Obama responsible for bringing $5 per gallon gasoline

it doesn't have increasing EV. it has stagnant EV and i didn't say the population decreased. It was illustrating the millions leaving to find new jobs somewhere else due to those regulations he speaks of. This is highlighted by your numbers. People aren't coming to California like they used to due to the very regulations he mentioned.

A map of everyone leaving smogless LA

Spoiler

 

No you said that the government should drive the price downward and that this result itself was what we should be after because low energy prices are the key to all successful policy. You said that influencing markets to have low energy prices should be a policy goal for presidents

Have you changed your mind? Now you claim that the energy market is a giant regulatory distortion?

 

Except it isn't stagnating - it's growing as fast as the rest of the country. Tons of people are leaving every city and state every year. Just like tons of people are moving to every state. That's weird to use "millions leaving" as evidence of anything. Millions have left Texas over the years too. And millions more came here, just as they do to California.

That's a random unsupported assertion. I'm sure people all decided to leave California because the air got cleaner. Or maybe they the population is growing normally because the state isn't underpopulated anymore. Or did you expect California's population to keep growing forever relative to the rest of the country?

 

EV isn't growing. I think you are trying to say population is, which is true. Its population growth rate though is way way down (this is what i just explained in my previous post).

 

I'm saying it should be government policy to minimize regulatory distortions where they exist.

In the case of fossil fuels, the distortions create an inflated price.

 

Actually in the case of fossil fuels and energy , time and time again have shown that when left unregulated there's a natural tendency to firm monopolies and cartels and engage in wholesale price fixing behavior (OPEC, Enron, Standard Oil etc ad nauseum) that tends to, guess what, raise prices.

So basically even if Evil Tyrant Czar Obama unilaterally suspended the SHerman Act, abolished FERC, etc and all of the other necessary actions you cite, the outcome would be the opposite of your communist cheap energy wet dream.

Of course that's not what you actually said- you didn't say that the market was overly distorted by government, you said the government should make it the "highest priority " to lower the price of oil.

If that's your goal, Comrade Commodore, which it definitely was about 12 hours ago, the means of production should be of no consequence.Nationalization, subsidies, tax breaks whatever - when it's the "highest priority " the ends justify etc...



Here is the tl;Dr version of the above:

you have embarrassed yourself again. Maybe take some bit coins and buy a clue...heh..wait....

 

In other words, people aren't fleeing California due to regulations to clean up the air.

 

Except, apparently, when it comes to free market trade with Cuba. Then you are pro-regulation and pro-market-distortion. You are fine with regulation, so long as it's to pursue your own specific policy objectives. Nothing wrong with that, but you probably shouldn't try to couch it in some type of libertarian ideal. Every time your ideals come up against real world traditional conservative policies, you tend to not support your ideal.

 

yea ok, it's a violation of libertarian principles to oppose bankrolling a communist police state

this is a strange line of attack

you seem obsessed with defining my arguments and beliefs for me and using that to engage in personal attacks

I did say the goal should be to lower the price of energy. You presumed that meant by any means necessary, but that isn't what I wrote, or meant.

I later expounded lower prices should be achieved by minimizing regulatory burdens that raise costs.

I do not favor the corporate welfare actions you accused me of endorsing above.

 

The goal should not be lower costs. The goal should be public health and safety and sustainability for the longer term.
That's where you libertarian robber baron wing nuts always go wrong. You'd **** up the environment for your children so Daddy Warbucks can stash another billion in Antiqua.

 

You defined your own beliefs - you state that lowering the price of oil is a panacea for the US and that it should be "the highest priority" for the PResident of the United states.

So basically you realized your initial statement was something that you didn't actually support, and modified to a more general cliche about regulatory burden, not about moving the price downward

I don't care if you do or you don't. We can either go through the really boring exercise of deeming regulatory intervention you like (cuba embargo!) justified vs. ones you don't like (having to pay for pollution! bad no! Socialism!) but life's too short, and you don't really seem to know enough about it anyway as you obviously didn't think your first statement through.

 

Why? Free market trade bankrolls bad people all the time - it's part of their inherent nature. Terrorists, communists, fascist dictators, etc all benefit from free markets. You want all of those people to be able to buy cheaper oil from us. Why the exception for Cuba?

