Say Anything Blog

I am an Exxon stockholder and I’m not pissed about this. Here’s why:

Exxon defends Raymond’s compensation, pointing out that during the 12 years he ran the company, Exxon became the largest oil company in the world and that the stock price went up 500 percent.

Raymond made a lot of people a lot of money, if the stock price had dropped I’d be pissed but he paid off like a slot machine for me.

It’s true that Exxon made some money.  But isn’t also true that it’s because the price of oil skyrocketed.  I’m not one that buys the conspiricy theories that the oil companies are causing a shortage. 

Therefore I say that he shouldn’t be paid for what he didn’t create. 

 

I want a job like that.

Think of all those tax dollars he will have to pay!

"Raymond made a lot of people a lot of money, if the stock price had dropped I’d be pissed but he paid off like a slot machine for me."

It has for me as well.  Besides, Mr. Raymond’s compensation and retirement package was was written over 12 years ago.  The terms of his retirement were in place during the first (ugh!) Clinton administration. 

I don’t know about you Bat One but I’d be more than happy to treat Raymond to lunch or or a round of drinks. I think Whistler’s problem is not that he’d be mad if he was a stockholder but that he’s mad he wasn’t. He doesn’t exactly seem happy about it now.

 I think Whistler’s problem is not that he’d be mad if he was a stockholder but that he’s mad he wasn’t.

Emphasis added.  

Not completely untrue. 

Bullwinkle,

I would certainly be glad to offer Mr. Raymond dinner and an exceptional bottle of wine (California, of course), but the reality is that anyone who gave the issue a little bit of thought in the aftermath of 9-11 could easily foresee that the price of crude oil was going to go up… and with it the profits of the oil companies.  The election of Hugo Chavez (fully endorsed by the idiotarian Jimmy Carter) only confirmed the judgement.  The damage in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Katrina said hold, rather than sell. 

I don’t know "Whistler" personally, so I’m reluctant to address his motives, but it seems to me that most on the left are resentful when anybody does well economically, particularly when it is done in spite of all those government Pooh-Bah’s telling them not to.  I don’t recall that any of those persons currently braying in favor of a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies or yammering about "government subsidies" were equally voacl about trying to save those same companies when the oil market and low prices nearly drove them out of business.  Raymond earned his money.  By the terms of his employment agreement he’ entitled to it, and I for one hope he lives to a ripe old age, enjoying fully each and every last penny of it.

Bat One.

I think if you’ll visit my other posts and comments you’ll see that I am a very reliable free market guy.  

I’m making my comments as if (sadly not) I were an owner of Exxon.  I think the stockholders paid too much.  If you’ll notice I didn’t claim any need for government intervention in this kind of matter.  I do claim that stockholders should hold the directors more responsible.

 

But then, I also thought that former NYSE Chairman Dick Grasso was entitled to every penny of his retirement package too.

Since when is it morally defensible to void a contract, after the fact, merely because an outside party, one not party to the original contract, decides, ex post facto, that the terms are now too generous?  Phooey!  Contracts are a legal promise.  Period.

The link I had didn’t say anything about how long the retirement package was in place.  Perhaps it was put in place when he was hired.  In that case I’d be furious with the board of directors from ten years ago for designing a bad program.

In the story I linked to it said that  Mr. Raymond made $36 million in the last year.  OK fine, the company had a fine year.  But then he get’s an extra incentive on top of his already generous incentive. 

The Board of Directors is supposed to look out for the interests of the stockholders.  In this case I think they failed to some degree.  

 Now did I ever say they should void his contract?  Did I even say I was upset with Mr. Raymond?  I think the board of directors should be held to account for blowing an extra four hundred mil.

I’m not familiar with the guy from the New York Stock Exchange.  But it seems to me that the head of the stock exchange isn’t responsible for the growth in the equity markets.   

For one I Blame Bill Clinton for a lack of an energy policy and vetoing development of ANWR in 1995.

(A) Why do we need an "energy policy" again?  (Sounds like a good excuse for mercantilist antics and corruption to me.)

(B) While drilling in ANWR is fine, arguing that it would have been a huge factor in our energy consumption doesn’t make much sense.

