2010 Mid-Term Election Results

[classicman]

even better!

[xoxoxoBruce]

I do believe you've nailed it, Spex.

[Lamplighter]

My G-son has become a liberal... but still has a sense of humor.
Here's his latest on Facebook with friend, Alex.

Re: pict below
Sam: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) breaks into tears
during his speech as he addresses supporters at a Republican
election night results watch rally in Washington, November 2, 2010.

Alex: They did a segment on him on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago,
and he cried about 4 times.

Sam: Yeah, I saw that too.
He couldn't talk about how he went from being a janitor to making the lives of
countless Americans more difficult without tearing up and crying.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Accountants are bean counters. Economists analyze what happens once the beans are processed. .

Economists are the field’s scientists. Others (ie accountants) are technicians or engineers of that financial discipline.

Economists learn of trends, relationship, and resulting effective in economics. Study symptoms to understand how X caused Y. That part of the field is rather accurate. The problem is when these same people believe money games can fix an economy or create productivity. Believe manipulating Y can fix X. What so many fail to comprehend or measure is how innovation works, why throwing money at something never creates innovation, and that their numbers are always reporting events long after events actually started or happened.

An economist can identify this type of recession so destructive that jobs will continue to be lost for 18 months after the recession ends. But cannot determine when the recession ends until long after the recession ends.

An economist that would fix an economy by averting deflation with money games is fooling himself and too many others. Economists can report on the ballon. But cannot 'fix' it.

Deflation is a monetary number that economists can understand. But are only symptoms of real world events that economist cannot quantify. When he tried to fix an economy by curing that symptom, then an economist is his own worst enemy. Tax cuts to fix an economy is a perfect example. Can actually make things worse.

Same applies to finance industry technicians. Which is why a company’s worst CEO would previously be the CFO.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tax cuts to fix an economy is a perfect example. Can actually make things worse.

Don't see how. The corporate reason for not hiring the jobless hardly at all is they don't find the money in any of the company's accounts to pay their hires, not so?

Tax cuts make more money available to said company, not so?

Hiring, assuming the costs of employment are both predictable and affordable, may then proceed, not so?

Reduction of regulatory compliance costs and reduction of the tax bite gives the company the wherewithal to hire, not so?

Tax reduction is essential to recovery. Overregulation prolongs all depressions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Don't see how. The corporate reason for not hiring the jobless hardly at all is they don't find the money in any of the company's accounts to pay their hires, not so?

Not so. Corporate cash on hand is at an all-time high.

[TheMercenary]

Perfectly legal.

[plthijinx]

i hate this thread and am ignorant to it. however....why is it that in this economy all the oil companies are recording record profits?

i know why. they can mark up the oil in production. they pay a certain amount for a barrel of oil.

Crude Oil + Refining Process + Retail Sales/Distribution + Taxes = Gas Price


Crude oil -- 69%
Finding the crude oil
Getting the crude oil out of the ground
Transporting the crude oil to the refinery
Maintaining a reserve capacity of crude oil
Profit
Refining the crude oil into gasoline -- 6%
Producing special blends of gasoline to meet local clean air government regulations
Transporting the gasoline to the gas station
Profit
Selling the gasoline at a station -- 10%
Operational costs
Marketing costs
Profit
Taxes, federal and state -- 15%
Source: U.S. Energy Information Adminstration
Understanding Gas Price Swings
Knowing the basic components of gas prices is a good start that makes understanding price swings easier. The two largest components of oil production are the most volatile. Many variables can interrupt the flow of crude oil and the refining process. Most gas price hikes happen in the wake of some kind of disruption in these two areas.
Hurricane Katrina provided a textbook example of this. It wiped out major drilling operations and refineries on the Gulf Coast. Gas prices shot up because the balance between supply and demand changed. Katrina's wrath caused a significant drop in gasoline production, but demand stayed constant, resulting in higher gas prices in the U.S. and across the globe.
In the months after Katrina, as the wells in the Gulf of Mexico and the huge refineries along the Gulf Coast came back on line, gas prices came down because supply increased to meet demand. Gas prices then moderated globally.
While Katrina was an obvious reason for a gas price swing, other factors are harder to identify. If you live in a major metropolitan area affected by the Clean Act, you've likely already seen mild gas price swings. Why? Refineries serving your geographic area have to change their fuel blending process to produce the government-mandated "boutique" gasolines that help reduce vehicle emissions over the colder winter months. These changeovers temporarily reduce supplies, causing modest and short-lived price increases. As soon as the refineries are back up to capacity after the blend shift, prices edge back down. Maintenance at refineries and on oil pipelines can also temporarily reduce supplies, causing localized price jumps.
What's Happening Now With Gas Prices
Obviously, gas prices are generally higher than they used to be. If you were driving back in the 1960s, you were used to gas prices of about 25 cents a gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that works out to be about $1.63 per gallon today. However, adjusted for inflation, gas prices between 1984-2001 were even lower. Today, we're definitely paying more than we used to, with the national average around $2.86 per gallon. So what other factors are causing gas prices to rise?
According to a report by BP Oil, worldwide demand for crude grew by 0.7 percent from 2005 to 2006, a rate that equates to almost 253 million barrels per year. Of some 60 countries surveyed by BP, demand was up in nearly 40 countries, while demand was flat or down in the other 20. For the record, United States oil consumption decreased in 2006 to below the levels of 2004.
Against this reality of increased demand, especially from developing countries with huge populations such as China (demand up 6.7 percent in 2006), oil production has been fairly flat. Between the jump in demand and flat production, gas prices have risen.
Several less obvious reasons are also behind jacked-up gas prices:
The crude oil that has been "the easiest to get" has already been pumped from the ground. Oil companies have to work harder to obtain oil they pump out today, and that costs more.
The quality of crude oil available now is generally lower, making it more expensive to refine than the more desirable "light sweet" crude that was more widely available in years past.
Supply uncertainty due to political issues in countries such as Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela, which in turn creates market nervousness. This tends to drive up prices from other oil producing countries because these suppliers can guarantee an uninterrupted supply. Some place the premium at $10 per barrel, but it's nearly impossible to quantify.

