Trump goes all KGB on EPA

[tipsntails7]

The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be funneled out of industries that produce goods to industries that destroy things, leading to even more costs. According to this line of reasoning, the rebuilding that occurs after war is primarily maintenance costs, meaning that countries would be much better off not fighting at all.

The broken window fallacy also demonstrates the faulty conclusions of the onlookers; by only taking into consideration the man with the broken window and the glazier who must replace it, the crowd forgets about the missing third party (such as the shoe maker). In this sense, the fallacy comes from making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.



Read more: What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I get what your saying but,

True or false? The guy counting paint has a job?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[R_burg]

And your point about manufacturing is null and void, our current trade deficit is $40 Billion...and our current "not included in the workforce" is at a 40 year high, they arent even counted in the employment numbers. Waitresses and bartenders are consumers not producers and since 2014 we have added 574,000 jobs to the waitresses and bartender employment figures.

Trade deficits are a natural occurrence. As an economy has outgrown a production based model (notably cheap production using uneducated labor, such as textiles and the like), it naturally moves those modes of production into economies that can do that production cheaper, because that is more efficient and cheaper for the economy. A labor force necessitating higher education and service based jobs is a natural progression. With it, a higher standard of living arrives as growth occurs but production costs decrease. This is shown clearly in the numbers. PPP and household incomes are a good place to start.

You can fight this progression all you want, but this isnt just some 'United States phenomenon'. This happens around the globe.

IMO if you are truly concerned with the American people, you should be fighting for more education, and not more unskilled labor.

 

[R_burg]

The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be funneled out of industries that produce goods to industries that destroy things, leading to even more costs. According to this line of reasoning, the rebuilding that occurs after war is primarily maintenance costs, meaning that countries would be much better off not fighting at all.

The broken window fallacy also demonstrates the faulty conclusions of the onlookers; by only taking into consideration the man with the broken window and the glazier who must replace it, the crowd forgets about the missing third party (such as the shoe maker). In this sense, the fallacy comes from making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.

Its an argument FOR production. Its fairly basic. Production does not tell the whole story, nor near it, in the United States current economy, circa 2017.

Hell, circa 1987 for that matter.

 

[tipsntails7]

All climate change is is a way for professors and researchers to be published and receive tenure, there are no hard facts of truth and if you look at the history of the planet it has had global temperature swings for millions of years, we just think our tiny speck of time, which really is insignificant to the planets overall life cycle, is going to make a difference and I would love to see cold hard facts that prove this isn't a natural cycle for our planet.

Without a 1000 years of data from emissions we can not even start to develop an understanding of what effect they have. I also do not believe we have many unbiased scientists anymore, everyone has an opinion and belief they want to make sure is followed, ego is not a place for science and basing a theory on 100 years of data is like you deciding if you can retire at 55 based on your savings at age 12..

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/

these are just 2 examples , I could probably fill up the entire rokslide server with citations. and I am sure you will discredit NASA and probably scientific america as biased stooges who want to profit off the downfall of gas and coal.

Dot, I dig most of your posts on here but you sound ridiculous. Its not the fact that the earth is getting warmer, it is the rapidness at which it is happening.

There is a SHIT load of things that you don't need 1000 years worth of data to prove scientific theories, if that was the case we would never use science for anything, smoking would still be "healthy" and everyone would be eating lead paint. People wouldn't need Rad cards when working around radiation and concussion issues would still be unassociated with brain trauma.

I am not even sure that you understand how tenure works or what it is, as a single publication does not warrant tenure. Its EXTREMELY difficult to receive tenure in our current landscape and a couple simple written works about any topic does not guarantee tenure, and in fact several states are pushing to do away with tenure all together.

Show me cold hard facts that this IS a natural cycle for our planet? i wait in anticipation of a hockey stick warming chart debunk.


I agree that not having bias is nearly impossible, but acting like that is a new phenomena is also fool hearty. what makes a good scientist is his ability to work through his bias and maintain integrity within his given project. This is bolstered by peer reviews, blind tests and using multiple source data for a given subject.