We don’t have an energy policy except an de facto one which is to rely on foreigners to produce it all.  I think a big part of a program would be getting goverrnment out of the way of production. 

But I’m not saying that there’s no place necessarily for government to help.  

 As far as ANWR; I think the Alaska pipeline would be capable of shipping another 1 million barrels every day.  I think  that’s in the ballpark with the refinery capacity that we lost that caused the price spike after Hurricane Katrina.

 speaking of that....I think we need to get government out of the way of building refineries. 

Since the demand for energy is mostly inelastic I would think that a noticeable increase in production would make a difference in crude oil. 

 

Obscene.

 

 

I told you you should go into the oil business.  Guy like you’d be running the show in short order.

More class envy and jealousy by the lefties.

More class envy and jealousy by the lefties.

 Would I like to have $400 million? Yes

Is anyone worth having a $400 million retirment package.  No.

And certainly not while gas prices are the way they are.

Some may be envious and jealous...but this is just plain stupid. 

Good BatOne, it’s nice to see you supporting all those union contracts out there with good wages and benefits for the airlines and the car manufacturers.  It’s also nice to see you opposing Delphi’s bankruptcy attempt to void its labor contracts with the unions.  After all, "Since when is it morally defensible to void a contract, after the fact, merely because an outside party, one not party to the original contract, decides, ex post facto, that the terms are now too generous?  Phooey!  Contracts are a legal promise.  Period."  Thanks for the support. Really.

"Is anyone worth having a $400 million retirment package.  No."  Who died and made you God?  More class envy and jealousy from the lefties.

Robert 108…

More class envy and jealousy by the lefties.

Surprisenly there hasn’t been much of that around here. 

 

Who died and made you God?  More class envy and jealousy from the lefties.

It’s called common sense.

It’s a $400 dollar HANDOUT. 

We get to pay $3+ so these fools can live like dictators?  It’s a slippery slope my friend. 

If being on the side of common sense makes me a leftist, so be it. 

Free you’re almost making me almost look forward to paying $3/gallon.

Free you’re almost making me almost look forward to paying $3/gallon.

Why? Are you sadistic? 

You can think that if you want buddy.

Free you’re almost making me almost look forward to paying $3/gallon.

You complain about higher taxes and higher wages, but have no problem with higher prices?  Interesting.

I don’t mind paying what the market calls for us to pay.  Right now there is something of a lack of supply.  This is made worse as developing countries like China are increasing their demand for oil 

When the price goes up it puts those less able to pay in the back of the line.  That means I get enough fuel to drive to work, heat my house and take couple of driving trips.  These are all good things.  I’d be happier if I could do this at a lower price but at least I still get choices. 

However I may not be choose to afford the gas tomorrow to go to the In-Laws. 

 My problem with Mr. Raymond getting this huge retirement is that the Board of Directors IMO did not observe their fudiciary duty to protect the owners of Exxon. 

Puzzlefeet,

You’re welcome!  Now then, is Exxon in bankruptcy?  I didn’t think so.  Nor is it likely to be anytime soon.  Nor are any of the union contracts with Exxon in jeopardy of being voided by a judge anytime soon.  At least not that I’m aware.

What I am aware of is the fact that here in the Atlanta area we went thru a situation some 17 years ago, when the dolts of the machinists union under Mr. Wimpsinger and the managerially-challenged chairman of the board, Frank Borman, together managed to drive the venerable Eastern Airlines out of business.

If there were any question of trying to save Exxon from financial oblivian. that would certainly be another matter… for all parties concerned.  But such is not the case at all.  Your comment is thus gratuitous. 

I don’t mind paying what the market calls for us to pay.  Right now there is something of a lack of supply. 

I’m not entirely sure that the current bull market in oil is purely market driven.   I have no evidence via hard economic numbers, it’s just speculation on my part.  But when oil was hoovering at $63, gas had increased 34 cents while the temperature was increasing.

My explaination at the time, and the only thing that still makes sense now, is that the military is stockpiling.  Again, I have not evidence to back up this claim, but it’s a theory. 

We do have a strategic petroleum reserve (that Algore said he invented but didnt’.  However we aren’t putting any more oil in the salt domes than we ever had. 

