Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
|
FR
The Banking Modernization Act and the CFMA were both Phil Gramm's "Alien" babies that he planted into the belly of the financial system to gestate for a few years before ripping through the gut and screaming its cute little slimy face throughout the entire economy. Of course Clinton signed off on them; Greenspan assured him that the BMA was absolutely the most wonderful thing for the fin. system and Gramm succeeded in having the CFMA nested within another bill within another bill that was one of a multitude of bills in one huge appropriations bill.
Not that I would exculpate Clinton much, being as that he faithfully had a banker guy at Treasury and allowed Rubin and Summers and Greenspan et. al. to bully Berkesly Born (after she came on board as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and stifled her every effort to reign in the cowboys in that rodeo.
But as to those clamoring for more deregulation, all I can ask is; just how much job loss is enough for you? The discussed items have cost 8.5 million jobs, and this morning's paper tells us about 8 more school closings, just in Dekalb county (one of Atlanta's counties), that after previous closings already. That's just one county.
Why don't you give us a number as to how many more jobs and schools you think we can dispense with, so that we can figure from that how much more deregulation to implement. Thanks.
As to the energy matter ...
I hate to break this to people thus far not aware of it, but the world is burning far too much oil as it is, for many reasons. We could have avoided much of what is happening now had the incentives and regulations implemented in the late 70's been sustained. By the early 80's there were several cars getting in the mid 50's MPG range and one or two at 62-64 MPG highway (all with just gasoline or diesel, no hybrids). But then the great dismantling started, in this case designating SUV's as "trucks", with their minimal MPG requirements. The High MPG cars were gone within a few years.
We need more efficiency for what fossil fuels we still want to use, and need to make a serious effort in finding alternatives other than plant-based fuel substitutes. As for nuclear; anywhere one was built, local electric rates skyrocketed, even with many millions in government handouts for the power companies. No thanks.
Unfortunately, higher fuel prices are the only way any of this more efficiency and smarter alternatives are going to happen. As long as the politicians refuse to take away the ridiculous tax incentives to oil companies which have kept fuel prices artificially low for many decades (as Chevron and Exon take turns paying zero US taxes), the higher price needs come about however it can, for sake of making less environmentally destructive means and habits economically competitive.
For a brief bit of good news, RBOB price has come down 10 cents in two days, meaning the at-the-pump increases should abate in about a week.
But for the long term, unless we think that devastating huge stretches of wild lands to extract the gunk from oil sands at $75-90 per bbl production cost (not counting the extra cost to refine the gunk) and pumping more smoke into the air are good things, we need focus more on promoting the technology to further efficiency (which will automatically reduce emissions, no silly cap-and-trade shenanigans which, e.g., gives money to Monsanto for their most expensive weed killer), and look at manufacturing and other processes with more efficient means also.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/8/2011 6:50:36 PM >
|
RE: $4-$5 gallon gas on the way/Gas prices up 28 cents ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread