Thermodynamic analysis reveals large overlooked role of oil and other energy sources in the economy

December 31, 2014 by Lisa Zyga feature
A newer model of economic growth includes not only capital and labor, but also energy and creativity as production factors. Energy is placed on equal footing as capital and labor. Credit: R. Kümmel. The Second Law of Economics: Energy, Entropy, and the Origins of Wealth

(Phys.org)—The laws of thermodynamics are best known for dealing with energy in the context of physics, but a new study suggests the same concepts could help improve economic growth models by accounting for energy in the economic sphere.

In neoclassical growth models, there are two main contributing factors to : labor and capital. However, these models are far from perfect, accounting for less than half of actual economic growth. The rest of the growth is accounted for by the Solow residual, which is thought to be attributed to the difficult-to-quantify factor of "technological progress."

Although neoclassical growth models help economists understand economic growth, the fact that they leave so much economic growth unexplained is a little unsettling. Even Robert A. Solow, the founder of neoclassical growth theory, stated that the neoclassical model "is a theory of growth that leaves the main factor in economic growth unexplained."

Energy, a powerful factor of production

In a new study published in the New Journal of Physics, Professor Reiner Kümmel at the University of Würzburg and Dr. Dietmar Lindenberger at the University of Cologne argue that the missing ingredient represented by the Solow residual consists primarily of energy. They show that, for thermodynamic reasons, energy should be taken into account as a third production factor, on an equal footing with the traditional factors capital and labor.

(By definition, labor represents the number of work hours per year. Capital refers to the capital stock that is listed in the national accounts, which consists of all energy-converting devices, information processors, and the buildings and installations necessary for their protection and operation. Energy includes fossil and nuclear fuels, as well as .)

The new proposal lies in stark contrast to neoclassical growth models, in which the production factors have very different economic weights, representing their productive powers. In neoclassical growth models, these economic weights or "output elasticities" are set equal to each production factor's cost share: Labor's cost share is 70%, capital's is 25%, and energy's is just 5%.

In their analysis, the researchers found that, unlike in neoclassical models, the economic weights of energy and labor are not equal to their cost shares. While the economic weight of energy is much larger than its cost share, that of labor is much smaller. This means that energy has a much higher productive power than labor, which is mainly because energy is relatively cheap while labor is expensive.

(Left) Economic growth and (right) contributions of the three main production factors to economic growth in Germany in the late 20th century. Credit: R. Kümmel. The Second Law of Economics: Energy, Entropy, and the Origins of Wealth

Real-world implications

To test their model on reality, Kümmel and Lindenberger applied it to reproduce the economic growth of Germany, Japan, and the US from the 1960s to 2000, paying particular attention to the two oil crises. In neoclassical models, reductions of energy inputs by 7%, as observed during the first energy crisis in 1973-1975, should have caused total economic output reductions of only 0.35%, whereas observed reductions were up to an order of magnitude larger. By using the larger weight of energy, the new model can explain a much larger portion of the total output reductions during this time.

If correct, their findings have major implications. First, the new model doesn't require the Solow residual at all; this residual disappears from the graphs that show the empirical and the theoretical growth curves. Energy, along with the addition of a smaller "human creativity" factor, accounts for all of the growth that neoclassical models attribute to technological progress.

Second, and somewhat unsettling, is the impact that the findings may have in the real world. In 2012, the International Monetary Fund stated in its World Economic Outlook that "…if the contribution of to output proved to be much larger than its cost share, the effects could be dramatic, suggesting a need for urgent policy action."

According to the authors' analysis, the high productive power of cheap energy and the low productive power of expensive labor has implications that we can easily observe. On one hand, the average citizens of highly industrialized countries enjoy a material wealth that is unprecedented in history. On the other hand, cheap, powerful energy-capital combinations are increasingly replacing expensive, weak labor in the course of increasing automation. This combination kills jobs for the less skilled part of the labor force. It is also why far fewer people work in agriculture and manufacturing today than in the past, and more people work in the service sector—although even here, computers and software are replacing labor or causing job outsourcing to low-wage countries. This well-known trend can be understood by the new model's message that energy is cheaper and more powerful than labor.

Where is equilibrium?

At the heart of Kümmel and Lindenberger's model is the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium. As the researchers explain, economies are supposed to operate in an equilibrium where an objective, such as profit or overall welfare, has a maximum. To maximize these objectives, neoclassical economics assumes that there are no constraints on the combinations of capital, labor, and energy. With no constraints, economic equilibrium is characterized by the equality of output elasticities and cost shares, which is one of the assumptions of neoclassical growth models as described above.

In their new model, Kümmel and Lindenberger apply the same optimization principles, but also take into account technological constraints on production factor combinations. In reality, a production system cannot operate at more than full capacity, and its degree of automation at a given time is limited by the quantities of energy-conversion devices and information processors that the system can accommodate at that time. Further, legal and social obligations may place "soft" constraints on the production factors, particularly labor.

In the new model, these technological constraints on the production factors prevent modern industrial economies from reaching the neoclassical equilibrium where the output elasticities of capital, labor and energy are equal to these factors´ cost shares. Rather, the equilibrium of real-life economies, which are limited by technological constraints, is far from the neoclassical equilibrium.

While the model provides a new perspective of economic growth, the ultimate question still remains: what kinds of strategies will stimulate economic growth and reduce unemployment and emissions? Whatever the answer, the results here suggest that it must account for the pivotal role of energy in economic production.

"Within the present legal framework of the market, one needs economic growth to ban the specter of unemployment," the researchers explain. "Energy-driven economic growth, in turn, may lead to increasing environmental perturbations, because, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics, nothing happens in the world without conversion and entropy production. And entropy production is associated with the emissions of heat and particles, notably carbon dioxide as long the world uses fossil fuels at the present rate."

Kümmel is also the author of a book on the subject called The Second Law of Economics: Energy, Entropy, and the Origins of Wealth.

Explore further: Polluting China for the sake of economic growth

More information: Reiner Kümmel and Dietmar Lindenberger. "How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics." New Journal of Physics. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008

Related Stories

Polluting China for the sake of economic growth

April 27, 2012

China's economic growth will continue to be energy-intensive and highly polluting for the foreseeable future with emissions and efficiency far below capital growth on the agenda, according to a study published in the International ...

China has less than decade to remake economy: US

December 14, 2011

China has less than a decade to overhaul its economy and safeguard long-term growth that goes beyond a boom based on cheap labor, a top US Treasury official warned Wednesday.

A global natural gas boom alone won't slow climate change

October 15, 2014

A new analysis of global energy use, economics and the climate shows that without new climate policies, expanding the current bounty of inexpensive natural gas alone would not slow the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions ...

New tool predicts economic impacts of natural gas stations

September 25, 2014

(Phys.org) —Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory announced a new tool today for analyzing the economic impacts of building new compressed natural gas fueling stations. Called JOBS NG, ...

Recommended for you

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

150 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2.9 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2014
Wow what a novel idea, linking energy to production and economics is a breakthrough. Who would have thought that fossil fuels play a role in our well being?
standfast18
4.7 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Question: Wouldn't Raw materials in general also be an important factor in the economic model equation?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2014
MR166,

Everyone with a brain understands how important oil is to our economy.

So what are good ways to keep the price of oil low? Well we can either increase production, which only exacerbates the problems oil is already causing ecologically, and economically in producer economies that have not diversified energy production.

Or we can simply reduce demand by investing in energies that are independent of fossil fuels.

I think diversifying the energy sector globally and reducing the demand for oil is probably the prudent move considering how it's a finite resource. Easier to do it now than later.
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Wow what a novel idea, linking energy to production and economics is a breakthrough. Who would have thought that fossil fuels play a role in our well being?

Sarcasm duly noted...:-)
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
While the model provides a new perspective of economic growth, the ultimate question still remains: what kinds of strategies will stimulate economic growth and reduce unemployment and emissions?