The problem is that demand is rising when supplies aren’t increasing.

I for one can’t drive any less no matter what the price of gas.  Therefore I have to outbid other consumers.  Fortunately I have more money than most (*all?*) Chinese people so my lifestyle hasn’t suffered. 

It’s that old tired meme that the compensation for the CEO has something to do with the price of gas.  Sorry, lefties, it just doesn’t.  That is just a myth to stir up the old jealousy and envy.

I don’t actually know this but isn’t Exxon the company in the world that’s doing the most to explore for oil?  If that’s the case it could be said that Mr. Raymond did more than anyone to lower the price of gas.

It’s that old tired meme that the compensation for the CEO has something to do with the price of gas.

Ummm, where else would the money come from? The money tree?

The problem is that demand is rising when supplies aren’t increasing.

While *I* understand the need for a better plan.  I’m not so sure that these oil companies could care either way.  They get their money no matter what because gas is an inelastic demand curve.

People who say this can cause a recession are 100% correct because of the fact that people don’t alter their gas consumption, instead they cut back in other areas.  Meaning mostly the electronic toys that have fueled this economy for the last 10-15 years.

It’s all based on the Malthusian "fixed pie" premise. If we could free our energy industry from the stranglehold of the enviro extremists, we would have no supply problems.

Meaning mostly the electronic toys that have fueled this economy for the last 10-15 years.

Isn’t that going to hurt the Chinese economy more than ours?

If we could free our energy industry from the stranglehold of the enviro extremists, we would have no supply problems.

In the long run you’re probably right.  What we’re seeing now is the results of 35 years of enviro-extremism.  However Bill Clinton vetoed ANWR ten years ago.  That oil would be coming in about now right when we need it.  That’s money we’d be shipping to Alaska rather than to the terrorists.  Maybe Alaska could build their own bridges to no-where. 

Isn’t that going to hurt the Chinese economy more than ours?

No.  It will hurt Taiwan and Japan.  I’m talking more of the higher end stuff like computers and IPODS and stuff.  Things that work for more than a week and that aren’t generally at Walmart, for the most part.

"… They get their money no matter what because gas is an inelastic demand curve."

Pleas explain the rationale behind that assertion.  Some authoritative sourcing wouldn’t hurt your case, either.

P.S.  Krugman is NOT authoritative. 

Bat One,

What are you questioning?  Whether or not gas is an Inelastic commodity?

I don’t have time to teach Macroeconomics 201.

If something is Inelastic it means that the price has the least amount of force on demand.  Vs. Elastic goods like computers and TVs that people can live and work without.

Free: The compensation for this guy is such a tiny fraction of total income of Exxon that it has almost no effect whatsoever.  It’s a matter of numbers, but believe what you will.  Recessions are caused by a temporary drop in demand, which is basically about negative people like you downtalking the economy.  All it takes is for the average American to put off big buying decisions for a month or so.  The Dems and the MSM have been trying to cause a recession for 5 years now.  Imagine what our economy would be like if they just told the truth about the economy.  No cheerleading, just the facts. 

The demand for gasoline is less elastic than some other commodities, but it’s nowhere near perfectly elastic.  The only thing I know of with a perfectly inelastic demand curve is air.  Eight minutes and you’re done.  In the seventies, when gas went from 30 cents a gallon to 65 cents a gallon overnight, the freeways in LA were almost empty.  We are not slaves to any one thing, despite your doom and gloom. 

From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute

The demand for gasoline tends to be price inelastic for several reasons. First, gasoline, broadly defined, has very few close substitutes. With fewer alternatives from which to choose, consumers tend to be less price conscious.

Second, gasoline is viewed (subjectively) as a "necessity" by most people. Most people are willing to sacrifice other goods and services in order to spend more of their income on gasoline, at least in the short run.

Third, in the short run, consumers do not have as much time to alter their buying behavior in response to price spikes. That is, in the short run, they do not typically adjust to higher gas prices by purchasing fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles or by riding their bicycles or walking to destinations. These adjustments in buying and lifestyle patterns take time. In the long run, however, consumers adjust by seeking alternatives, and the demand for gasoline becomes more price elastic.

