All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Meandering]

not really, just regurgitating the asinine comments from one of our country's elected

Actually,
Not to be political but,
When races start with many runners, and only a few runners can get to the final race, pandering to the support of those that might not make it to the final race is a smart political move, if, both bases share similar ideologies and thoughts about what the winner of the race should consider the most important issues. Because in the end race, that's what it is all about for the general pop, is those top issues that are most important to them as individuals, and that's who they traditionally support. This is the reason that parties tend to lean closer to ethnic or religious persuasions, because issues that impact those people become some top priorities they want their elected officials to consider first. So the race runners, will lean in toward those issues to gain the support of those people.

.

 

[stripes]

Actually,
Not to be political but,
When races start with many runners, and only a few runners can get to the final race, pandering to the support of those that might not make it to the final race is a smart political move, if, both bases share similar ideologies and thoughts about what the winner of the race should consider the most important issues. Because in the end race, that's what it is all about for the general pop, is those top issues that are most important to them as individuals, and that's who they traditionally support. This is the reason that parties tend to lean closer to ethnic or religious persuasions, because issues that impact those people become some top priorities they want their elected officials to consider first. So the race runners, will lean in toward those issues to gain the support of those people.

.

Sorry, somehow I read a ? there. My fault

 

[stripes]

Income disparity comes from the government and the federal reserve.

Federal reserve policies are implemented through the banking system, which has a multiplier of credit creation through fractional reserve banking.

The government also targets inflation through its tax policies.

Middle-class incomes and below are generated through wages. Any inflation has a negative impact wage earners disproportionately to non-wage earners.

When the FED targets inflation (as they have been since the great depression), bad things happen to wage earners.

• Wages do not keep up

• Asset bubbles build

• Rising asset prices make it appear debt is sustainable

• Wage growth is disproportionate to debt

• Wealth concentration

• By the time bubbles are spotted it is already too late

• Recessions happen

When wages (here) are boosted by COLAs or by other transmissions, manufacturers moved jobs to other countries where wages and inflation are not as high.

When recessions occur (and they will), jobs are lost and asset prices decline. Those are middle-class jobs. The FED has long operated on the assumption that inflation can be adjusted by employment and credit creation. When inflation gets too high, the FED contracts the money supply and credit through targeting interest rates; raising them. When unemployment gets too high, the FED floods the bank system with money and credit by lowering interest rates.

When inflation gets too high, the government raises taxes. When recessions happen, the government lowers taxes. Interestingly, the taxes are the personal income tax rates that are most affected. The tax issues are also blended with social policies.

So who benefits and who loses with credit and money creation?

• Who has first access to credit? Answer: The banks, the political class, and the already wealthy.

• Who benefits the most from inflated asset prices? Answer: The banks, the political class, and the already wealthy.

• Who gets hammered in real terms by rising inflation? Answer: The bottom 10%, then the next 20%, then the lower middle class, then the upper middle class.

What's causing income inequality?

• Fractional Reserve Lending

• Inflation targeting by the Fed

• Moral hazard policies of the Fed that encourage winner-take-all speculation

• Government interference into free markets

The government solution to the income inequality is fairness by redistribution of wealth which is accomplished through the tax code and social spending programs.

We can see that does not work either.

Interesting read ... http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/why...m_from_which_its_almost_impossible_to_escape/

 

[Meandering]

The only thing Langone had right was the year: 1933. It was in that year that President Franklin Roosevelt took office at the height of the Great Depression, inequality peaked to record levels, and fears of revolt circulated among that era’s fat-cat elite. Capitalism, unreined during the 1920s, had hit another of its cyclical failures, this time its worst yet. The powerful feared revolution, and the New Deal constituted a sort of bargain made between capitalists and the people: A bit of socialism to save capitalism from itself.

That year, John Maynard Keynes issued an open letter to the newly inaugurated Roosevelt in the New York Times, whose two opening sentences of the more than 2,500-word manifesto defined the stakes and posed revolution as the price of failure of severely altering capitalism as it was practiced. Keynes was no radical. He urged the new president to work “within the framework of the existing social system,” that is, to reform capitalism without allowing it to be abandoned or abolished.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/why...m_from_which_its_almost_impossible_to_escape/

.