Finally applying science to "capitalism", good. It has worked well for 85 humans, "who now own more than half the world's entire population (3.6 billion people)." For a more proper perspective upon which to apply thermodynamics, please see the article "Zombie Apocalypse and the Politics of Artificial Scarcity"
teslaberry
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
there is nothing more obfuscating of science than economics.

economics is behavioral theory at the macro social level. introducing physics and such is just more obfuscation.

while it is MORE than obvious to the casual historian that the primary demarcating lines of progressive civilizations are the technologies(energy) they deploy into full scale industries

(for example, salt, spices, and preservatives---or progressive fabrics, ---or progressive energy systems from wood, charcoal , pete, coal , oil , progressive natural gasses methane propane....)

it is still a completely ridiculous thing to say there is anything scientific about the observational process of changing civilizations because ultimatley the only endogenous actors in the system are human beings ( meaning ALL the uncertainty and thus driving forces of change) . the social/governmental/nongovernmental will to create new technology, or deploy existing petroleum resources have nothing to do with science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Everyone with a brain understands how important oil is to our economy.

Not the socialist AGWites or the socialist 'greens'.

the social/governmental/nongovernmental will to create new technology, or deploy existing petroleum resources have nothing to do with science


Why not? Are scientists afraid of studying efficiency?
Efficient use of energy in any economy from humans to nature, is fundamental to life and success (survival and growth).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
we can simply reduce demand by investing in energies that are independent of fossil fuels.

The key that socialists refuse to address is the 'we'.
If the 'we' is govt using wealth plundered from the hard working masses, then that objective fails.
If the 'we' is a bottom up, emergent approach with the govt protecting property rights, then there may be success.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
economics is behavioral theory at the macro social level.

No, it's not.
You may want to to be, but it's not.

Ultimately the fundamental unit of exchange in an economy is energy.
If money represented a unit of energy, there would be incentive to increase the value of that money by making that energy be more efficient in production and in use.
But there would be howls from the socialists as govts could control the money and they would assert it was deflationary.
One Joule today would be worth more in the future as that Joule could create more value due to efficiency.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2014
Ryggesogn.

I'll gladly pay more taxes if it goes to investments, lord knows people with money won't do it. But you didn't address any of my points, you're just trying to discredit anything I say by labeling me a socialist, which I'm not.

That's simple supply demand economics, not very socialist of me to be touting.
The government is just a tool, it's been around for thousands of years for a reason, it must have a purpose. Could part of that purpose be to build up the collective future of its constituents?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
"All life on earth is developed, sustained, and powered by energy from the sun. And that is the beginning of the story of how man has harnessed energy to improve his level of living."
"Humans require a converter to change the sun's energy into usable forms. All human food comes directly or indirectly from plants which make direct use of the sun's energy in their growth. Plants are not, however, very efficient in doing this because about 10,000 units of the sun's energy are required to produce and store ten units of energy in the grown plant.1"
http://fee.org/fr...s-energy
This is from the Foundation for Economic Education written in 1956.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
I'll gladly pay more taxes if it goes to investments,

What is an 'investment'?
Would you take YOUR money and give it to an entrepreneur as an investment?
Why do you prefer to have your wealth plundered with force?
The government is just a tool,

The govt is a blunt club of violence.

people with money won't do it.

Yes, they are. Businesses and people all over the world are always looking for ways to lower their costs and raise their profit.
Billions of people are more likely to quickly find better ways than a few bureaucrats wasting the plundered wealth of others.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
people with money won't do it.


People without money will do it, too. JD Rockefeller found a better and more efficient way to produce quality kerosene people wanted to light their homes so they could stay up longer, and read.
Rockefeller earned millions for improving the lives of others and increasing their productivity, first with kerosene and then with gasoline.
Thomas Edison earned millions for improving the lives of others and increasing their productivity.
Bill Gates and many others earned millions for improving the lives of others and increasing their productivity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Could part of that purpose be to build up the collective future of its constituents?

No.
Govts want more people to be dependent upon the state.
Eventually the state runs out of wealth to plunder (other people's money) and the state collapses.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
The other part, value.
"One might argue that we should make engines as technologically efficient as possible since, even if we did, there would still be enough heat generated to warm a car. But this ignores the subjective value people place on lots of things that must be sacrificed to increase technical efficiency. Sure, new engines might convert more of the energy in gasoline into motion, but doing so would require diverting resources away from producing other things of value. Long before technical efficiency was maximized, the marginal cost of improving that efficiency would exceed the marginal value. This would reduce economic efficiency because it requires sacrificing more value (marginal cost) than is realized (marginal value)."
http://fee.org/fr...ficiency
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
This makes the socialist scientists uncomfortable it seems:
"People often argue that wide-ranging government restrictions on our freedom are necessary to promote efficiency. But economic efficiency is impossible without freedom because it is not the narrow concept many accuse it of being. It is about increasing value as determined by the diverse and subjective preferences of hundreds of millions of individuals. The only way people can effectively communicate information about their values to those best able to respond is through the freedom to engage in market transactions for whatever and with whomever they choose. "
http://fee.org/fr...ficiency
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
"For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it. –Adrian Bejan and S. Lorente, "The Constructal Law and the Thermodynamics of Flow Systems with Configuration""
"Constructal theory sounds highfalutin, but the idea is this: Systems survive when things flow better—all kinds of systems, from natural systems to human systems—and when things flow better, we start to notice patterns in nature that are products of good flow."
"Third, free market economics has a whole new functional justification rooted in the nature of the universe. "
"Interventionists constrict, distort, or destroy economic flow systems which develop from the bottom up according to the constructal law."
http://fee.org/bl...ow-about
gkam
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2014
Energy is the only true wealth in the Universe.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
What is an 'investment'?
Would you take YOUR money and give it to an entrepreneur as an investment?
Why do you prefer to have your wealth plundered with force?

In that context, "the investment", is in developing new energy technologies. That could include battery technologies, solar cells, more efficient power infrastructure, novel new sources, and even fusion.
Much of that is conducted through government grants to universities.
Yes, I actually do have some money in stocks in bonds, i do invest my money.
It's not actually "my" money, nobody accepts "Steve dollars", they accept US dollars because it has the backing of our strong government.
The govt is a blunt club of violence

A government is only as good as the people operating it, if you join the government believing it is inherently impossible to work, how do you improve it?
Also, companies usually only invest in things that have a forecast-able profit, there are exceptions, but that's not the general culture.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
I find it ironic that Kummel and Lindenburger put so much energy into reinventing the Immemorial Wheel, acting hand in glove to reinforce the rule of The Man.

I'll allow that they possibly acted thus without the actual intent to "collaborate" with the forces of Tyranny and Oppression, but in the end --the result is the same.

What their myopia or possible boosterism failed to make evident to them is the raw fact that it is, was, and always will be Labor that is the real energy driving the machinery. Labor is the organizing, anti-entropic force that creates value out of raw materials(including energy produced derived from any fuel).

This is the stark fact that all classic economic models have so successfully obscured. And this fact has been obscured for a single reason:

It has served --and continues to serve-- the interests of the sociopathic Elites of the
whole world for uncounted millenia.

Happy New Year.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Anyway.. Happy New Year, all...
MR166
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
"Energy is the only true wealth in the Universe."

Gkam I just gave you another "5"! Low cost energy is the key to prosperity and a higher standard of living for the world. You know what, my new year is now hopeful knowing that you understand that.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
A government is only as good as the people operating it,

There were (or are) no 'good' people in NAZI Germany or DDR or USSR or DPRK or.....?
how do you improve it?

Understand what govt IS. Govt is pure violence/force. Then understand the limits of that violence.
So many like The Lord of the Rings yet fail to acknowledge the theme, there can be no 'one ring' no 'one govt' to rule them all as it ALWAYS leads to evil.
hat could include battery technologies, solar cells

Like the plundered wealth squandered by Solyndra and other crony rent seekers?
the backing of our strong government.

That is relative.
The only real backing the US has is its apparent rule of law. When the rest of the world understands that the US 'rule of law' is no better than any other tin pot dictator's 'rule of law', the dollar collapses.
PsycheOne
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Seems like the study is not attempting to make a political point. It is simply stating that classical economic theory has been missing a vital part and proposing that the missing part is energy. This is not about socialism versus capitalism or haves vs have nots. It's a theory.

