CO2 and global warming

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

The one who will take office in 2008? Perhaps, though it's not
obvious to me that this president doesn't take it seriously. You
continue, insanely, to attribute the problem to this president, when
the Senate voted against the treaty, 95-0.

One of the first things the man apppointed as president said was that
he wouldn't sign any treaty that could cost an American job. That's
from memory - but not far off verbatim.

He was personally against it and prepared to appear to take personal
responsibility for not signing.

Perhaps he had no right to take such an attitude - but that pushes the
correct attribution of insanity on this topic closer to Bush than to
me.

Martin Frey wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:
You seem to think the market is perfect.

No, just smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats.

Such as OPEC?

They're only burecratic on the surface.
Underneath they're a bunch of scrapping rabid unrestrained
capitalists trying to maximize their nation's oil earnings
in a pseudo-monopoly...


-george william herbert

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:41:02 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

You seem to think the market is perfect.

No, just smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats.

Such as OPEC?

No.

No? Not smarter than OPEC?

No, not smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats. OPEC is
part of the market.

We agree then.

No. Again, you need to work on your logic and reading comprehension.

No - we agree. I assumed you'd be unhappy to call a market dominated
by cabals of transnationalist bureaucrats smart.

The oil market is not dominated by cabals of transnational
bureaucrats, though they have some influence.

My mistake.

Indeed.

On 28 Sep 2004 00:11:37 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Martin Frey wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:
You seem to think the market is perfect.

No, just smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats.

Such as OPEC?

They're only burecratic on the surface.
Underneath they're a bunch of scrapping rabid unrestrained
capitalists trying to maximize their nation's oil earnings
in a pseudo-monopoly...

Exactly.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:41:02 +0100, in a place far, far away, Martin
Frey made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

The one who will take office in 2008? Perhaps, though it's not
obvious to me that this president doesn't take it seriously. You
continue, insanely, to attribute the problem to this president, when
the Senate voted against the treaty, 95-0.

One of the first things the man apppointed as president said was that
he wouldn't sign any treaty that could cost an American job. That's
from memory - but not far off verbatim.

a) Do you have a cite for that and

b) so what?

He was personally against it and prepared to appear to take personal
responsibility for not signing.

Which is irrelevant, given that there is zero support for it
politically in this country, as demonstrated by the Senate vote during
the *Clinton administration*.

Perhaps he had no right to take such an attitude - but that pushes the
correct attribution of insanity on this topic closer to Bush than to
me.

Nope. You're nuts.

(Alex Terrell) wrote:

The immediate effect would be to increase transportation costs. That'll
imcrease the price of groceries, building materials, tools, appliances,
etc. At a first approximation, basically *everything* will cost more.

Economists would know for sure, but I suspect putting gasoline at UK
prices would add about 3% to US retail prices. Done over 10 years,
that's 0.3% per year on the RPI.

Your suspicions have no power over me. I won't trust numbers that have no
basis. We're talking about, what, a tripling of fuel prices? That would
imply that you think they account for only a percent or two of the cost of
goods. My "suspicion" is that transportation costs for most goods are
closer to 50% of the retail price than to 1%.

I regret that I can't find a reference to cite right now, but I recall
reading that food prices rose by one percent in one month this year,
attributable to a five percent increase in fuel costs.

Against that, tax cuts for the people, especially those who would
notice the inflation the most, ie the poor.

Stop and think about what you just said. "The poor" pay almost no taxes
now. How would tax cuts benefit them? What you're proposing will hit
"the poor" hardest.

Inflation spikes and troughs are a problematic consequence of shifting
between direct and indirect taxes. If the tax from gasoline were used
to cut sales tax, there would be no net inflation change.

Sales tax is not levied on groceries in my state. Cutting it would not
benefit someone who spends most of his income on food and rent and
gasoline.

Dave O'Neill wrote:
What are the US key exported manufactured goods?

(I'm really curious to know)

Automobiles. Microchips. Software. Agricultural
products. Jet Aircraft. Industrial equipment.
Etc.

To name but a few.

[sci.astro deleted from follow-ups]

George William Herbert wrote:
Martin Frey wrote:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

You seem to think the market is perfect.

No, just smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats.

Such as OPEC?


They're only burecratic on the surface.
Underneath they're a bunch of scrapping rabid unrestrained
capitalists trying to maximize their nation's oil earnings
in a pseudo-monopoly...

Everyone is trying to maximize their earnings. But when
OPEC hold their meetings, you don't have the presidents
of such and such corporation discussing, you have the
ministers of such and such country. That isn't what one
has in mind when one thinks of a market economy. Of
course any economy, has some market like rules, including
the former USSR, China and whatever.

Alain Fournier

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

The oil market is not dominated by cabals of transnational
bureaucrats, though they have some influence.

Is there nothing you won't say rather than admit even a small blunder?
Whoops - rhetorical question: bad tactic. Let me rephrase that.
********. Whoops - light hearted: bad tactic. Try again

You are totally full of disingenuous stupid crap. Yes: I don't like
the sound of that so it may do.

(George William Herbert) wrote:

Martin Frey wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:
You seem to think the market is perfect.

No, just smarter than a cabal of transnationalist bureaucrats.

Such as OPEC?

They're only burecratic on the surface.
Underneath they're a bunch of scrapping rabid unrestrained

They may be rabid and scrapping - but they come up with a price and a
production limit that has major effects on western markets. Prior to
OPEC the west was growing rich on the back of the absurdly low prices
to producer countries.

capitalists trying to maximize their nation's oil earnings
in a pseudo-monopoly...

Sounds like the seven sisters. Is maximising a nation's earnings
wrong? I'm surprised that you should imply such a thing as it is a
defining characteristic of the US.