You did not do that!

[Gaspar]

You know, Gassy, you might show a little respect. For the first time since the early Reagan years we're not losing manufacturing jobs relative to total employment. Your idol didn't manage to do that. Neither did the guy you claim is swooping in to save Obama. Neither did the guy before that. The one before that managed it for 2 years out of his 8 year presidency. The ones before that, all the way back to WWII, presided over a declining manufacturing base. You can love right off with your lies and bullshit.

Come back when you have some actual facts to bring to bear rather than your inane speculation and retarded insinuations.

</trollfood>

Interesting response. I'll take that to heart.  It seems you are having a off day, and I am sorry for that.

[Townsend]

The stimulus focused significant spending in green energy.

His Panacea?

A reduction in taxes, simplification of the tax code, loosening of trade regulations.

Reduction in some taxes, simplification of some codes, and loosening of some trade regs?   I bet you could guess who those would favor.

Ah, you've chosen a simple definition

Of course I have.  It's the definition.  The more you add meanings to a word the less it means what it originally did.  Like adding pork to a jobs bill.

[nathanm]

Wow, Gaspar. I didn't see the monetarist bit. It's pretty hard to be both Keynesian and monetarist, but apparently Obama has managed to figure it out. 

And speaking of free trade, how's that working out for us?

[Gaspar]

Wow, Gaspar. I didn't see the monetarist bit. It's pretty hard to be both Keynesian and monetarist, but apparently Obama has managed to figure it out. 

And speaking of free trade, how's that working out for us?

Actually most economic policies are blended strategies. 

I tend to fall on the Austrian/Monetarist side of the fence.  Parts of each philosophy help to describe different challenges. 

We've had the discussion of free trade and free markets before.  I understand where you stand, and don't wish to open that can of hash again.

[nathanm]

You write as if I have something against free trade. I don't. I have a problem with "free trade," like what we have with China.

You can't be both a Keynesian and a monetarist. You can be willing to use the tools of either camp. Keynesian economics largely discounts the effects of monetary policy. Monetarism almost completely discounts the effects of fiscal policy. Both are wrong when used rigidly. The first because it places too little emphasis on supply. The latter because it's even more rigid and pretends demand is a function of supply. (I think some folks took the phrase "supply and demand" too literally)

[Gaspar]

You write as if I have something against free trade. I don't. I have a problem with "free trade," like what we have with China.

You can't be both a Keynesian and a monetarist. You can be willing to use the tools of either camp. Keynesian economics largely discounts the effects of monetary policy. Monetarism almost completely discounts the effects of fiscal policy. Both are wrong when used rigidly. The first because it places too little emphasis on supply. The latter because it's even more rigid and pretends demand is a function of supply. (I think some folks took the phrase "supply and demand" too literally)

Consumption, Investment & Government (spending) rule the Keynesian model.  For the most part the theories are at odds, and the worst part of the Keynesian model is that it simply assumes that all economic downturns are caused by decrease in demand.  It also ignores the aggregate effects of it's own tinkering as well as the psychological or human components in investing.  The concept of "uncertainty" is absent to a Keynesian or at best infuriating.  Where you are wrong is that Keynesian economics employs a good deal of Monetary tinkering or what the economist community calls "Monetary activism" as part of it's prescription for economic downturn (along with "Fiscal Activism").  It's consistent failure is in it's inability to predict the outcome of it's actions when employed as anything more than a diagnostic tool.

Additionally, I believe that the application of Keynes' prescription for economic downturn causes long term damage to a market because it creates artificial demand (bubbles) and then has no mechanism to recognize them.  I guess this is because I admire the organic simplicity of the free market and see any intrusion, even if for noble purpose, to have random and unanticipated consequences. Within the framework of the free market, failure is as important as success.  The concept of "too big to fail" is ridiculous because it offers no lessons to it's benefactors (or victims).