The only question is whether it works or not. That is, does it have predictive power? If it does, then it will inevitably change the way rational people think and may help improve our ability to generate well being.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
"The only real backing the US has is its apparent rule of law. When the rest of the world understands that the US 'rule of law' is no better than any other tin pot dictator's 'rule of law', the dollar collapses."

Wow Rygg, that is really insightful! Kudos to you.
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2014
" You know what, my new year is now hopeful . . . "
---------------------
I've been in the energy field most of my life. Worked with energy levels from microvolts to Megavolts, DC to MHz, from signal to brute force power. I do not know why you are arguing with me.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
" I do not know why you are arguing with me." I was not being sarcastic at all. I agree that energy is the source of wealth.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
There were (or are) no 'good' people in NAZI Germany or DDR or USSR or DPRK or.....?

They all think they are doing the right thing at the time, but most nazi's weren't particularly good people.
Look up the Stanly milgram experiment, a famous psychological study on obedience to authority.

Understand what govt IS. Govt is pure violence/force. Then understand the limits of that violence.

My mom works for the parks and recreation department, she seems like a nice enough lady.

Like the plundered wealth squandered by Solyndra and other crony rent seekers?

They went bankrupt because the price of silicon dropped and they weren't able to compete with silicon based manufactures.
But your right, nobody dodges taxes but liberals.

If you're worried about the dollar collapsing, rest assured, investors the banks still have perfect confidence in the US economy, people are happy to buy our debt because they believe in our country and our ability to pay it off someday.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
They all think they are doing the right thing at the time,

How does that support your assertion that good people equals good govt?
They went bankrupt because the price of silicon dropped and they weren't able to compete with silicon based manufactures.

Why didn't the 'all knowing' govt know this?
because they believe

And when they stop believing?
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
teslaberry
not rated yet Dec 31, 2014
economics is behavioral theory at the macro social level.

No, it's not.
You may want to to be, but it's not.

yes---IT IS> and that is why i said this is pseudo science. the will of human beings , aggregated into social systems known as societieis and governments is NOT a science .

it is a complex system being studied by itself.

there is no science of this system. science requires experimental controls to test hypothesis. there is a confounding factor in the system of human beings we call WILL. the desire and action of a human being(S) is what results in our world. progressive forms of energy are simply exogenous outputs to be incorporated.

marx himself put it in more simple terms but he focussed far too much on the term 'labor'. it isn't 'labor'. it is WILL POWER.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
This is not about socialism versus capitalism or haves vs have nots.

Quite. It's no more complex an issue than one species, one planet. Energy is abundant in many forms, and life thrives in the turbulence between extremes. That presents humanity with the greatest challenges – to survive and adapt to the dynamics, breaking the second law of thermodynamics whenever beneficial. To think that we can overcome 'the elements' while competing against each other is the path to nowhere but continued self destruction of our planet and ourselves. There's more than enough to go around and competition (a form of violence) serves only to perpetuate the wasteful and corrupt, ill-conceived, pseudoscientific monetarism. Monetarism is a religion, plain and simple. No need for it, really, because we're more intelligent than that, more imaginative. Intelligence and imagination (science) has been and will always be the real engine of prosperity.

Wishing all a scientific new year :)
gkam
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
"Hooray!! Let's fuck the cold fusion for another decade, because it doesn't fit our theories and money making paradigms.."
-----------------------------------

Got proof?

Proof of cold fusion?

I don't want somebody's report on himself, I want an independent lab to test it. None have shown anything.

gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
"But your right, nobody dodges taxes but liberals."
-------------------------------------

I guess you forgot Leona Helmsley, who defined conservative taxes.

And the word is "you're".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
. Monetarism is a religion, plain and simple.

How do you propose billions of individuals express their values?

there is no science of this system. science requires experimental controls to test hypothesis.

Then climate 'science' has no science as there is no way to control the climate to test hypotheses.
The same applies to human nutrition research. Unless one wants to use 'good govt' to experiment on people?
the desire and action of a human being(S) is what results in our world.

But those actions and will must follow natural laws.

Ever hear of praxeology?

http://mises.org/...on_3.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
"Between Mises's earliest writings on this subject and this book, two movements had taken hold: "scientific" planning in public policy, and positivism in the social sciences. Mises here battles both, first by showing how the two are related, and, second, by demolishing the basis of both. He shows that humans cannot be studied in the same way that we study the physical world. We are dealing with volitional beings whose choices make controlled experiments completely impossible."
"And yet does that imply that a kind of chaos exists in economic theory, that we must throw up our hands and do nothing observe that all is in flux? Not at all, says Mises. There is a logical structure of the human mind that manifests itself in economic reality through strict laws of cause and effect. To understand economics is to see these laws as universal and inviolable."
http://mises.org/...-science
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
"Whatever philosophers may say about causality, the fact remains that no action could be performed by men not guided by it. Neither can we imagine a mind not aware of the nexus of cause and effect. In this sense we may speak of causality as a category or an a priori of thinking and acting."
"This proposition cuts through the nonsense of Marxism (which postulated without evidence the existence of historical laws), Keynesianism (the economic laws of which were arbitrary), and positivism (which erred in importing methods from an unrelated field of study). "
{Sounds like many here:}
"The outstanding fact about the contemporary ideological situation is that the most popular political doctrines aim at totalitarianism, the thorough abolition of the individual's freedom to choose and to act. No less remarkable is the fact that the most bigoted advocates of such a system of conformity call themselves scientists, logicians, and philosophers."
"The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science"
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
Those who deny that any science process can be applied to human action are likely those who support totalitarianism.
They may not necessarily support totalitarian statism because they are evil so why do so many here advocate totalitarian solutions?
They say 'we' should invest in ... to save the planet or 'we' must .... to save humanity or... 'we'...
But do 'they' ever consider the implications of how the 'we' must implement their remedy to 'save.....'?
And when such questions of human actions are addressed in a disciplined way, some say such discipline is impossible to apply.
I can support the idea that science can't be applied to emergent systems because it is impossible to create the experiment and controls. So this shows the limits of science as a heuristic.
But other heuristics can be applied, and have been by humans for thousands of years.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
"The only real backing the US has is its apparent rule of law. When the rest of the world understands that the US 'rule of law' is no better than any other tin pot dictator's 'rule of law', the dollar collapses."

Wow Rygg, that is really insightful! Kudos to you.

Sarcasm noted....
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2014
Gyre there was no sarcasm there at all. That is exactly what gives paper money value.
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2014
They may not necessarily support totalitarian statism because they are evil so why do so many here advocate totalitarian solutions?

It is not statism to protect property rights. Polluting my property with hydrocarbons violates my property rights. The combusted byproducts of hydrocarbons are still the property of the person who purchased them, and they are responsible for these products. If the purchaser is not able to control the distribution of their chemicals onto my property, they should be held accountable for their actions.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
"The combusted byproducts of hydrocarbons are still the property of the person who purchased them, and they are responsible for these products."

What BS that is. Like it or not fossil fuels are at the very root of modern civilization. Perhaps we should all heat our homes with wood. Yea, that will not create any pollution. Our cities would soon die from starvation without hydrocarbons. Extreme poverty would be the norm for the masses.
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
"The combusted byproducts of hydrocarbons are still the property of the person who purchased them, and they are responsible for these products."

What BS that is. Like it or not fossil fuels are at the very root of modern civilization. Perhaps we should all heat our homes with wood. Yea, that will not create any pollution. Our cities would soon die from starvation without hydrocarbons. Extreme poverty would be the norm for the masses.

That still doesn't excuse violating my rights. Either find a more carbon neutral form of energy, they do exist, or provide recompense for your actions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Not the socialist AGWites or the socialist 'greens'.
@rygtardTROLL
personal conjecture based upon delusional beliefs and conspiracy theory
i thought you might actually give a decent argument or be rational but we get stupidity like
What is an 'investment'?
Would you take YOUR money blah blah blah...
did you not understand what he said?

