam? She merely stated that Myriam didn't warrant rebuffing. She made no comment on the price capping Fed rate/lamp analogy. My reading is that Mary was welcoming Myriam, not rejecting her. That's *all*. Or, maybe, Mary knew somebody else would come along to address the situation?
it is the policy that counts.. the policy is public. sheesh... you either like the colonels chicken, or you dont. no need to know the secret ingredient.
Are you having a bad day? You can't expect us to take that analogy seriously, can you? Last time I checked, I didn't vote for any of the board members or shareholders of KFC. In fact, none of the decision-makers of that corporation are answerable to me.
I really do want an answer about the pig bones :). |
anotherben.. said at 4:59 PM 08-26-2003:
I don't think you need a bit of rebuffing. was mary's response to an argument built on a misunderstanding of basic economic principles. at the end of the argument, myriam expressed doubt in her understanding of the price cap/fed rate argument she had put forth and asked plainly for any clarification if she was indeed mistaken. mary's response says that she does not, and that she was therefore correct in her argumentative formulation. this was effectively an endorsement of false information.. furthermore, i know mary, and i know she knows enough about the fed interest rate to know the argument was false.. so my curiousity.
not having a bad day, but the analogy was weak. ill give you that. you either like the energy policy or you dont. no need to know cheneys secret ingredients. better? :) i have to admit, i havent read the energy policy, and dont know much about it, so i may be defending a reprehensible document. that doesnt change my stance on the issue though.
ps..answers are forthcoming. |
Shell said at 5:17 PM 08-26-2003:
ps..answers are forthcoming Thanks, as I'm very interested in the answers.
Also, I'm not trying to focus merely on semantics, but the issue of rebuffing and the issue of explaining are separate to me. Myriam proffered an opinion and did express doubts as to it's accuracy. Then she invited folks to "please rebuff and explain if you will."
Here, I think is the difference between how we've read things. You write " don't think you need a bit of rebuffing." was mary's response to an argument built on a misunderstanding of basic economic principles. I don't think that was Mary's response to the *comment* by Myriam. I think it was Mary's response to *Myriam* herself.
Rebuff=reject, you know. Stop dead in one's tracks, even. So I thought Mary's "I don't think you need a bit of rebuffing." meant that Mary didn't want to reject Myriam. It is difficult to express a "welcome" that can be taken sincerely if, in practically the same breath, one then dissects the ideas of the newcomer. Maybe? Maybe I should just let Mary respond, yes?
About this: i have to admit, i havent read the energy policy, and dont know much about it, so i may be defending a reprehensible document. that doesnt change my stance on the issue though.
Right. It's been pretty clear you aren't arguing about the policy itself, just Cheney's refusal to make public documents related to the meetings during which the policy was formed. |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:19 PM 08-26-2003:
Of course he hasn't read the energy policy. He couldn't if he wanted to. Duh.
And yes, shell, that's all I meant. I just didn't feel like getting into an argument about fed interest rate caps. |
Shell said at 5:20 PM 08-26-2003:
Stupid=Shell, you know. I thought I closed that tag. Help! |
myriam said at 5:39 PM 08-26-2003:
well, i was biding my time and waiting for wade's self-reflexive fit of ego-jerking to die down (thank you josh), and now i think it's time i popped back in.
thanks both to ben and mary... i feel both welcomed and enlightened! mmm... like a bowl of hot cocoa on a cold winter's eve.
the lamp analogy helped, personally--altho fed interest rates remain a pretty hazy subject for me--but i do have one random question, back to the meat of the matter: isn't *some* interference with the market a positive idea? really here i am just thinking of the free-for-all of the 1920s leading eventually to the stock market crash. (but perhaps that's another matter entirely?) it seems to me that maybe govt. interference would have limited the unnatural inflation of stocks at that time. more clarification?
otherwise i agree that market intervention can have disastrous results (witness the US' protectionist stance on some US goods... like steel for a good example... which typically just drives costs up for the consumer... blah blah blah etc etc etc.) |
anotherben.. said at 2:16 AM 08-27-2003:
fine arts major huh? |
myriam said at 1:08 AM 08-28-2003:
economically-challenged.
in so many ways. |
martin said at 4:53 PM 08-26-2003:
if you were president and wanted to talk privately to an old friend to get advice, would you like it if if was you were never allowed any privacy? shouldnt you be allowed to talk things over with others in private? isnt that obvious? |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:07 PM 08-26-2003:
This isn't "in private" though.
If you want to do business "in private," you don't run for public office. You don't host energy summits with private business officials who gave your campaign millions of dollars, and refuse to share the contents of those meetings, when those discussions are going to be the basis of public policy.
If I were VP, I would expect that the public would be keenly interested in any meeting I had with a dozen energy company officials to discuss public policy. And this information has been generally shared freely by previous administrations. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, Martin. This is really sketchy on Cheney's part. That he won't even disclose who exactly he was meeting with is appalling. Wouldn't you want to know if the nation's energy policy was designed by Enron? |
anotherben.. said at 5:10 PM 08-26-2003:
he did share the contents of those meetings. he put them in a big fat report. that was his job. he was elected to do that. he did it. don't like it? vote for someone else. |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:13 PM 08-26-2003:
Um, no, ben, he didn't. That's the problem.
You do realize what report we're talking about right? |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:22 PM 08-26-2003:
No sir. That is a PR document. |
 | anotherben [email] said at 5:26 PM 08-26-2003:
weird. i have never seen a PR document entitled "National Energy Policy Report" and signed by the vp. |
|
| mary [email] said at 5:30 PM 08-26-2003:
Welcome to Washington. |
|
| milky [email] said at 10:08 PM 08-26-2003:
Voice-over:
...what Mary doesn't realise is that Ben's regular coffee has been placed with Republican Brainwashing Crystals...let's check back in 8 years when he's poor and see how he's doing!
Anyone take a look at the new effects of the "tax break"? We'll be broke as hell for another EIGHT years. EIGHT, count 'em, EIGHT years!
...Republican Brainwashing Crystals work slowly with your regular blend. Smell your mouth when you talk. Smells like shit? That means the crystals are working... |
|
| |