 

I hope Von Mises is a good enough source for you, cause if you call me a leftist for quoting them I will know you are clinically insane.

No, gas is not perfectly inelastic.  Only air and water are. But gas is very close, 98% inelastic I was always taught.

Free: Read your own reference material;  it agrees with everything I wrote.  Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t "clinically insane";  that’s weak.

You apparently don’t understand the difference between "perfectly inelastic" and "relatively inelastic".  "tends to be price inelastic"(which means a large increase in price=a small decrease in quantity demanded)  "consumers tend to be less price conscious".  Nothing absolute there, unlike your assertions.  You are such a victim. "In the long run, however, consumers adjust by seeking alternatives, and the demand for gasoline becomes more price elastic."  That is exactly what is happening now.  We are in a long-term price runup, due to the instability in Iran and artificial shortages created by environmental policy, for the most part.

Von Mises is singular;  he is one man.  "quoting them"   

 

Free: As I pointed out to you, my personal experience with the gas crisis in the seventies proved the elasticity of demand for gas.  The 98% figure is ridiculously wrong.  Once again, though, your terminology is imprecise;  There is demand elasticity, supply elasticity and price elasticity.  They are all different, and operate in different ways.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Robert108,

I wasn’t even addressing you.  I was addressing Bat One. 

 The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is "quoting them."  It’s an organization named after the guy whose long gone.  Get it right.

 My original quote was:

 They get their money no matter what because gas is an inelastic demand curve.

Did I use the qualifier ‘Perfectly," no.  Now quit harassing me.

Take some Macroeconomic courses, if you spend more than a few sessions on Long Run Economics let me know because most of what you cover in 300 level courses is Short Run theory because its more predictable. 

 We are in a long-term price runup, due to the instability in Iran and artificial shortages created by environmental policy, for the most part.

Your joking right?

7 years ago gas was 89 cents.  I never saw "Long Run" described as less than a Full Economic Cycle (from one peak, thru a valley, to the next peak) and that generally is a 12-20 year time frame. 

"I don’t have time to teach Macroeconomics 201 (sic)."

Free,

Please spare me the self-righteous patronizing.  You’re not qualified for the task in any case.

Please take a close look at your own quote, which says that the demand for gasoline "tends" to be inelastic, and later, "… at  least in the short run."  And again in the third paragraph which notes that because, as you so inadroitly point out, gasoline is quite nearly a necessity, it thus takes time for consumers to adjust to price fluctuations, and finally, " In the long run… the demand for gasoline becomes more price elastic."

Reading carefully your own quote, one finds a somewhat different interpretation of consumer behavior with regard to gasoline price fluctuation than that which you first portrayed… one more in keeping with reality.

As for the rest of your little tantrum, I did not call you a leftist over your misreading of the demand curve.  Nor have I suggested that you are "clinically insane" (your perjorative!)  I merely questioned your conclusion.  And rightly so. 

 

Free,

Not to denigrate your academic achievements to date, of which I’m sure you’re very proud,  but perhaps if your posts were a bit more readable, less convoluted and anger-driven, you might not find yourself in situations like this, having frustrated those who could well be inclined to be your allies.

Oh so the debate is "what is the definition of Short Run vs. Long Run?"

Like I stated earlier, I’ve been taught that Short Run is within a single economic cycle.  Conversely, Long Run is a multi-cycle measurement.

The price of gas bottomed out in either the summer of 1999.  This was the greatest summer ever because I had just gotten my license the winter before and I could fill up my car for under $10.

Since then gas has steadily risen.  If I had more time I would look up some charts but I don’t right now because I’ve got enough windows open.  

 

Not to denigrate your academic achievements to date, of which I’m sure you’re very proud,  but perhaps if your posts were a bit more readable, less convoluted and anger-driven, you might not find yourself in situations like this, having frustrated those who could well be inclined to be your allies.

Yeah, I should really quit trying to keep up in here.  I exchange speed of the reply for the development of the thought based on the assumption people will know what I am talking about.

And then I spend to much time trying to counter the ad hominem attacks.