Its said that 98% of the scientific community believe in climate change. That includes scientists that have ZERO to gain from it actually being real. so are they just lying to bolster their buddies opportunity at tenure? I think not.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Its said that 98% of the scientific community believe in climate change. That includes scientists that have ZERO to gain from it actually being real. so are they just lying to bolster their buddies opportunity at tenure? I think not.

I get what you're saying but......

didn't the most brilliant scientific minds in the world at one point believe it was square? Infact they warned Columbus before he set out he'd fall off the edge? Alot of what you said in the above post is true... but at the end of the day science is still just calculations and research done by humans who are prone to error and mistakes. Sometimes the facts are indisputable black and white.... but sometimes they're not.

The earth is going to warm regardless. The evolution of a star (much like the one which gives our world light and warmth) dicates that. It's also going to blow up at some point and life as we know it will likely be wiped out... That's not my opinion really, just the harsh life cycle of a star.

 

[tipsntails7]

I get what you're saying but......

didn't the most brilliant scientific minds in the world at one point believe it was square? Infact they warned Columbus before he set out he'd fall off the edge? Alot of what you said in the above post is true... but at the end of the day science is still just calculations and research done by humans who are prone to error and mistakes. Sometimes the facts are indisputable black and white.... but sometimes they're not.

The earth is going to warm regardless. The evolution of a star (much like the one which gives our world light and warmth) dicates that. It's also going to blow up at some point and life as we know it will likely be wiped out... That's not my opinion really, just the harsh life cycle of a star.

No they actually didn't. The world was believed to be round about 2000 years prior to Columbus, contrary to the nifty children's rhyme. Of course there were people who stared science in the face and still believed the earth was flat... sounds strangely familiar doesn't it?

 

[1signguy]

Pretty funny I think, especially since the blackout is suppposed to be lifted within a week. We have a new administration and things will change but doubt we see a change back to the 1800's.

I personally would like to see the removal off emissions systems for diesels that allow for inefficiency in consumption and over use of resources to burned out a canister. It amazes me that the EPA would prefer we used 25% more fuel, useing up more resources that really has hardly any impact on clean air.

Consider for a second that every gallon of fuel you burn carries hefty federal, state and local tax(s) and that the EPA survives off of your donation... well you can see where there might be a slight conflict of interest!

 

[backcountry_hunter]

No they actually didn't. The world was believed to be round about 2000 years prior to Columbus, contrary to the nifty children's rhyme.

Not sure of the rhyme... but long before 2000 years before him people were already debating that it was round. Clearly since you were there you know and can say with absolute certainty that every scientist at the time already knew the earth was round. I'm just going off of what I learned in college.... in science ....my bad

Of course there were people who stared science in the face and still believed the earth was flat... sounds strangely familiar doesn't it?

yes scientists do it all the time.....

 

[1signguy]

Regulation and oversight into your business for environmental reasons, hell any reason, is a job creator.

It might not be creating jobs in YOUR industry, but its creating jobs nonetheless.



Also, your ideas about manufacturing being outsourced to other countries being bad is not backed up by the economics of trade. The United States as a whole is better off by finding the cheapest and most efficient mode of production. This savings raises the Purchasing Power you and I have, which means we are better off as a whole. You would have an argument if unemployment was incredibly high right now, but its not. Even U6 is at reasonable levels.

Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats? LOL
The jobs you say are created do not support themselves. They live off the tax payer and/or industry. They are a parasitic endeavor which does nothing to build the economy. They hurt a companies ability to innovate, penalize success, and lower moral. It is a looser any way you cut it.
As for your argument about outsourcing- you have somewhat of a point. In the short term purchasing power can go up. However, you conveniently leave out the environmental ramifications of outsourcing which is what this post was all about. You also do not account for the longer term economic and social cost (higher crime, higher teenage pregnancy, lower home prices...) resulting from outsourcing. So while outsourcing has some ancillary benefits, the overall ecomomic and social costs far outpace the short term kick.
As for unemployment- we could argue that one all day. Suffice it to say more people are today living or making ends meet off of the system in one form or another as a percentage of the overall population. Thats not healthy! If things were so good wage growth would not be stagnant- which has been the case for far too long.
The purchasing power achieved through outsourcing does nothing for the family who's bread winner lost a job. It does very little for the family who is saving to put their kids in a better school or to help with college but is forced to live in a run down, crime ridden environment because the plant closed. It does nothing for the young couple who has no chance of ever owning a first home because there is no wage growth...
It reminds one of the old saying, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining..."