 

[stripes]

The only thing Langone had right was the year: 1933. It was in that year that President Franklin Roosevelt took office at the height of the Great Depression, inequality peaked to record levels, and fears of revolt circulated among that era’s fat-cat elite. Capitalism, unreined during the 1920s, had hit another of its cyclical failures, this time its worst yet. The powerful feared revolution, and the New Deal constituted a sort of bargain made between capitalists and the people: A bit of socialism to save capitalism from itself.

That year, John Maynard Keynes issued an open letter to the newly inaugurated Roosevelt in the New York Times, whose two opening sentences of the more than 2,500-word manifesto defined the stakes and posed revolution as the price of failure of severely altering capitalism as it was practiced. Keynes was no radical. He urged the new president to work “within the framework of the existing social system,” that is, to reform capitalism without allowing it to be abandoned or abolished.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/why...m_from_which_its_almost_impossible_to_escape/

.

Is there an echo in here ...

regarding the article ... bunch of pansies, scared of a revolution. maybe they can hire a bunch of Oath Keepers to keep them safe

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Interesting read ... http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/why...m_from_which_its_almost_impossible_to_escape/

Yeah, this is also interesting reading. How to protect the poor from government.

The EPA authors are careful to reiterate that “its benefits will greatly exceed its costs.” (Sure.) But then they ever so gingerly observe that “it is also important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them.”

In particular, the EPA is concerned about “low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous communities.” The agency orders states “to evaluate the effects of their plans on vulnerable communities and to take the steps necessary to ensure that all communities benefit from the implementation of this rule.” These are the themes of “environmental justice,” the political grievance school that argues for income redistribution to offset the allegedly disproportionate damage to the poor and minorities from pollution.

Regulations that artificially raise energy prices are regressive. By definition the poor—er, low-income community members—spend a larger share of their incomes on fuel and utilities than the well-to-do climate activists of Marin County and Hyde Park.

As energy prices rise, they spill into other basic needs like food, via fertilizer and feed, and housing, via building materials like cement. Everyone ends up with less disposable income and a diminished standard of living, but low-income workers really are worst off.

The EPA thus requires states to set up “financial assistance programs” only for those living near or below the poverty line.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-climate-plan-and-poverty-1439420266

 

[stripes]

Yeah, this is also interesting reading. How to protect the poor from government.

The EPA authors are careful to reiterate that “its benefits will greatly exceed its costs.” (Sure.) But then they ever so gingerly observe that “it is also important to ensure that to the extent there are increases in electricity costs, that those do not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them.”

In particular, the EPA is concerned about “low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous communities.” The agency orders states “to evaluate the effects of their plans on vulnerable communities and to take the steps necessary to ensure that all communities benefit from the implementation of this rule.” These are the themes of “environmental justice,” the political grievance school that argues for income redistribution to offset the allegedly disproportionate damage to the poor and minorities from pollution.

Regulations that artificially raise energy prices are regressive. By definition the poor—er, low-income community members—spend a larger share of their incomes on fuel and utilities than the well-to-do climate activists of Marin County and Hyde Park.

As energy prices rise, they spill into other basic needs like food, via fertilizer and feed, and housing, via building materials like cement. Everyone ends up with less disposable income and a diminished standard of living, but low-income workers really are worst off.

The EPA thus requires states to set up “financial assistance programs” only for those living near or below the poverty line.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-climate-plan-and-poverty-1439420266

i'm sure wsj is concerned with the poor, too bad they won't get the message ... $26/month for wsj

 

[George Hatch]

What I like about alt-energy schemes is that the technology will continue to be advanced and refined by the people who actually care, and the costs to the consumers will continue to come down. Assuming those trends parallel the development curves of other forms of tech, these technologies will eventually win their market share the good old-fashioned way and based on their own merits instead of imperial decree.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

i'm sure wsj is concerned with the poor, too bad they won't get the message ... $26/month for wsj

The poor gets the message when they look at their utility bill. the price of gasoline, the price of food, etc. The WSJ is for you. You won't qualify for a subsidy.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Regulations that artificially raise energy prices are regressive. By definition the poor—er, low-income community members—spend a larger share of their incomes on fuel and utilities than the well-to-do climate activists of Marin County and Hyde Park.


The EPA thus requires states to set up “financial assistance programs” only for those living near or below the poverty line.

That is idiotic on the face of it. "Fracking" has saved more poor people from high utility and gasoline bills than all the subsidies that the government can foist off on the middle class.