If you want to know my thinking just read my blog which is newly redesigned at FreeRepublicans.com

Bye. 

Free: You wrote: "I hope Von Mises is a good enough source for you, cause if you call me a leftist for quoting them..."(emphasis added).  At least be man enough to admit your mistakes.  There are all sorts of economic cycles;  12-20 years is a generational one.  In terms of gas prices, three months is about long enough for long term adjustments to be made.  I’m talking real world here, not textbooks.  Economics is, above all, a study of human behavior.  Humans adjust rather quickly, in this economic system, to price variations, since they have individual choice. 

In your example, how have you coped with the increase in the price of gas since it was 89 cents a gallon?  Going from what you say you were taught, not nearly enough time has elapsed for you to make any adjustments(elasticity).  In this country, economics is the aggregate of the buying decisions of all the individuals;  it isn’t a system imposed from above.  Quit being such a victim and adapt.  Above all, stop whining to us;  we are not your mommy and daddy! 

Free,

I have access to the same charts and figures… and quite likely a good deal more practical experience as well.

And that’s the point.  Regardless of what definitions are assigned in this 201 Macro class or that post-grad seminar on comparative tax policy, it is highly doubtful that any gas station or convenience store around would be willing to trade a whole semester’s worth of blue books for a tank of gas.

Without the real world, practical application, all this stuff is mostly drivel anyway.  What good does it do now to realize that you could have bought Exxon stock the week after 9-11, sat on it a few years, and made a "killing?"

Quibbling over the relative elasticity of demand or the appropriate time frame for measuring such does nothing to enhance your personal economic condition.

 

There are all sorts of economic cycles;  12-20 years is a generational one.

Thats true.  When I said a "Full Economic Cycle"  I was refering to the Boom-Bust Cycle.

In terms of gas prices, three months is about long enough for long term adjustments to be made.

Yes, we adjust by doing with less of other things.  Why do you thing recessions happen?  It’s not because people quit buying stuff and say.  It’s because so much income goes toward required goods that they can’t spend on things they don’t really need.

 I’m talking real world here, not textbooks.

And I was talking about Economic theory.  Theory that has been derived thru study by people much smarter than you or I could ever hope to be.

Humans adjust rather quickly, in this economic system, to price variations, since they have individual choice.

Nort in Bismarck.  Gas is the same price everywhere.  That’s what happens when 3 families own all the stations.

 In your example, how have you coped with the increase in the price of gas since it was 89 cents a gallon?

Coped? I have to drive to work/school/whatever.  I have no choice.  I’m forced to pay whatever they ask because they control the supply.  If complaining like the rest of the population is coping then that’s how I coped.

 Going from what you say you were taught, not nearly enough time has elapsed for you to make any adjustments(elasticity).

Well, since I had a more consistent income back then I would say no. 

But who outside the super-rich aren’t dramaticly hurt with these prices.

 In this country, economics is the aggregate of the buying decisions of all the individuals;  it isn’t a system imposed from above.

It’s imposed by whoever controls the Supply of what the the indivudual wants/needs.  Thats why its call Supply Side Economics.  Because the Economics are determined at the Supply Side.

 

 Quit being such a victim and adapt.  Above all, stop whining to us;  we are not your mommy and daddy!

Sorry for having an opinion.  You don’t have to bother yourself with what I say anyway. YOU HAD A CHOICE. So quit complaining. 

Free:  You wrote: "It’s imposed by whoever controls the Supply of what the the indivudual wants/needs.  Thats why its call Supply Side Economics.  Because the Economics are determined at the Supply Side."

That’s just wrong.  You can’t seem to get off your victim rant.  I’m not super-rich, and I make discretionary economic decisions all the time.  We all do;  it’s called real life.  I’m not complaining;  I’m pointing out your egregious errors.  Economic theory, btw, doesn’t mean squat unless it reflects something in the real world.  Since you are living in the real world(I hope), this should be of interest to you.

This all started with you blaming this guy’s compensation for raising your gas prices.  That is simply erroneous.  You have tried very hard to maintain that blame someone else attitude, and you have been shot down by us on this blog.  We don’t dislike you;  we just thought you might like to know the truth about the situation.  You have a choice now. 