I am just going to downvote/report you for TROLLING
you aren't adding anything to the argument except stupidity and the claims that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is socialist when you actually are trying to say and denigrate "Communist"
we already got that
we know what you will say
make a cogent argument and quit being a moron
Hooray!! Let's fuck the cold fusion for another decade
@ZEPHIR
too much alcohol already?

IF there was legit science and not HOAXES, don't you think people would pour money into it?

idiot TROLL

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EarthlingX
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2015
I thought it was all about energy. I think that all of those parameters, labour, information, capital etc could be expressed in energy, and that should make calculations a bit easier.

I assume that value of any product is based on it's intrinsic, basic value, which would be quantified in energy, and marketing variation, based on offer/demand criteria.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
I thought it was all about energy. I think that all of those parameters, labour, information, capital etc could be expressed in energy, and that should make calculations a bit easier.

I assume that value of any product is based on it's intrinsic, basic value, which would be quantified in energy, and marketing variation, based on offer/demand criteria.


@EX,

Protoplasmix, in an earlier comment, offered this link:

http://truth-out....carcity,

Which may enable you to adjust your understanding of the banal "intrinsic value" term, which enfolds a host of deeply and dangerously flawed assumptions.
richard_f_cronin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2015
Especially since ALL the "Global Warming" we are experiencing is natural geothermal processes, the only question we need to ask is: "Are we our brother's keeper ?" If not, let's just shove billions of people in developing nations (India and Africa) back into pre-Stone Age subsistence living. They'd still burn biomass. At least the political leadership of India has enough intelligence to care for their people and so turned their nose up at the latest UN IPCC group hug.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2015
"That still doesn't excuse violating my rights. Either find a more carbon neutral form of energy, they do exist, or provide recompense for your actions."

Ekim that is not the way society works. If a farmer plants corn and pollen from his crops falls on my land does he have to compensate me? How about your cooking odors, do you have to pay me? How about your noisy kids playing when I want to sleep, what is a sutable charge for that? Even people who "drop off the grid" use products produced by fossil fuels.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
If the purchaser is not able to control the distribution of their chemicals onto my property, they should be held accountable for their actions.


I agree.
Then you must support a limited govt that respects property rights and not the regulatory state.

If a farmer plants corn and pollen from his crops falls on my land does he have to compensate me?

Depends upon you.
The advantage of the limited govt that protects property rights is the state may (but not required) arbitrate a settlement. If the compensation you demand is more than the farmer wants to pay, the farmer plants other crops or develops a way to capture the pollen (Which corn seed companies do.)
How about your noisy kids playing when I want to sleep, what is a sutable charge for that?

All these property rights violations are well suited for a small claims type of court. I suggest a televised court, similar to Judge Judy.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015


Gyre there was no sarcasm there at all. That is exactly what gives paper money value.


Somalia has little or no govt yet they still use Somali paper money. They use notes of one denomination and the value is about the cost of printing the note. Essentially commodity money.
Precious metals are good candidates for free market money as they are rare and don't easily corrode. Value is based on scarcity and costs (energy expended) of mining more.

Free market money could be industrial diamonds or other gems. The value would be based on energy costs to fabricate.
Bitcoin is another good example of free market money.

Basing money upon faith in a state has been demonstrated over centuries to result in the collapse of that state and much turmoil in societies. Cause, effect => science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
Applying the analysis to 'liberalism':

"What has changed is New York's leftward policy drift.

The state recently raised its highest tax rate on the rich to 13.3%, while Florida has zero income tax. New York has the second-highest corporate tax; Florida's is well below average. Florida is a right-to-work state; New York is a forced-union state. New York has banned fracking, so its energy resources mostly stay in the ground.

If liberalism really worked, New York would be a worker's paradise — a place where Americans would be scrambling to get to. Florida would be the backwater.

The fact that the reverse is true should have the pols in Albany, starting with Gov. Andrew Cuomo, scratching their heads and wondering why."
http://news.inves...tion.htm
Applies to Sweden: abolished wealth tax.
France: Abolished 75% tax rate
Many other data points available.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
What happens when faith fails:

"What capital was left in the country would scramble to leave. Economic output would crater anew and inflation would sky-rocket. The deprivation Greeks have suffered thus far would look insignificant compared with what was to come. "
http://www.telegr...uin.html
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
Ryg I also support property rights but know that they have to be limited. For instance, zoning laws can actually preserve property values. As far as having unlimited rights and going to court to settle grievances, that could be hugely expensive.

As with any form of control more is not better. The US is plunging head long into total government control of every aspect of one's life. Freedom has become something to be feared not cherished.
McIek
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2015
Excellent approach, which is where Planck began with his analysis of State Space and finished with his quantum theory.

Now they can take it to the next step using State Space analysis (example is the Host/Parasite problem).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2015
I also support property rights but know that they have to be limited. For instance, zoning laws can actually preserve property values.


It worked real well in New London, CT:

"The court's 5-4 holding in Kelo v. City of New London gave local officials a green light to seize and demolish private homes through eminent domain, then turn the land over to developers itching to build something more lucrative."
"The homeowners were dispossessed for nothing. Fort Trumbull was never redeveloped. Pfizer itself bailed out of New London in 2009. The Kelo decision was a disaster, as even the city's present political leaders acknowledge. "
http://www.boston...ory.html
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
the USA society became liberal at the end of 60's


No, it started over 100 years ago with the 'progressive' movement.
President Wilson hated the US Constitution and the major amendments that have led to our current disaster were passed in the 'teen years. The 16th amendment gave the state the right to plunder income and pry into your life, the 17th limited states rights, and the 18th promoted the police state.
The Federal Reserve was created during this time and created the Great Depression and subsequent economic disasters.
All thanks to socialism/'progressivism'/'liberalism'.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
As far as having unlimited rights and going to court to settle grievances, that could be hugely expensive.


Why?

Can't think out of the statist box?

I proposed a solution. Property disputes can be dealt with arbitration and/or small claim courts. I propose one modeled on Judge Judy. Participants who agree to be heard on TV court will have any judgement paid by the profit from the show, encouraging people to participate, and the outcomes would be public record.
I also support ALL civil court records must be open to the public. Bring a case to a civil court and all results will be public. Once a case is filed, even 'out of court' settlements must be public. If this had been the law, maybe the Firestone/Ford tire problem would have been discovered earlier.
Same with recent Government Motor recalls of ignition switch faults.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2015
The consequences of zoning laws:

"With zoning laws, commercial, industrial, and residential areas are separated from each other. The result is blocks of houses, industrial parks, and strips of stores and restaurants. People have to drive miles to go to the store, to work, or even to the park. It is rare to go to the store and see anyone you know."
"Zoning laws force you to have your business only in certain locations. This drives up the price of property for businesses, making it harder to start a new business."
"When we live under threat of government taking away our property for failure to pay rent to them, for violating some zoning ordinance, or for not paying off the right government employee, people are less inclined to take the risks necessary to become independent and prosperous. "
http://mises.org/...munities
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
"A community is a complex system. In nature, complex systems self-organize from the bottom up, from less complex elements. Structures develop that affect but do not force the elements that make up the system to do what they are doing naturally. No system in nature is created from the top down."
"Communities are like cells. They are made up of different elements — people and families — that, working together, create a more complex entity known as a community. "
"When we try to engineer communities, the results are disastrous. Forced bussing to integrate schools did nothing to create a community of blacks and whites. Instead, it destroyed the community schools, breaking down the neighborhoods where the schools existed "
"Zoning laws and other laws that restrict what people can do with their property do more harm than good. "
http://mises.org/...munities
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
Massachusetts is a great example of the insanity caused by zoning.
'Liberal', rich towns like Cambridge, Concord, Lincoln, Carlisle, Acton, ...have strict zoning to 'protect property values'. The minimum size property in Carlisle is 1 acre.
Of course this increases the cost of housing most so the state legislature stepped in and forced all communities to have a minimum number of low income housing units.
As the Mises article notes, this increases traffic. People move to NH to find reasonable housing leading to daily major traffic jams into and out of MA.
Then this leads to subsidized car pools, public transit, ....the (un?)intended consequences of central planning.
And other communities, like Lynn, are over crowded with illegal immigrants. The mayor of Lynn begged Obama to not send any more illegals to Lynn as their govt run schools are overcrowded and underfunded.
Ulg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2015
I always knew physicists would figure out economics before economists did.
imido
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jlevyellow
not rated yet Jan 01, 2015
To practice science, one must restrict the number of parameters under observation at any moment. So, science deals with closed systems. Human interaction, including the behavior of those who observe human behavior, is too complicated for systematic observation. To accept the limitations of our ability to understand how things happen requires modesty. Unfortunately, when people attempt modesty they fall into ideologies that tout modesty. It is again our limitations that will not simply let us float about trying to survive. Of course, ideologies that attempt to control others produces results that are far worse than Zen. We are hopeless! Happy New Year!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
So, science deals with closed systems.