 

[1signguy]

I get what your saying but,

True or false? The guy counting paint has a job?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He doesn't have a job any more- we outsourced it.

 

[5MilesBack]

The funny thing is the generation before you said the same thing about you.

Really? I've never heard them complain about the education system liberalizing my generation......probably because we didn't have an education system full of liberals pushing their agenda at that time. But nice try.

 

[tipsntails7]

Not sure of the rhyme... but long before 2000 years before him people were already debating that it was round. Clearly since you were there you know and can say with absolute certainty that every scientist at the time already knew the earth was round. I'm just going off of what I learned in college.... in science ....my bad



yes scientists do it all the time.....

i think your getting a lot of shit mixed up, about science and about what you are saying...

if you learned in college that people told Columbus that he would fall off the earth then you should check that colleges accreditation, as it probably doesn't have it and you should get your money back.

There is a lot of written works about Greek mathematicians professing through various measures that the earth was not flat, Its accepted that people thinking the earth was flat in Columbus's era is a misnomer.

several books were published well before Columbus sailed that used Earth being round as a fact not an assertion.

Either way back to the EPA

 

[R_burg]

Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats? LOL
The jobs you say are created do not support themselves. They live off the tax payer and/or industry. They are a parasitic endeavor which does nothing to build the economy. They hurt a companies ability to innovate, penalize success, and lower moral. It is a looser any way you cut it.

As for your argument about outsourcing- you have somewhat of a point. In the short term purchasing power can go up. However, you conveniently leave out the environmental ramifications of outsourcing which is what this post was all about. You also do not account for the longer term economic and social cost (higher crime, higher teenage pregnancy, lower home prices...) resulting from outsourcing. So while outsourcing has some ancillary benefits, the overall ecomomic and social costs far outpace the short term kick.

As for unemployment- we could argue that one all day. Suffice it to say more people are today living or making ends meet off of the system in one form or another as a percentage of the overall population. Thats not healthy! If things were so good wage growth would not be stagnant- which has been the case for far too long.

The purchasing power achieved through outsourcing does nothing for the family who's bread winner lost a job. It does very little for the family who is saving to put their kids in a better school or to help with a college but is forced to live in a run down, crime ridden environment because the plant closed. It does nothing for the young couple who has no chance of ever owning a first home because there is no wage growth...
It reminds one of the old saying, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining..."

Disagreed. Outsourcing is not the issue. Education is the issue. Refusing to fund a new path towards sustainability is the issue. These are policy problems. But, to be honest, a refusal to adapt by the individuals themselves is an issue. The electorate cant play both sides, they cant blame the system and preach personal responsibility and then blame everyone else when jobs leave their town and they refuse to move to where jobs are, or get grants to educate themselves, etc.

In a general sense, you cannot have pro globalization policies (as any liberal OR Neo-conservative does, this a bi-partisan mandate) and refuse to fund education and job programs.

I am a citizen just like you are. My family has been here since the late 1700's, I have just as much skin in the game as you do. I don't have to agree that the best thing for America is to wage policy war against logical and sustainable economic, environmental and social advancement because a portion of my fellow citizens does not want to move, does not want to switch careers, and do not want to further their education. I do not feel that is whats best for America.

Change happens whether we want it to or not.



Regarding your first point... I'm a trained economist, I work in banking, and I understand free markets a lot better than most people. I'm pretty damn pro-capitalism. And even I see the need for regulation. If you think all regulation is inherently evil, we dont have much to discuss on that topic. Which is ok, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

i think your getting a lot of shit mixed up, about science and about what you are saying...

if you learned in college that people told Columbus that he would fall off the earth then you should check that colleges accreditation, as it probably doesn't have it and you should get your money back.

Either way back to the EPA

Well my collegiate career, background, credentials and alma matter speak for themselves... had I not gone I wouldn't be where I'm at now, especially had I not gotten a bachelors of science. Hell I might have needed social welfare.... but as you wish...