This all started with you blaming this guy’s compensation for raising your gas prices.

When?

You mean this?

Is anyone worth having a $400 million retirment package.  No.

And certainly not while gas prices are the way they are.

One of us can’t read.  Maybe its me.

 

 Free:  You wrote: "It’s imposed by whoever controls the Supply of what the the indivudual wants/needs.  Thats why its call Supply Side Economics.  Because the Economics are determined at the Supply Side."

Well, I’m not gonna spend time argueing with someone who disputes whether or not Supply Side Economics is a valid theory.  I thought that it was the basis of modern conservatism.  For a group of people that call me a socialist to then turn around and dispute Supplyside, I really have no response for that.

You have tried very hard to maintain that blame someone else attitude, and you have been shot down by us on this blog.  We don’t dislike you;  we just thought you might like to know the truth about the situation.  You have a choice now.

When it comes to gas prices, where I live there are no choices.  In a 10 mile radius every station is within 3 cents of one another.

Thats not a free market.  It may not be active collusion or price fixing; but it’s certainly not demand driven. 

"It’s imposed by whoever controls the Supply of what the the indivudual wants/needs.  Thats why its call Supply Side Economics.  Because the Economics are determined at the Supply Side."

Free,

Your education in economics is roughly equivalent to taking about a year’s worth of karate lessons.  You know just enough to get your ass kicked, quiite unnecessarily, in a bar brawl.

Supply Side economics is the contrapositive of Demand Side, or claasical Keynesian economics, which held that government should regulate economic activity by stimulating demand via federal tax and spending policies.

Supply-siders regard the proper role of government to be the reduction of economic regulation and taxes with the purpose of stimulating economic growth, rather than attempting to micro-manage the economy via federal fiat.

The point isn’t who controls the supply of anything.

"YOU HAD A CHOICE. So quit complaining."

Excellent!! There is hope for you yet.  Now, forget about Samuelson (both of them), and von Mises as well for the moment and go read some of Milton Friedman’s work. 

It is all about choices!  Your choices.  And it will be so for the rest of your life. 

As I get to leave work, I will leave you with this.

Learn to understand when someone is speaking in language aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Quit being so naive to think that because something is true for you that it is the case for everyone.

And learn to have a discussion without directing things at the author.

The world that you live in where people have the choice to decided how to live is a theorectical utopia that does not exist in this world.  It may in the next, but for now realize that your reality is not everyone’s reality.

Finally, if you want to develop better philosophical arguments, drop the "I did it so can you" attitude.  Not everyone’s situation is the same and to suggest that "you know how it is" just makes you look ignorant.

End Rant. 

"Well, I’m not gonna spend time argueing with someone who disputes whether or not Supply Side Economics is a valid theory."

Free,

No one is arging about validity.  Pay attention!  The argument is with your disjointed definition. 

As for gasoline pricing, in your area or any other, the price you pay at the pump isn’t determined by demand.  The price reflects what the retailer has to pay to replace the last gallon of gas he sold.

The question of "elasticity of demand" means how much gets sold relative to changes in price… not the other way around.

Listen up, Kid.  You’ve got two experienced tutors here trying to help get you through your next exam, and you’re arguing about the brand name of the #2 pencils being used.

The point of conservative supply side ecoomics is for everyone to do better… you included.   

Robert 108,

Sigh! 

You’ve got two experienced tutors here trying to help get you through your next exam, and you’re arguing about the brand name of the #2 pencils being used.

Clearly we are speaking 2 different languages.  

We don’t live in a laizze-faire economy.  There is no Free Market so long as government regulations and controls exist.

And to think that corporations and individuals are not actively working around those regulations is foolish and naive.

So to think that the economic conditions are based on a wholely honest representation of supply and demand is equally naive.

Free: You implied a connection.  Are you now denying that?  Supply Side Economics essentially says that helping the supply side of the economy, mainly through tax cuts and deregulation, will stimulate growth, and that is correct.  Your exposition of it was just wrong, like I said.