Then climate 'science' is not real science. It's too complicated for systematic observation.

It's no surprise that the AGWites promote socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2015
Some here have said science can't be applied to economics because it is impossible to conduct any controlled experiments.
If you agree with this, then this is no different than climate 'science'.
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
@R2 says;
Then climate 'science' is not real science. It's too complicated for systematic observation.

It's no surprise that the AGWites promote socialism.

Mighty bold words coming from an imbecile that doesn't read Science/Nature or any of the hundreds of periodicals demonstrating and proving the science of climatology. There is nothing about Anthropogenic Global Warming that is complicated. Man combusts Giga-tons of fossil fuels and puts Giga-tons of waste CO2 in the AIR far in excess of anything natural.
The temperature rise if global temperatures is the result, and that was so expertly explained by Mr. Al Gore very eloquently in his book and movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". You should watch it sometime R2.

Your AGWite socialism connection is getting old. People reject your position as being stupid and being devoid of all fact. Ignorance is bliss.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2015
How the govt 'protects' from stray pollen now:

"Under a framework announced in 1986, oversight of the crops is shared by the Agriculture Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Rather than enact new laws for genetically engineered crops, the government covers them under existing statutes.

The Agriculture Department, which approves crops for commercial planting, is a case in point. Its authority stems from its responsibility for protecting American crops from plant pests, which typically are insects or pathogens."
http://www.nytime...ops.html

Lobby groups have a better chance of influencing these agencies than an individual.
With no regulatory state, there would be no EPA, FDA and likely no DoA. And with a vigorous court system, an individual may have the chance to protect his property from GMO plants.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2015
Another reason to increase public awareness of how courts operate today:

"Judicial tolerance of CON laws is a result of judges embracing the "rational basis" excuse for retreating from judging. Such judges are either confessing that they cannot fathom basic political processes or they are saying that they cannot trust themselves to recognize brazen, unapologetic rent-seeking when they see it. It is, however, possible to hope that what happened in Kentucky is a harbinger of judges returning to judging, thereby doing something rare in government — rethinking a wrong turn."
http://www.washin...ory.html
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2015
"And with a vigorous court system, an individual may have the chance to protect his property from GMO plants."

Rig exactly how do you plan to create a "vigorous court system"?

Your last post pretty much shows that this will not happen.

The problem is that some regulations are really needed and have helped us all lead better lives. I remember auto emissions in the 70s in NYC. They were choking to say the least. The problem is that these laws and agencies quickly get out of hand and become oppressive. For instance, I do not want to rely on state governments or courts to determine the safety of a drug.
Shakescene21
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2015
This research was published in the New Journal of Physics, not in any of the Economics journals.
Did the authors try to get published in Econ journals? If they tried and failed, does this mean that their model was too naiive or does it reveal close-mindedness on the economics community?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2015
how do you plan to create a "vigorous court system"?

How do you plan to control the Regulatory State?
I do not want to rely on state governments or courts to determine the safety of a drug.

How is the federal govt any better?
There are lawsuits galore for all sorts of govt approved drugs that have caused injury. Who should pay? The drug companies that innovate and create new drugs or the govt agents that approve them?
close-mindedness on the economics community?


Given the record of economists for the past 100 years, the economics community is very closed minded.

I remember auto emissions in the 70s in NYC.

Remember the horse dung 'emissions' in NYC before the auto?
Why was a Nixonian, fascist agency required?
Why couldn't lead poison victims sue the oil companies? Partly because the US govt allowed lead in gasoline.
EPA required MBTE before it polluted ground water in California. Now ethanol is mandated.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2015
Here we have local govts banning lead gasoline in the 20s:
"After Norris released his office's report on tetraethyl lead, New York City banned its sale, and the sale of "any preparation containing lead or other deleterious substances" as an additive to gasoline. So did New Jersey. So did the city of Philadelphia."
"In 1926, citing evidence from the TEL report, the federal government revoked all bans on production and sale of leaded gasoline."
http://blogs.plos...streets/
Trust the feds?
And don't forget, this was the beginning of the 'progressive' era. Taft-Hartley broke up Standard Oil and the govt began its fascist relationship with industry.
PhotonX
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2015
Energy is the only true wealth in the Universe.
I would argue that knowledge is the only true wealth we can pass down to future generations, but given the context of the article I understand your point.
Losik
Jan 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shakescene21
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2015
@PhotonX- I agree. Knowledge is the greatest wealth by far. Energy is simply a factor of production. For example, wood was useless as an energy source until humans learned to control fire. Oil was nearly useless before the development of oil lamps, refineries, and internal combustion engines. Sunlight won't become a vast energy source (except food value) until we perfect photovoltaics.

Standard economic growth theory maintains that the Solow coefficient, basically a "dummy variable" for technological progress, is the biggest driver of economic growth in the long run. Resource endowments are hugely important, but knowledge is what has brought us from an ape-like existence to masters of the planet.
ryggesogn2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2015
knowledge is what has brought us from an ape-like existence to masters of the planet.

The greatest leaps occurred with the efficient dissemination of knowledge, AND the ability of individuals to act upon that knowledge.
Compare pre and post printing press eras.
Compare pre and post radio/TV eras.
Compare pre and post internet eras.
Z99
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
ryggesogn2 has posted 33 of the 80 posts (so far) on this thread. I wonder if anyone is studying these threads in order to determine the number of posts required to make an accurate mental health diagnosis? Although, he may have stumbled on a major finding: knowledge preceeds (social) leaps. Who would have thought?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2015
What a surprise!
Instead of taking about the issues raised, people like Z engage in personal attacks.
This is quite common with those who can't rationally address the issues.

I point out that many economists, decades ago, understood and addressed the issue of energy and economics.
I point out the failures of govt regulation in the economy. When the federal regulatory state is defended for banning lead gasoline in the 70s, I point out local govts banned lead gasoline in the 20s and were overridden by the federal govt. Federalism is 'free market' govt.
So much ignorance, so little time and space to address with 1000 characters, even after the internet age.
More wisdom existed 200 years ago than today.
Ulg
1 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2015
Ryg I also support property rights but know that they have to be limited...

No they do not, actually doing so is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Your neighbor being a nuisance is not a criminal matter, there is no harm or losses incurred- and in the very rare case there is, it has to be proven in a court of law.

Poisoning someones land or water table should be treated as a criminal matter, which is not the realm of regulation as regulation in this case pertains to government intervention into a free market, criminal activity is not part of the free market. An example of this is when MIT said 200,000 Americans will die early that year as result of ozone and carbon particulate matter from the combustion of fossil fuels, WHO later used this model to conclude 2 million on the planet. By regulatory standards almost all of that death is done so lawfully, not a single victim can file for recourse in the courts because regulation has limited property right powers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2015
regulation has limited property right powers.