In Pictures: Fuel Efficient Sedans
Taxes drive gas prices up further
As noted above, state and federal gasoline taxes account for about 15 percent of the cost at the pump. This figure equates to a national average of about 57 cents per gallon. As you can understand, states with percentage-based sales tax make considerably more on each gallon as gas prices rise.
While paying nearly 60 cents per gallon in taxes is not great news, compared to many countries, we get off easy. The country of Turkey levies nearly a $5 per gallon tax on each gallon of fuel (this really seems like a "fine"). Norway, even with its oil industry, taxes its gasoline buyers about $4 per gallon. However, some countries enjoy little if any taxation. Most of these same countries also enjoy huge oil reserves and refining capabilities that have been "nationalized" by their governments. In Iran, gas is only 33 cents per gallon, while Venezuelans do even better, with gas as little as 17 cents per gallon. The trade-off, of course, is living under a totalitarian government.
Is raising fuel taxes further the right thing to do to encourage alternative energy sources?
No. Raising taxes will cause a non-market driven decrease in oil consumption. This decrease in demand will drive down the world price of oil, making it tougher for alternative energy sources to gain market share. Until alternative sources of energy are profitable to produce on an even playing field compared to gasoline, they won't get to market on a large scale. Many energy experts do not support raising taxes because of this economic reality.
What about higher mandated fuel economy standards?
Bob Lutz, GM's outgoing vice chairman, believes "if fuel efficiency is the goal, making it impossible for consumers to buy full-size trucks and SUVs because of mandated fuel economy standards won't help. This will hurt the economy and decrease the demand for fuel, causing lower prices, thereby increasing demand (for fuel)."
Bob gets it. His point is that Americans should drive what they want until they decide the price of fuel is so important that it makes them choose a more efficient vehicle. If one assumes that gas prices will remain high, these elevated gas prices will encourage alternate energy development. Legislating larger vehicles out of existence isn't the answer. Hey Washington, are you listening?

[plthijinx]

Bob gets it. His point is that Americans should drive what they want until they decide the price of fuel is so important that it makes them choose a more efficient vehicle. If one assumes that gas prices will remain high, these elevated gas prices will encourage alternate energy development. Legislating larger vehicles out of existence isn't the answer. Hey Washington, are you listening?

i sure as hell am. i'm in the market to replace the Fixed Or Repaired Daily v-6 for a jetta or something of that effect.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Perfectly legal.

To whom is this directed? I looked back a few posts, and saw no accusations of criminality.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

To whom is this directed? I looked back a few posts, and saw no accusations of criminality.

I guess I was thinking of the fact that "Corporate cash on hand is at an all-time high" but they are not hiring.

[Happy Monkey]

What does "perfectly legal" have to do with that? I was pointing out that UG's little string of "not so"s failed in the very first link. Criminality doesn't enter in to it.

[TheMercenary]

I was pointing out that there was nothing wrong with it. That is all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tax cuts make more money available to said company, not so?

Which is the sound byte promoted by extremists to appeal to those with the lowest intelligence.

Meanwhile, those who deal in reality and fact know that tax cuts only create short term economic thrill (like a drug) followed by serious economic destruction when the bills come due.

Those educated in reality know that tax cuts to the richest do not create jobs. The richest do not create jobs. They simply maximize their wealth at the expensive of all others.

Who creates jobs? Those who aspire to be rich. And those people saw their incomes drop 2% during George Jr's tenure. When tax cuts were enriching those who do not create the new and innovative jobs.

Of course, this has been explained often. It contradicts the extremist agenda. Best to ignore it if promoting Limbaugh lies and Hannity hyperbole.

Tax cuts never created innovation or the resulting jobs. History over 30 years said jobs were created when fiscal responsibility (including tax increases) were implemented. Only those most easily manipulated by MBA myths think money games can create innovation and jobs. But again for those who ignored history, the Kennedy tax cuts only resulted in job losses so many years later.

Making the rich richer has – every time – been followed by massive recessions. Only people living in reality learned this history.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I can see I know a lot more about both capitalism and economics than tw, which is why I make him sputter so. I live in the human world; he refuses to.