[nathanm]

Consumption, Investment & Government (spending) rule the Keynesian model.  For the most part the theories are at odds, and the worst part of the Keynesian model is that it simply assumes that all economic downturns are caused by decrease in demand.  It also ignores the aggregate effects of it's own tinkering as well as the psychological or human components in investing.  The concept of "uncertainty" is absent to a Keynesian or at best infuriating.  Where you are wrong is that Keynesian economics employs a good deal of Monetary tinkering or what the economist community calls "Monetary activism" as part of it's prescription for economic downturn (along with "Fiscal Activism").  It's consistent failure is in it's inability to predict the outcome of it's actions when employed as anything more than a diagnostic tool.

Not only is the first bolded part wrong, but it is at odds with the second bolded part. The third bolded part applies more so to straight monetarist thinking, as evidenced by monetary policy's failure in all the major economies at this point in our present crisis. They got it right(ish) once in the 70s and 80s. They've been consistently wrong since, but somehow believe that the model is more real than reality. The failure is not surprising since the issue isn't too little money (although it is an issue, as cash hoarding acts like a decrease in the money supply), but too little demand. If this were not a demand driven stagnation, the massive increase in the monetary base would have had an effect on inflation. When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Since 2009, almost all of the world's efforts have been focused on a monetarist solution, even here in this supposed hotbed of Keynesianism. (although that's due to Republican obstructionism, not any intentional policy). It has thus far proven to be a failure.

Additionally, I believe that the application of Keynes' prescription for economic downturn causes long term damage to a market because it creates artificial demand (bubbles) and then has no mechanism to recognize them.  I guess this is because I admire the organic simplicity of the free market and see any intrusion, even if for noble purpose, to have random and unanticipated consequences.

I'm glad to know you would like to return to the pre-central banking era. I have a nice book on the Panic of 1907, it might give you some idea of what to expect in an economy with no outside intervention to keep the monetary base at an appropriate level and no appreciable fiscal stimulus to soften the downturns.

Within the framework of the free market, failure is as important as success.  The concept of "too big to fail" is ridiculous because it offers no lessons to it's benefactors (or victims).

On this we agree. Shocking, I know. The banks should be broken up so one or more of them can fail without taking the entire economy with them. Jefferson and Roosevelt would approve.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No one believes that renewable energy is a bad thing, but with 12% real unemployment, massive underemployment, and slow growth, the purchase of electric cars, and the very expensive investment in wind and solar cannot occur without a very high probability of failure.

That failure in turn causes renewed stigma against additional investment in those technologies.  

Except Republicans - they still believe it is a bad thing.

And alternative cars have failed?  I guess that is just the Fox news spin for ya.  Since Prius is number 3 in sales in the world... I would absolutely LOVE to have that kind of "failure".  And I bet if you would tell the truth about it, you would too...wouldn't you like to be at least number 3 in sales in your industry worldwide??

And the expensive investment in wind and solar has already been made.  It did NOT fail.  And have become a very successful technology, not only here, but in much of the rest of the world.  That non-failure is why solar is now THE solution of choice if compared to nukular.  And is becoming very competitive with the other current choices.   Geez....script kiddie against reality!

This is why you really just gotta get out more and start paying attention to what is going on in the real world.  Get out of the mushroom farm once in a while!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

One of the things we should be doing RIGHT NOW is to sell a trillion dollars worth of treasuries earmarked for infrastructure improvements in this country - EVERYTHING from fixing the interstates, to rail, to ports/harbors, to water/sewer.  Spend it over the next 5 or 10 years doing ALL the things that we have ignored for the last 50 years.  It would literally send GOOD tremors through our economy!!

The reason is that we will likely never have the low interest costs that we have today.  Plus the fact that we need it badly.  When you can get loans for under 1% and the real inflation rate is 3%, then you have the situation where you are actually "charging" someone to get them to loan you money!!  What insanity is it that makes Congress NOT understand this and make this happen before now??  (Rhetorical - I know the answer.)


And if the banks were worth $1.25 trillion in bailouts, building the infrastructure back in this country is worth more than 10 times that....

[Gaspar]

Except Republicans - they still believe it is a bad thing.

And alternative cars have failed?  I guess that is just the Fox news spin for ya.  Since Prius is number 3 in sales in the world... I would absolutely LOVE to have that kind of "failure".  And I bet if you would tell the truth about it, you would too...wouldn't you like to be at least number 3 in sales in your industry worldwide??