Which is why big companies support regulation and buy regulators.
The FDA was created at the behest of the 5 largest meat packers.
Before the FDA, there were dozens of local and state regulators attempting to limit contaminated meat, in addition to 'upstart' competitors. One, like Oscar Mayer, became popular for his quality and he distinguished his products with a yellow ribbon.
Now we have local govts banning plastic bags and some attempting to ban bottled water. Let them and let their local economies benefit, or suffer.
Tucson city banned 'big box' stores. Wal Mart built its super stores just over the border in Marana.
I don't support the violation of these property rights at the local level either, but if 'progressives' can't help themselves, keep it local and the negative effects will be confined.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
ryggesogn2 has posted 33 of the 80 posts (so far) on this thread. I wonder if anyone is studying these threads in order to determine the number of posts required to make an accurate mental health diagnosis?
@Z99
actually, yes they have
Our psyche class is/has been collecting data from PO for about a year
Not for "diagnosis" but watching how the pseudoscience acolytes defend their faith/belief and try to use science to justify it

rygg is one of the easiest to predict with his racist/other prejudices and his inability to comprehend the definitions of most of what he talks about
he gets a lot wrong... like his arguments re: socialists are actually mostly arguments against the Communist beliefs/tenets & gov't/politics

given the ease of prediction, however, we've had to graduate to posters who are a little more scientifically literate or posses knowledge of the subject being posted (from jvk to cd), which leaves out ryggy
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
My friend @R2 his supporter @Ulg argue that property is a basic right. This is something @R2 and I debated, and he brought up the philosophical arguments of John Locke. John Locke (a well known philosopher from the age of enlightenment) claimed there was a natural right to Life, Liberty, and Property and is indeed Thomas Jefferson's wording of the Declaration of Independence borrows from it with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" From this R2 and Ulg claim a right of property ownership that just doesn't exist, neither in the Declaration of Independence or in USA law. At least with respect to land ownership. Land ownership has always been granted by a higher power, be it Kings or States or force. In the USA, ultimately land is Federal and a person is granted rights to that land by Federal action and supplemented by State and Local law.

So by that, Federal regulation does apply to private land regardless of ownership. Including EPA.

howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2015
Following from the previous; my friend @R2 gives this example of bad government; "Now we have local govts banning plastic bags and some attempting to ban bottled water. Let them and let their local economies benefit, or suffer.
Tucson city banned 'big box' stores. Wal Mart built its super stores just over the border in Marana."
Our city just banned plastic bags for yard waste. Why? Because they would ruin the composting of the yard waste. The other plastics bags and bottles, don't decompose and become annoying litter easily. In bulk it is a problem. A local ban helps the community.
Since you argue property, Community matters too. So if Tucson city banned 'big box' stores then there is a reason for that community action. Low wages could be one reason. Another is what the community wants or accepts. Do you want a Walmart in the middle of the Grand Canyon? Or next to the Alamo? Or next to you?

Sean_W
not rated yet Jan 04, 2015
Wow what a novel idea, linking energy to production and economics is a breakthrough. Who would have thought that fossil fuels play a role in our well being?

Sarcasm duly noted...:-)


Sarcasm is another factor in economical models which has been excluded because it is poorly understood in a thermodynamic context.
anonieme_x
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2015
A major factor in economic growth is the ability to set the increase of entropy on (temporary & local) hold which we call knowledge /memory. If the 'useful' mass /object cannot be transported itself, then a stored resonance in another filter-medium (eg a picture of a pyramid, a word within a language) can be transported and *copied*, *spread* through time en space to other resonators. One might therefore get a clear insight in economic growth by concentrating on filters and their resonances (/impedance) within the economy, because at resonances the 'creation of order' occurs at minimum 'effort'.
In the large picture, you could say (the western idea of) economic growth is an ongoing 'concentration of order within the universe, where and when it is useful to people' (while not breaching the laws of thermodynamics).
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2015
" Land ownership has always been granted by a higher power, be it Kings or States or force. In the USA, ultimately land is Federal and a person is granted rights to that land by Federal action and supplemented by State and Local law."

The rights of landowners was one of the major reasons for the Revolutionary War. The British were taking resources like trees at will from settlers lands at will and the land owners objected.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2015
Land ownership has always been granted by a higher power,


Force is a 'higher power'?
Land was possessed and held with violence (force).
Some considered ownership occurring when energy of the possessor was expended to create wealth from the land.

The constitutional origin of LIMITED US federal authority is bottom up, not top down.

The 'progressives' hate the US Constitution and its limits so continue to usurp power. If 'progressives' can disrespect Constitutional law, they disrespect ALL law as we see today. Law becomes subjective and selectively enforced to promote socialist power.

Of course the socialism will fail. Always has and always will, with much collateral damage. It fails because the socialist disrespects natures laws, too. Nature always wins.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2015
The 'progressives' hate the US Constitution and its limits so continue to usurp power. ...

How do you know this? Who told you that 'progressives' hate the US Constitution? Have you lost your marbles or are you so brainwashed in 'conservatism' that that you can respect the opinions of your loyal opposition?

I disagree @R2, socialism hasn't failed. Your ideas have failed. You are the collateral damage of the Koch party.

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2015
So the progressives like freedom of speech eh???

http://www.politi...961.html
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2015
@MR166... here is all I have to say, Your first point is absurd! Your proof though is like; Hahahaha, Oh heeeee hhahaha, snark snark, bwahhahahaha. hehehe. Ok, that was the funniest link I've read in a long time. A reporter with a rightwing bias writing a sorry ass story about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi resigns from CBS complaining it had a leftwing bias?
And she's freaking out on a video because her backspace key got stuck! ROFL!

Very fitting end to a partisan hack!
MR166
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2015
You just proved Rygg's point. You do not care one iota about freedom of the press or free speech unless you agree with what is being said or printed!

You "defend" the constitution only when it suits you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2015
sorry ass story about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

Why did the socialist Obama govt spy on this reporter?
"Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has sued the Justice Department over the hacking of her computers, officially accusing the Obama administration of illegal surveillance while she was reporting on administration scandals. "
http://www.foxnew...hacking/

howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2015
Haha. I mean Lol. I can believe anyone with half a brain wanting to believe this idiot? She wasn't hacked and the proof presented is as flimsy as it gets. She didn't resign from CBS, she was let go because she made up stories that feed into the rightwing spin machine. Just like this story feeds into the right wingnut spin machine. She will make a prefect Fox correspondent or Fox investigative reporter.

As far are your claim MR166, I bet you have never read the Constitution. And freedom of the press doesn't protect one from the scorn of readers if your known to lie about your events.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
freedom of the press doesn't protect one from the scorn of readers

That's why the socialist media ratings are down.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2015
Howhot if it was just you disregarding the constitutional rights of people who disagree with the progressive left I would not even bother to answer you. But that is not the case. Not only does the left not care about the political targeting of opposing voices by the government, they actually approve of it. Even the Republicans have ignored, for the most part, the IRS targeting of the Tea Party. Never in my long life have I ever been more afraid for the freedoms and liberties that the US was founded on. The political class is usurping all of the power that individuals once held.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
"Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!"
http://dailycalle...ootings/

Now we have Obama supporting Muslim terrorists in France:
http://dailycalle...lamists/

It is quite sad that it is NOT Britain or the US that has the courage to stand up to Islam. Leave it to the French and Dutch and Danes.

Where are the gutless atheists mocking Islam?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2015
If you cover Jesus with excrement it is called art and our government will give you a grant for this. But, Jay Carney says that you "execute poor judgment" if you run a cartoon about Islam.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2015
'Liberals' are gutless bullies.
Harvard faculty were quite pleased to support Obamacare, until they were forced to pay more.

"Whining Harvard Professors Discover Obamacare"
http://www.bloomb...bamacare
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
"The true rationale for the attack is obvious: for years, Western politicians and media have cowered in the face of Islamic assaults on the exercise of free speech. The hallmark of Western civilization is freedom of the speech and of the press. The threats against, attacks on, and killings of journalists and satirists who attack Islam, combined with the despicable multicultural cowardice of the West, have destroyed freedom of speech and of the press.

The latest example of such cowardice comes in the words of President Obama. President Obama released a 145-word statement that contained neither the terms "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press." To her credit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke truth where Obama would not: "This abominable act is not only an attack on the lives of French citizens and their security. It is also an attack on freedom of speech and the press, core elements of our free democratic culture. In no way can this be justified.""
Brietbart
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
The only 'logic' I can fathom for the 'multicultural cowardice of the West' is the 'liberals' hate Western Civilization just as the Muslims do.
'Liberals' are just as totalitarian as Islamists and demand everyone live by their rules.
That must be why 'liberals' won't condemn Islamists even though the Islamist would quickly murder all 'liberals' if provided the opportunity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2015
MR166 -
The political class is usurping all of the power that individuals once held.


