The Crimson Cyclone wrote:when the giant Texas sized asteroid is on a path to hit the earth in 100 years my grandkids will be glad we spent money to land on a comet

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:The Galactic Federation are commies, the Ferengi are the true freedom loving capitalists

In November, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2 hour to 41.1 hours,
and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average workweek for
production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents
to $24.66 in November. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1 percent.
In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 4 cents to $20.74. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

“technology responds to need and to price.”

Why does the end-of-oil myth persist? Part of it is that peak oil is more wish than prediction—a desire to see the end of fossil fuels to serve a larger political agenda. It is also a way of scaring governments into pouring money into alternative energy sources that can’t compete with oil and natural gas without subsidies and mandates. Predicting disaster can also be a profitable business and a path to speech-making celebrity.

dajafi wrote:Why not just quote Sean Hannity or Rush and be done with it?

The sole differences between those guys and the putzes you link to from the WSJ are 1) the right-wing hate guys, however despicable they are, have some actual talent (and thus, maybe ironically, more "right" to be really rich); and 2) the WSJ asshat are more likely to know which salad fork to use.

dajafi wrote:You're really comparing Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist (who's been right about pretty much everything in the economy over the last five years… somehow), to the scumbags who run the WSJ editorial page?

At any rate, I actually tried to read the link, but it's subscription only. More generally, there are a lot of people not worth arguing with--basically because they don't do so honestly and in good faith. The WSJ op-ed page contributors are in that boat for me.

Werthless wrote:Higher (pegouvian) taxes on gas (combined with tax cuts on earned, W2 income) probably produces the outcome you're all looking for. And all of this without the government trying to pick winners in the alternative energy business. I support this, even though it will never happen in the current political climate:

Many conservatives don't like it because it's a tax increase, which is why I pointed out that it can be combined with other tax cuts to make it revenue neutral. It also hurts rural drivers most, since there are fewer alternatives to driving when you live outside of a city. Rural people vote GOP, so a tax hurts their supporters. Many liberals don't like it because gas taxes are regressive, and are a higher percent of a poor person's income. More poor people vote Dem, so a tax hurts their supporters. Maybe it's good policy when both Repubs and Dems have a reason to oppose it?


Hey, look, it's a classical economics reference! I'm sure docsmooth will be around shortly to deride it.