In the same way that there is no perfect Communist State, there is no perfectly free market.  The difference is that the free enterprise system doesn’t need to be perfect to work very well;  it’s goal is to provide the highest good for the greatest number, not perfection.  Your textbook knowledge, sketchy as it is, just doesn’t track in the real world, and your insistent choice to be a victim is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I am not talking theory, I am talking fact.  With your defeatist attitude, what you experience is understandable.  Garbage in=Garbage out.  Your input determines your outcome.   

Free and Roberto

There is no such thing as a completely free market.  In fact I think that such a perfect market would devolve into something like the law of the jungle.  

Our system as it was set up was just about perfect.  The government was there to enforce order and to enforce contracts.  

We’ve seen in some of the newly liberated communists countries that unless contracts are enforced nobody will invest in that economy.  If they don’t get investment you don’t get growth.

I think this holds up even in China.

TW: In case you are interested, Adam Smith, in proposing the perfect free market, made two requirements, neither of which are achievable:  Perfect knowledge and perfect mobility.  With the internet, we are getting closer to perfect knowledge, but perfect mobility will have to wait.  It does explain the link between our prosperity and personal transportation, though, and the lefties’ animus toward it.  Put us all in trains or busses, and our productivity will decrease.  Food for thought.

… and there is no perfect monopoly either.   Compare this $400,000 to the millions of dollars paid to retiring congressmen and judges.  This money comes from us--  the taxpayers!  Exxon or any other publicly traded company is in the free enterprise arena.  Companies can enter and exit the competition.  The liberal’s primary agenda is to redistribute income from free enterprise and control all trade through their elite view via a communist government.

I think we can have a great if not perfect free market if we cut the governments interference of what we have.

It seems that part of the perfect transportation is unatainable.  If folks in Los Angeles is offering tomatoes really cheap it doesn’t do me much good in North Dakota.

On the other hand if someone in LA is selling Ipods really cheap it does do me some good.  I just have to wait a week to get my gratification.  Ultimately it’s up to the consumer to decide whether or not the wait is worth the price.  

Of course that’s something the libs would love to regulate somehow. 

 

Compare this $400,000(000) to the millions of dollars paid to retiring congressmen and judges.

In that aggregate that might be true.  However most congressmen have to get rich through "hustle".  

 

TW: Actually, perfect mobility refers more to the ability of labor to go where it is most highly valued.  Transportation is only part of that.  The point of all this is that we don’t want perfection, and our system works quite well without it.  Trying to achieve perfection leads to unpleasant consequences, like with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao.  I’ll take our imperfect but mostly free market any day.

Another thought on mobility.

Here in North Dakota we have great workers without great jobs to offer them.  It seems to me that in this day and age many jobs will be able to be offered in a distributed manner.  Small satellite offices or even work at home.  The beauty of this is that excellent individuals will more likely stand out and hopefully can be rewarded that way. 

TW: It is my sincere belief that we will approach perfect knowledge and perfect mobility in an evolutionary manner, without ever getting there.

One would think that the out-sourcing debate is one over perfect mobilitiiy?

Who knew that Adam Smith could predict that far in the future? 

I think telecommuting in general is part of the trend toward perfect mobility.  "Outsourcing"(IMO, a totally politicized term) is certainly part of that.

We’ve been outsourcing (either through imports or importing labor) since World War Two.

Every phase of this has resulted in more hyperbole about how our economy is going to crash because of this.

To date, none of these predictions of gloom and doom have come true.  Certainly individuals have suffered.  But our economy is stronger than ever. 

 

 

Individuals suffer during times of economic change because they insist on being immobile and maintaining a lack of knowledge.

That’s true as far as it goes Robert.  However don’t think that it doesn’t hurt a person.

The important thing to remember is that you can’t stop change. 

Robert108,

Even though I wanted to boycott this thread, you went and quoted Adam Smith.

Now, his Free Market credetials are unquestionable, but even he has been know to say things that can be labeled socialistic.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." 

So what exactly do you think that means Free?

He was describing a monarchist system in England in the mid 18th century.  Nice try, though.  It is not related in any way to the situation in the US in the early 21st century.  Home ownership, even among those in poverty, is at an all-time high.  Cherry-picking out of context.

It may be cherry picking (as all quotes are) but he was describing government in general, in my opinion.