That only happens with tacit acceptance by the "individual".
The 'individual" is allowing it to happen.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
The 'individual" is allowing it to happen.

Yes, the 'individuals' in power who refuse to listen to those that vote them into office and the 'individuals' in the media who dare not challenge those in power as the individual Sharyl Attkisson has done.
Fortunately, there is Article V of the US Constitution.

MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
MR166 -
The political class is usurping all of the power that individuals once held.


That only happens with tacit acceptance by the "individual".
The 'individual" is allowing it to happen.


Sad but true WG!

A lot of brave men and women gave their lives to protect us from the tyranny that we now mistake as safety.

It is an undeniable fact that we will be a lot safer if we allow the government to install cameras in our bedrooms. PS that was sarcasm for all of the left wingers out there that might have thought I was serious. The last thing I want to do is get a "5" from Howhot by mistake.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
http://www.infowa...ew-cars/

Remember, this is all for our own good and safety.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2015
A lot of brave men and women gave their lives to protect us from the tyranny that we now mistake as safety.

It is an undeniable fact that we will be a lot safer if we allow the government to install cameras in our bedrooms. PS that was sarcasm for all of the left wingers out there that might have thought I was serious. The last thing I want to do is get a "5" from Howhot by mistake.

Don't consider myself left or right - I like a little bit of both, mixed with a little common sense (not that I have any, but I know it when I see it). I like to consider each situation as unique.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
I like to consider each situation as unique

So you have no standards.

Don't consider myself left or right - I like a little bit of both,

Why are so many afraid of having and/or admitting to having standards?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
I like to consider each situation as unique

So you have no standards.
Don't consider myself left or right - I like a little bit of both,

Why are so many afraid of having and/or admitting to having standards?
LOL, Ryg. As per usual, you de-context a statement so as to create contrarian drivel.
My standard is - consider each situation and tailor an adaptive process that suits its unique variables. It's called surviving by the seat of my pants...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2015
My standard is - consider each situation and tailor an adaptive process that suits its unique variables. It's called surviving by the seat of my pants...


Why are you afraid of acknowledging standards?
"Common sense" is not very common so what do you mean by 'common sense'?
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
@MR166 says;
Not only does the left not care about the political targeting of opposing voices by the government, they actually approve of it. Even the Republicans have ignored, for the most part, the IRS targeting of the Tea Party. Never in my long life have I ever been more afraid for the freedoms and liberties that the US was founded on. The political class is usurping all of the power that individuals once held.

WOW. Have you bought the party line! In the first place the Tea Party DESERVED the scrutiny of the IRS because the number of applications for 501c3 (Non-profit, tax exempt) status where clearly to hide money and limit accountability of republic money. It made a lot of party managers a nice salary at the expense of a fair true and level playing field for debate.

I don't know if you ever took civics in high school you should recognize that in a two party system, debate and compromise is how we move forward. And like sports there is contact, bur we are all Americans
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
The 'individual" is allowing it to happen.

Yes, the 'individuals' in power who refuse to listen to those that vote them into office and the 'individuals' in the media who dare not challenge those in power as the individual Sharyl Attkisson has done.
Fortunately, there is Article V of the US Constitution.

With regard to Attkinsson, the most applicable quote I read was Carl Sagan; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.". This is not a constitutional issue. Its a question if this so called reporter is bullshitting everyone. For me, the fact that a lawsuit was filed, costing about $1000+ means that someone is funding the lawsuit. I doubt she's doing this out of pocket.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2015
My standard is - consider each situation and tailor an adaptive process that suits its unique variables. It's called surviving by the seat of my pants...


Why are you afraid of acknowledging standards?
"Common sense" is not very common so what do you mean by 'common sense'?

your standard is not necessarily my standard...
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2015
@R2, Article V of the US Constitution says;

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Basically it describes how the Constitution can be modified. What is your point @R2?
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2015
@howhotr

@ryggy is referring to the pipe dream of the most extreme of conservatives for the states to call for a constitutional convention.

High on their list is the repeal of the 17th Amendment ( direct election of U.S. senators).

There are other proposals but it boils down to dragging the U.S back to the 18th century.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 08, 2015
@howhotr

@ryggy is referring to the pipe dream of the most extreme of conservatives for the states to call for a constitutional convention.

High on their list is the repeal of the 17th Amendment ( direct election of U.S. senators).

There are other proposals but it boils down to dragging the U.S back to the 18th century.

Vet, we both know there be some values/etc. that could USE a little dragging back...:-)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2015
your standard is not necessarily my standard...

What standard? You won't acknowledge you even have any standard.

Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way to returning the USA to a federal republic.
The most prosperous times in the US occurred prior to the imposition of the 'progressive', socialist, regulatory state.
dragging the U.S back to the 18th century.

Returning to the prosperity of the late 19th century would be great.
Why do 'prog-socialists' like VV and WG need to keep lying about returning the US to what made it prosperous in the past?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2015
"Pelosi has unveiled a Democratic legislative "package" that includes the "Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest In America's Infrastructure Act," a bill that prevents U.S. businesses from moving overseas, which according to Pelosi, would prevent these companies from "paying their fair share of taxes.""
http://www.breitb...-abroad/
Socialists destroy the economy and then must use force to keep their victims from moving away.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
How is the Regulatory State good for 'us'?

'"President Obama's pen and phone imposed $181.5 billion in regulatory costs during 2014, including proposed and final rules," said a summary of the report, written by Sam Batkins, AAF's director of regulatory policy. "In 79,066 pages of regulation, Americans will feel higher energy bills, more expensive consumer goods, and fewer employment opportunities. No one can accuse the president of abandoning his promises on regulation in 2014.""
http://www.washin...-report/
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2015
Well Pelosi could start by defunding the US programs and departments that help US corporations move their jobs offshore. Then she could tax imports from countries that have unfair trade barriers to us goods.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
Well Pelosi could start by defunding the US programs and departments that help US corporations move their jobs offshore. Then she could tax imports from countries that have unfair trade barriers to us goods.

What a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive.
The 800 lb deceit is fascist control.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2015
"Some New Jersey Republican leaders are renewing their call to lower taxes after Mercedes-Benz's announcement this week that it's moving its headquarters to Atlanta."
http://www.my9nj....ey-taxes
With limited state and federal govts, people and business can vote with their feet.
Socialism traps people and business destroying incentives to prosper. The only solution is to 'shrug'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
"America has lost 1 million corporations since their height during the Reagan era, in part driven out of business by the industrialized world's highest corporate tax rate, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation."
http://www.washin.../2558317
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2015
Well Pelosi could start by defunding the US programs and departments that help US corporations move their jobs offshore. Then she could tax imports from countries that have unfair trade barriers to us goods.


Efforts to end tax breaks for businesses off shoring have been shot down by Republicans.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
[
Returning to the prosperity of the late 19th century would be great.


@ryggy as has usual shown his ignorance of American history. He must not know about the depressions of 1873-1879 and 1893-1898. The unemployment rate in 1894 was 18% and the unemployment rate was above 10% for five years.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
@ryggy

You need to scroll down the link I'm providing then tell me how prosperous the late 19th century was.

Take a careful look at badly the economy contracted during your so called "prosperous" era. Take note of how frequently depressions/recessions occurred.

http://en.wikiped...d_States
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
"he depression set off by the Panic of 1893 was the greatest depression America had known, and was only surpassed by the Great Depression of the 1930s. "
"The depression caused by the Panic of 1893 lasted for about four years, ending in 1897."
http://history180...nics.htm

ENDED after 4 years. The Great Depression lasted 10+ years. The current depression as lasted for 6 years.