And the expensive investment in wind and solar has already been made.  It did NOT fail.  And have become a very successful technology, not only here, but in much of the rest of the world.  That non-failure is why solar is now THE solution of choice if compared to nukular.  And is becoming very competitive with the other current choices.   Geez....script kiddie against reality!

This is why you really just gotta get out more and start paying attention to what is going on in the real world.  Get out of the mushroom farm once in a while!!

That's odd.  According to Forbes.
Corolla 1.2mil
Elantra 1.1mil
Sunshine (Chinese) 943K
Focus 919K
Rio 815k
Fiesta 781K
Jetta 745K
Camry 726K
Cruze 691K

Prius didn't make the list, but according to the numbers I can find they are somewhere between 200K and 400K.

As for your convulsions about solar power and wind, as I said before, they are very important technologies, but OUR investment in them has not been successful.  Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.

Perhaps you were simply mistaken.

[nathanm]

Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.

I don't know about failed wind companies, but in general our issues with solar have more to do with Chinese dumping than anything else. There's a reason why there's now a tariff on panels imported from China. (Yet strangely not on panels imported from elsewhere, if you believe it's solely protectionism)

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's odd.  According to Forbes.
Corolla 1.2mil
Elantra 1.1mil
Sunshine (Chinese) 943K
Focus 919K
Rio 815k
Fiesta 781K
Jetta 745K
Camry 726K
Cruze 691K

Prius didn't make the list, but according to the numbers I can find they are somewhere between 200K and 400K.

As for your convulsions about solar power and wind, as I said before, they are very important technologies, but OUR investment in them has not been successful.  Many of OUR wind and solar companies have ceased to exist as a result of investment in a recession and the vulnerability that causes for them to compete in an international market.

Perhaps you were simply mistaken.

Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html

Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html


OUR investment in wind and solar was made 40 years ago - proof of concept stuff.  And then when you know who (big oil) got wind (<-pun alert) of it, suddenly Reagan had the solar cells removed from the White House, setting the tone for US "commercialization" efforts.  And that, kiddie's, is why we are buying all the main components from other countries and they are making good money on a stable, proven technology that is part of an almost mature market.   (Goes hand in hand with the whole concept of "outsourcing" - as in outsource our success to China....)

So, yes, our investment was very successful, as far as it went.  We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.

[Townsend]

Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html

Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html

Hey look...linky's

[nathanm]

We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

[Gaspar]

Number 3 in US (this is latest quarter) - 247,000.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/05/30/toyotas-prius-glides-into-top-3-of-global-sales.html

Globally for this year...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/toyota-prius-ranked-worlds-third-best-selling-car-so-far-this-year.html


OUR investment in wind and solar was made 40 years ago - proof of concept stuff.  And then when you know who (big oil) got wind (<-pun alert) of it, suddenly Reagan had the solar cells removed from the White House, setting the tone for US "commercialization" efforts.  And that, kiddie's, is why we are buying all the main components from other countries and they are making good money on a stable, proven technology that is part of an almost mature market.   (Goes hand in hand with the whole concept of "outsourcing" - as in outsource our success to China....)

So, yes, our investment was very successful, as far as it went.  We just had to give up too soon, so the "economic stability" of the oil industry would not be disturbed.

I'll concede to that.  Looks like Prius is having an excellent quarter.  I was reviewing the rankings from 2011 total for the year, because there are no complete numbers for 2012 yet. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2011/12/25/the-worlds-most-popular-cars-are-changing/
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkk45ekfi/ford-fiesta-in-shanghai-by-night/#gallerycontent

Be aware that your article states, the sales increases of Prius is is mostly fueled by the increase in demand in Japan, not the US with 175,080 of the 247,230 units sold to that market alone fueled by rebates.  This has caused Japanese sales numbers to triple since last year.

It seems that in both the US and Japanese market the these cars fit an important niche, but without rebates and incentives, they do not perform as well as conventional vehicles.  Government market manipulation has caused an increase in demand for these vehicles.

I will concede that government (mostly in Japan) investment in tax and rebate programs has increased the sales of these vehicles.  You are correct.