 

Free: More cherry-picking.  I wrote:  "...cherry-picking out of context".  Property ownership in England in the middle of the 18th century is entirely different from the ownership of private property in the US in the early 21st century.  Sorry I had to tell you that.

Full quotes in context are not cherry-picking, btw.  Cherry-picking is just taking the bit that agrees with your agenda and ignoring the rest. 

I don’t think that he could have been describing ours since he didn’t most of his great works prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. 

However our founding fathers did know his works and they probably sought to avoid the faults that Adam Smith found in other forms of government. 

"...cherry-picking out of context".

Overly redundent.  Cherry picking implies that it is out of context.

I don’t think that he could have been describing ours since he didn’t most of his great works prior to the adoption of the US Constitution.

Show me where I said he was describing America? 

I said he was describing "government in general."

You guys sure have fun arguing for argument’s sake. 

Free: He was describing monarchial govt, because that is all there was at the time.  With some people, redundancy is necessary.  You are technically right on that, I concede. 

I’m going declare Victory here and put up a big banner, perhaps on a ship of some sort.

Just so it’s not a Ship of Fools.

I’m going declare Victory here and put up a big banner, perhaps on a ship of some sort.

 The Victory was a big ship.

 

I said he was describing "government in general."

True, but he couldn’t describe the United States form of government because it hadn’t been invented yet. 

robert108:  "Individuals suffer during times of economic change because they insist on being immobile and maintaining a lack of knowledge".   Outstanding !   I remember this problem in public schools.  The students would take any job, just as long as it was in their small town of 1,500!  There were jobs in the next town, which very few took, and many jobs elsewhere in the state.  It wasn’t that they couldn’t afford it, they just didn’t have the courage to move away from their friends, many of which were drug users.  It was easier to stay on welfare.

True, but he couldn’t describe the United States form of government because it hadn’t been invented yet.

Government is Government.  No matter whose running it. 

The basis of MY support for government is that all government is inherently evil.  Your’s maybe different, and maybe that difference is what is causing these misunderstandings.

The basis of MY support for government is that all government is inherently evil.  Your’s maybe different, and maybe that difference is what is causing these misunderstandings.

 

should read:

 

 The basis of MY support for LIMITED government is that all government is inherently evil.  Your’s maybe different, and maybe that difference is what is causing these misunderstandings.

I agree that government can be an evil force.  I don’t think it necessarily is so.

To keep it a servent rather than a evil master good men (and chicks) must work diligently to keep it in it’s place.

At this point there’s some major problems in the system.  We haven’t yet lost the war.

An attitude like yours  (It doesn’t matter) is not going to be a winning one.

Free: I would differ with you about all govt being evil.  Cynical and simplistic.  Govt has different priorities than the citizen in our system, thus the constant tension.  Govt wants/needs to grow ever larger, and the only way it can do that is to take more money from us.  They do that by selling us on our need for them.  Businessmen, on the other hand, want to grow larger and wealthier, and they do that by selling more product and increasing their overall efficiency, which is to the benefit of the consumers.  Fundamentally different, but one isn’t necessarily evil.  Most lefties, btw, believe that business is evil, because they don’t understand the true relationship between capital and labor.

Well Robert, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. 

I don’t understand how you can be against government in the traditional limited government sense if you don’t think it is an "evil" institution.

And when I say evil, I am not using it in a religious sense.  Maybe that’s what has things confused.  When I say "Evil" I’m talking about the inherent immorality of one person, or a group of people such as government, forcing other people do things.

When Jefferson wrote:

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." (1787)

There is an inherent distrust there by one of the founders of our system.  He distrusted the system that he himself had a huge hand in building.

Further, when he said

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." (1819)

When he said this, whose governement was he speaking of? 

I’m guessing we could all agree that the Government usually is immoral.

The United States of America came into being primarily as a statement against the tyranny of the English monarchial govt.

Once again, acting in your own interest is not necessarily "evil".  It is our duty to rein in the politicians, not to ask them for more and more favors paid for by other taxpayers.  That is the real evil: independent individuals choosing to be dependent on govt administered redistribution. 

The real evil is that somehow it’s now ok to use the system.