EPA = Is retarded. Because of them I have a 78 page muck analysis sitting near my desk that cost about $10K from excavating near a wetland.... once it was analyzed it turned out where we were digging we had pretty pure muck. They came out sampled and were eager to tell us this muck was really pure..... okay so we have this earth shattering news in regards to this wonderful muck, now what are we going to do with this groundbreaking information.... answer = nothing. We still dug and hauled material (within regulation) but it cost the site administrator BIG dollars for something that didn't matter anyway. Justifying jobs was the name of at least that game...

And I'll 2nd the guy complaining about diesel emissions. DEF/UREA is absurd....

 

[gelton]

I get what your saying but,

True or false? The guy counting paint has a job?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. But this is the source of the problems with our economy. His job acts as a maintenance cost and therefore adds no value. The problem is that we are a nation of consumers and spenders not producers and savers. The only way to achieve real growth is through captial - capital are produced goods and savings. Consumerism does not equate to economic growth. Sure he can feed himself but if you look at it from the long term it is a net drag on the economy. It has to be good for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. Long, I know but here is the essence of what non productive jobs do for the economy:

"Suppose there is a very small barter-based economy consisting of only three individuals, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker. If the candlestick maker wants bread or steak, he makes candles and trades. The candlestick maker always wants food, but his demand can only be satisfied if he makes candles, without which he goes hungry. The mere fact that he desires bread and steak is meaningless.

Enter the magic wand of credit, which many now assume can take the place of production. Suppose the butcher has managed to produce an excess amount of steak and has more than he needs on a daily basis. Knowing this, the candlestick maker asks to borrow a steak from the butcher to trade to the baker for bread. For this transaction to take place the butcher must first have produced steaks which he did not consume (savings). He then loans his savings to the candlestick maker, who issues the butcher a note promising to repay his debt in candlesticks.

In this instance, it was the butcher’s production of steak that enabled the candlestick maker to buy bread, which also had to be produced. The fact that the candlestick maker had access to credit did not increase demand or bolster the economy. In fact, by using credit to buy instead of candles, the economy now has fewer candles, and the butcher now has fewer steaks with which to buy bread himself. What has happened is that through savings, the butcher has loaned his purchasing power, created by his production, to the candlestick maker, who used it to buy bread.

Similarly, the candlestick maker could have offered “IOU candlesticks” directly to the baker. Again, the transaction could only be successful if the baker actually baked bread that he did not consume himself and was therefore able to loan his savings to the candlestick maker. Since he loaned his bread to the candlestick maker, he no longer has that bread himself to trade for steak."

Replace credit for jobs "created" by regulatory agencies that are non productive and you can see the long term problem of appreciating jobs created by regulations and bureaucrats. Same goes for the U.S. Government - they produce nothing and only redistribute the wealth they steal from others.

 

[tipsntails7]

Well my collegiate career, background, credentials and alma matter speak for themselves... had I not gone I wouldn't be where I'm at now, especially had I not gotten a bachelors of science. Hell I might have needed social welfare.... but as you wish...

EPA = Is retarded. Because of them I have a 78 page muck analysis sitting near my desk that cost about $10K from excavating near a wetland.... once it was analyzed it turned out where we were digging we had pretty pure muck. They came out sampled and were eager to tell us this muck was really pure..... okay so we have this earth shattering news in regards to this wonderful muck, now what are we going to do with this groundbreaking information.... answer = nothing. We still dug and hauled material (within regulation) but it cost the site administrator BIG dollars for something that didn't matter anyway. Justifying jobs was the name of at least that game...

And I'll 2nd the guy complaining about diesel emissions. DEF/UREA is absurd....

I'm not going to argue with you on the EPA, their overreach has become much to large.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

BINGO! Thar she blows!

Great picture, Gelton.

 

[Murdy]

The constitution guarantees that only Congress shall write and execute laws. When left up to agencies they are regulations which are the ghosts of laws. All of the things posted here regarding Big Oil etc, are hogwash - if it is such a problem, have congress address it and pass the law.