 

Agreed
I was under the impression a TRUE Free Market was Amoral

Rocket River

 

The propaganda machine:

Fox host: We don’t need smog rules because ‘whatever happened with acid rain?’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...-happened-with-acid-rain-spoiler-laws-worked/

 

Might as well post this here.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/

4 Terrible Things That Were Supposed To Happen By 2015 Because Obama Was Reelected

It’s now 2015, nearly two years after Obama took the oath of office for the second time. A few years ago, prognosticators were very confident about what would happen to America by now because of Obama’s reelection. Let’s check in and see how their predictions turned out:

1. Gas was supposed to cost $5.45 per gallon.

In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.

Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.

Today, the nationwide average for a gallon of gas is $2.24.

A lot of the reasons for the decline in gas prices are well beyond Obama’s control — including weak international demand and OPEC’s failure to reduce supply. But the policies that Lee, Gingrich and others criticized — the failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, more EPA regulation and limiting drilling on public land — have not gotten in the way of historically low prices.

2. Unemployment was supposed to be stuck at over 8%

In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year.

What would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency? Romney pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017.

The unemployment rate currently stands at 5.8% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created nearly 5 million new jobs.

3. The stock market was supposed to crash

Immediately after Obama won reelection in November 2012, many commenters predicted that the stock market was toast.
Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”

On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”

The Dow Jones Industrial Average currently stands at 17,823 and is up over 35% since Obama was reelected.

4. The entire U.S. economy was supposed to collapse

Rush Limbaugh predicted that “the country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected.” Limbaugh was confident in his prediction: “There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut wrenching, but it will happen.”

The economic freefall would begin, according to Limbaugh, because “California is going to declare bankruptcy” and Obama would force states like Texas to “bail them out.” California currently has a $4 billion budget surplus.

Limbaugh added, “I know mathematics, and I know economics. I know history. I know socialism, statism, Marxism, I know where it goes. I know what happens at the end of it.”

He did fudge, however, on the exact timing of the economic apocolypse. Limbaugh said it could take “a year and a half, two years, three years.” It’s been two years and two months since Limbaugh’s prediction, so he still technically has another 10 months to be proven right.

The U.S. economy grew at a robust 5% in the 3rd quarter of 2014, following 4.6% growth in the second quarter.

Although these dire economic predictions have proven false, it doesn’t mean there aren’t real, persistent problems with the U.S. economy. Most critically, wage growth for American workers remains stagnant. That’s why, although many economic indicators are strong, a lot of Americans aren’t yet feeling the impact.

 

Exactly. As I said in a previous post, anyone that thinks like him should walk around in Beijing. I was there for a week this year and went to a pretty remote section of the Great Wall about and hour and half away and there was STILL smog. It's crazy to think those people live In that every single day of there lives. Poor people

 

Pollution from coal is a clear and present danger. We saw last year as 300,000 people's drinking water became contaminated from coal related chemicals. The amount of open pit mining, mountain destruction and escaped coal sludge is enough toake me wonder where the heart of some people lies.

Fracking would be remembered as the savior that pulled the world out of the coal pit. However, you will start to see the likes of Alec Baldwins and Obamas champion the questionable practice of clean coal. Fracking has already built a tremendous following in the U.S.

It has lowered oil prices, rebuilt dilapidated regional economies and the blue collar jobs it has created have ushered in a well needed correction in America. It has essentially brought moderate economic and political discourse back to the US. China could benefit from this new technology.

 

WTF?

 

Really? Obama has been promoting carbon capture as part of his plan to permit more toxic coal fire power plants. Carbon capture is really just a pipe dream - its a veil for a new tax.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/obama-clean-coal/

Fortunately he has been a big supporter of natural gas, and I expect the president to show his support for increased oil exports if it means an increase in natural gas production. He may do this during his state of the union address - in front of the newly elected congress.

 

Obama has spent more than $1 billion on carbon-capture projects tied to oil fields and has pledged billions more for clean coal.

Really? out of his own pocket? because The House initiates spending.
That talking turtle in the Senate told me Obama was waging a war against coal.