Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

trump towers being wiretapped for 2 years by the FBI too many is a bigger issue then comey seemed to make it. would have liked to know specifically if trump was ever recordered --if any other suites were recordered besides the one this mobster was in

[Da Geezer]

Jeff:

If I'm reading Geezer right, this fundamental concept seems to elude him or at least his posts would seem to suggest that. If I'm misreading you Geezer, my apologies....... my guess is that you know there needs to be a mix and a declining portion of that mix going forward is going to be carbon based energy but to admit that would dilute many of the free market positions you have staked out. Those depend on uncompromising profit motive to develop energy production capacity and carbon based energy sources make the most sense for those so motivated.

I think there is enough of your posts here for me to conclude that you see carbon based energy production as the most profitable and therefore the most logical choice for free market capitalists to invest in as the way to power the global economy going forward. I respect that view although I don't agree with it as the right path forward.

Jeff, without the profit motive, most innovation would never happen. And profits are how we determine "where" the next, marginal, investment should be made. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if gas producers, in their quest for those evil profits, hadn't developed fracking. If you want, I can go down a list of substantial, disruptive, innovations that arose from the profit motive. You know that is true.

And, since we are about the same age, you also know what the political environment was in the 1970's. Did you hear anyone saying then that ethanol was a better fuel than gasoline? Of course not. What was said was something like "we are running out of oil, and are at the mercy of OPEC. We need to stretch our supply of gasoline by adding ethanol. because it is renewable" So the government mandated 10% of our auto fuel be ethanol. How did that government intervention and mandate work out? The reason it didn't work is that the government was not paying attention to the market. Jeff, without profit, you don't have much of a market, and you certainly don't have a way of analyzing efficiency. But, it is true, I do view profit as a certificate of good conduct. The market alone identifies those ideas that are worthy, and the people with those ideas are rewarded with profit. And that pulls competitors onto the field to "grab" as much of the profit as they can from the originator.

Let's focus on wind energy for a minute. About 25 years ago I was in Wisconsin Dells, and the tour director was emphasizing how many dams had been removed in WI and in the US. This was a mandate of the EPA or DNR. It was done under the Endangered Species Act. Jeff, wind towers kill more endangered or threatened species than dams ever did, but they are given a pass. Why is it good policy to close down one form of renewable energy (using the ESA) while subsidizing another form of renewable energy by giving it a waiver from the ESA?

Jeff, I sincerely believe today's wind towers are the functional equivalent of yesterday's ethanol. I do wish we would pay attention to the market now. Paying attention to the market, and paying attention to profit are the same exact thing.

[Da Geezer]

...but wind and solar are cheaper than coal in average scenarios, according to that graphic I posted last week, and that's according to a standard industry metric.

Totally untrue. That graphic was an investment firm pushing a green energy fund, and included in its assumptions continued massive governmental subsidy. The underlying investment research report clearly stated that their analysis would have to be changed if there were a change in the subsidy structure. Confirmation bias.

[Da Geezer]

But, we're also smart enough to know that entrepreneurship and innovation is best measured as an aggregate story, not an individual one.

But, hey, man, if you want to bet against human ingenuity, then so be it. I think that's a losing proposition.

I agree totally.

Talk about a kiss of death!

[froot loops]

Lots of bad hombres in Trump's orbit, there have been for many years. That didn't end when he came down the escalator.

[Hannibal]

Geezer -- STFU, obey, and stop questioning your betters.

[The Oracle]

Awe, lookit the little guys from middle America stick with "their guy". He's your voice!!!

[Whitley]

Awe, lookit the little guys from middle America stick with "their guy". He's your voice!!!

he's not my voice.

[froot loops]

Geezer -- STFU, obey, and stop questioning your betters.

This is true

[The Oracle]

he's not my voice.

sarcasm

[hack]

Britain's enacting a similar ban so maybe there's been a specific terror threat. Dunno.

Just seems odd that when Emirates Air and, say, United share the same security personnel at Dubai airport, why is one safe and the other is not? Abu Dhabi in particular has some of the strictest pre-flight security in the world and it's on the list.

I don't know that it's true in Dubai but in plenty of airports, airlines will contract a third party to screen checked baggage, rather than letting the local airport authority handle that.

[hack]

And then there's the benefit of taking a wrecking ball to political correctness, a series of rules that selectively cripples my side. Since you guys control academia, most of the news media, and Hollywood, you can't relate to this problem. It is a motivation that you will likely never have. I'm thinking long term strategy here: 20-50 years out.

In my first job, I had a black editor, and a black person as competition from the other newspaper. I found that guy in collusion with a police-force executive. I had no idea of the racial ramifications when I went back to my editor and told her what I knew, but I never had her support from then on. I've suffered as a result of that too, and I understand the sentiment. We have, perversely, a world in which black females do find it awfully difficult to get along, but also one in which if you put that person's name atop MY resume they would be more in demand than I am. That doesn't make my needs a higher priority though.

But none of that has anything to do with free markets. Nor does the welfare state. Every society has redistribution. If you strip away the government, then the responsibility for redistribution simply shifts from a government and a process to a warlord, his gun, and perhaps how he's feeling on the day he knocks on your door. Those are your options -- government process, warlord, or shades of grey in between. If you did a comparative study it would be easy to figure out where the US falls on the spectrum between process and warlord.

In addition to the benefits of having a process and a system for how redistribution happens, the good thing about avoiding the warlords is that they keep it all for themselves. Then you're exposed to the people who need help, have nowhere to turn, and know that attacking you and your business is a better idea than attacking the warlord and his soldiers and weapons.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for your post, Geezer. I find the discussion involving energy production between you, Hack, Hannibal and with talent and a few others throwing their 2 cents in, incredibly interesting and informative.

[entropy]

Hoss is full of natural gas..

[Hannibal]

And then there's the benefit of taking a wrecking ball to political correctness, a series of rules that selectively cripples my side. Since you guys control academia, most of the news media, and Hollywood, you can't relate to this problem. It is a motivation that you will likely never have. I'm thinking long term strategy here: 20-50 years out.

In my first job, I had a black editor, and a black person as competition from the other newspaper. I found that guy in collusion with a police-force executive. I had no idea of the racial ramifications when I went back to my editor and told her what I knew, but I never had her support from then on. I've suffered as a result of that too, and I understand the sentiment. We have, perversely, a world in which black females do find it awfully difficult to get along, but also one in which if you put that person's name atop MY resume they would be more in demand than I am. That doesn't make my needs a higher priority though.

But none of that has anything to do with free markets.

Oh, but it does eventually. Free markets have a very heavy element of political incorrectness and harshness to them that requires courage to defend. You have to be willling to look like a meanie. You have to accept that free markets will mean that not everybody is special. Not everybody is equal and not everybody is happy. You have to be willing to attack sacred cows. Republicans are always unable to do this. They have always framed everything with an "a rising tide lifts all boats" approach, which isn't true 100% of the time. Mitt Romney backing out on his totally defensible 47% remark is a great example. I look forward to more taboos being broken over the next 20 years or so, as young Alt-righters get into positions of leadership in both business and politics and start questioning the empty platitudes of Political Correctness.

Your comment about a black female name being at the top of your resume is probably true. It certainly would be true in my field. That is not the free market at work. It is a combination of lawsuit avoidance, bad PR avoidance, and the Stockholm Syndrome that comes after years and years of beatdowns. To restore the free market to that situation, you have to be willing to have the courage to break the taboos that enable it.