Administrative agencies are created by Congress through enabling legislation (i.e., laws). Congress delegates rulemaking authority to them. It is with the consent of Congress that they make rules (as opposed to statutes), and Congress retains the power to override them. One of the reasons for the rise of agencies is that life today is way more complicated than it was 200 years ago, and there are just more things to regulate. Congress couldn't keep up without agencies. However, it is a fair question to ask how far we should go in delegating such powers.

 

[R_burg]

True. But this is the source of the problems with our economy. His job acts as a maintenance cost and therefore adds no value. The problem is that we are a nation of consumers and spenders not producers and savers. The only way to achieve real growth is through captial - capital are produced goods and savings. Consumerism does not equate to economic growth. Sure he can feed himself but if you look at it from the long term it is a net drag on the economy. It has to be good for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. Long, I know but here is the essence of what non productive jobs do for the economy:

"Suppose there is a very small barter-based economy consisting of only three individuals, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker. If the candlestick maker wants bread or steak, he makes candles and trades. The candlestick maker always wants food, but his demand can only be satisfied if he makes candles, without which he goes hungry. The mere fact that he desires bread and steak is meaningless.

Enter the magic wand of credit, which many now assume can take the place of production. Suppose the butcher has managed to produce an excess amount of steak and has more than he needs on a daily basis. Knowing this, the candlestick maker asks to borrow a steak from the butcher to trade to the baker for bread. For this transaction to take place the butcher must first have produced steaks which he did not consume (savings). He then loans his savings to the candlestick maker, who issues the butcher a note promising to repay his debt in candlesticks.

In this instance, it was the butcher’s production of steak that enabled the candlestick maker to buy bread, which also had to be produced. The fact that the candlestick maker had access to credit did not increase demand or bolster the economy. In fact, by using credit to buy instead of candles, the economy now has fewer candles, and the butcher now has fewer steaks with which to buy bread himself. What has happened is that through savings, the butcher has loaned his purchasing power, created by his production, to the candlestick maker, who used it to buy bread.

Similarly, the candlestick maker could have offered “IOU candlesticks” directly to the baker. Again, the transaction could only be successful if the baker actually baked bread that he did not consume himself and was therefore able to loan his savings to the candlestick maker. Since he loaned his bread to the candlestick maker, he no longer has that bread himself to trade for steak."

Replace credit for jobs "created" by regulatory agencies that are non productive and you can see the long term problem of appreciating jobs created by regulations and bureaucrats. Same goes for the U.S. Government - they produce nothing and only redistribute the wealth they steal from others.

First off, you are defining value purely as production. That is your opinion. We produce plenty, and the idea that manufacturing is dying is false. That we need more manufacturing and less service industries is an opinion. We are LUCKY enough that the US has a strong enough economy and we are a wealthy enough society that we can outsource uneducated labor and rely more on service. This is not a negative thing. And, other than cyclical recessions, we have GDP growth. Even low, sustained GDP growth is growth.

Second off, replace your 10 person economy with a ~325 million person economy in the US. Or the %7.5 billion person economy that sustains the world. These examples are quaint, and make sense in micro economic situations. They do not really pertain to todays world.



Honest question: Do you spend free time reading the Austrian School of Economics?

 

[gelton]

First off, you are defining value purely as production. That is your opinion. We produce plenty, and the idea that manufacturing is dying is false. That we need more manufacturing and less service industries is an opinion. We are LUCKY enough that the US has a strong enough economy and we are a wealthy enough society that we can outsource uneducated labor and rely more on service. This is not a negative thing. And, other than cyclical recessions, we have GDP growth. Even low, sustained GDP growth is growth.

Second off, replace your 10 person economy with a ~325 million person economy in the US. Or the %7.5 billion person economy that sustains the world. These examples are quaint, and make sense in micro economic situations. They do not really pertain to todays world.



Honest question: Do you spend free time reading the Austrian School of Economics?

You nailed me...hardcore Austrian Economics here...I suppose you are of the Keynesian school of thought? The good thing about it, is Trump or not, the Keynesians will be proven wrong when the debt is finally liquidated. Under your line of thinking, should we follow Krugmans advice and prepare for a war with Aliens in order to boost the economy?

Also, how many Keneysians warned of the housing bubble caused by central planning and ultra artificially low interest rates? Plenty of Austrians did.