The Great Depression, was MUCH worse than all previous depressions and was CAUSED by the govt, not helped by the govt and its effects persist today.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
When the govt meddles:
"A good case in point is provided by the "Credit Mobilier" scandal of the 1860s. The Credit Mobilier was a "construction" company directed by those who had controlling interests in the Union Pacific Railroad. Through their political influence Congress passed the Pacific Railroad bill in 1862, granting the Union Pacific Railroad 12,000,000 acres of land and $27,000,000 in six per cent, thirty-year government bonds as a first mortgage, and 9,000,000 acres of land and $24,000,000 in government bonds to the Central Pacific Railroad. The project was to establish rail connections between Omaha, Nebraska and the Great Salt Lake. "
http://fee.org/fr...-history
howhot2
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
The Great Depression, was MUCH worse than all previous depressions and was CAUSED by the govt, not helped by the govt and its effects persist today

That is an overly broad damnation of Govt. It wasn't until years after the great depression that govt regulations were put in place to control Wall Street. Leading up to the great depression was republican control (and business control) of Gov which spun out of control. In that sense, Gov did cause the depression and the reason was the wealth disparity between the up 1% and the lower 99%. What is disturbing is the fact that the current wealth disparity is very close to what was occurring prior to the depression.

It was FDR that booted out the fascists and put the labor force to work by empowering unions. You can thank the republicans for forcing the Taft-Harding Act on America (the so called "slave-labor bill") that destroyed labors power to bargain for a fair wage an a small slice of the wealth pie. Instead we have @R2.
howhot2
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
@vietvet
@ryggy is referring to the pipe dream of the most extreme of conservatives for the states to call for a constitutional convention.

High on their list is the repeal of the 17th Amendment ( direct election of U.S. senators).

There are other proposals but it boils down to dragging the U.S back to the 18th century.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Amazingly these bozos are the anti-thesis of the American dream. Without a dollar in their pocket, a good wage, and a future to look forward you will have people in despair, desperation and misery. Those three traits tend to be the result of republican controlled government. I hope that @R2 will use his intellect and figure that out.

howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2015
@R2 said earlier;
With limited state and federal govts, people and business can vote with their feet. Socialism traps people and business destroying incentives to prosper. The only solution is to 'shrug'.
. Ok, I'll bite. How does Socialism trap people and business and destroy incentive to prosper? It doesn't have to be Socialism, it could be Democratic or Republicans too can it not? The Tea party is kind of a overbearing hoard, they could trap people, businesses and destroy incentives to prosper could they not? Why @R2 do you keep singling out Socialism? Is that your agenda? To somehow line socialism to democrats? What is you agenda @R2. You obviously have one.

Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
When the govt meddles:
"A good case in point is provided by the "Credit Mobilier" scandal of the 1860s. The Credit Mobilier was a "construction" company directed by those who had controlling interests in the Union Pacific Railroad. Through their political influence Congress passed the Pacific Railroad bill in 1862, granting the Union Pacific Railroad 12,000,000 acres of land and $27,000,000 in six per cent, thirty-year government bonds as a first mortgage, and 9,000,000 acres of land and $24,000,000 in government bonds to the Central Pacific Railroad. The project was to establish rail connections between Omaha, Nebraska and the Great Salt Lake. "
http://fee.org/fr...-history


"Dr. Davis is Associate Professor of Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts. This article is from the manuscript of a forthcoming book, A Land of Milk and Honey: Biblical Foundations of the Free Market."

LMAO at your source.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2015
@ryggy it is always dangerous to rely on just one source when studying history, especially a source with an agenda such as:http://fee.org/fr...-history

The U.S. government realized the value of a transcontinental railroad (even if it was a tragedy for the Plains Indians). The funding mechanism made sense, the problem was the criminality of the organizers of Credit Mobilier. Through fraud they received 72 million dollars for 53 million dollar job.

http://en.wikiped..._scandal

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2015
the problem was the criminality of the organizers of Credit Mobilier. Through fraud they received 72 million dollars for 53 million dollar job.


All with the support of the state.

How many railroads were built without govt intervention?

The rail line from NE to UT was built to expand the power of the state, not for economics.

The US govt still owns most of the Rocky Mountain states and mismanaged that property.

Fortunately for TX, it was an independent state before joining the US nearly all land is privately held.
Compare that to NM, AZ, NV, CO, WY where most of the land is govt owned.

While claiming to fight socialists in Vietnam he supports socialists in the US.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2015
A radio/tv personality named Lionel was interviewed on public television and said the Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party. He said that the next 25 years have already been planned out and are beyond our control.

He did not say who the puppet master was. The sad part is that I tend to think he is correct.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2015
Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party.

Both want more power to control the lives of others.

There are many folks here that blame the 'banksters' and 'big business' for corrupting those poor little politicians.

The 'puppet masters' are all those who think know best how others should live and give power to the politicians who claim to agree.
Islamists know how you should live and will kill you if you don't live that way. 'Progressives', AGWites, Paul Ehrlich disciples, ... many here who worship science, all know how you should live and are eager to elect politicians who will make it so.
There are some differences in the parties. Some Republicans can be persuaded to support the Constitution. No democrat can be persuaded to do so. Democrats have more billionaire donors for a reason. They want a fascist state to control their competition.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2015
It's amusing to watch the media get all bent out of shape about the murders in France, but they still refuse to identify their enemy.
Islam is demonstrating the efficacy of raw force. Which is why the 'progressives' don't condemn them too much as they appreciate force as well.
Unfortunately, many have to be murdered before the ignorati wake up and realize their mistake in supporting socialism.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2015
"Democrats have more billionaire donors for a reason. They want a fascist state to control their competition."

The progressives will never admit to having billionaire donors or even rich donors for that matter. They would never admit that they support their corporate friends with political favors such as loans and regulations.
howhot2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
As god bless George Washington as he roles in his grave. It is always amazing how snarky the conservative wing is, with these kinds of crap; @R2
Islamists know how you should live and will kill you if you don't live that way. 'Progressives', AGWites, Paul Ehrlich disciples, ... many here who worship science, all know how you should live and are eager to elect politicians who will make it so.
There are some differences in the parties. Some Republicans can be persuaded to support the Constitution. No democrat can be persuaded to do so. Democrats have more billionaire donors for a reason. They want a fascist state to control their competition.

You make no sense R2, but your poison words are there. The problem is where is the truth in what you say @R2? Where does the truth really lay? The buddy @MR155 adds more vitriol poison. My advise to you both, is you should re-evaluate you positions and see which political party does more for the people and improves lives and families
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2015
So with Ben Franklin rolling in his grave, I have to ask you @R2 and @MR155 what you are thinking? I think it would be enlightening to hear what you propose to do about the wealth inequality that exist in the USA and how you would persecute TAX cheaters that ship all of their moneys out of the country and squander all of it, while cheating labor of a fair wage?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
They would never admit that they support their corporate friends with political favors such as loans and regulations.


"As the Microsoft example suggests, the Washington culture of influence peddling is not entirely or even primarily the fault of the corporations that hire the lobbyists and pay the bills. It's a vast protection racket, practiced by politicians and political operatives of both parties. Nice little software company you've got here. Too bad if we have to regulate it, or if big government programs force us to raise its taxes. Your archrival just wrote a big check to the Washington Bureaucrats Benevolent Society. Are you sure you wouldn't like to do the same?"
http://articles.l...110405/2
howhot2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
So your just going to avoid and dodge the hard questions aren't you @R2. Just like on CO2 and global warming are you going to deny fundamental truths?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2015
They would never admit that they support their corporate friends with political favors such as loans and regulations.


"Billionaire global warming zealot Tom Steyer may be throwing his hat in the ring to run for the California senate seat opening in 2016 now that Democrat Barbara Boxer is stepping down.

The 57-year-old hedge fund manager accumulated more than $1.5 billion as founder of Farallon Capital Management. He coughed up $74 million of that to back democrats who were willing to promote climate change agendas in their 2014 congressional and gubernatorial political campaigns."
http://www.breitb...senator/

Democrats love a hedge fund manager and loath billionaires (Kochs) who employee thousands of people all over the world.
howhot2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2015
"Look at the priorities of the new Republican congressional – the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Trade agreement, tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthy, rollbacks of Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street, cutbacks on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and decimating the Affordable Care Act – and connect the dots. Republicans want the public to think the central issue of our time is the size of government. Wrong. The central issue of our time is who government is for. Every one of their initiatives advances big corporations and Wall Street, and worsens or weakens everyone else."
Robert Reich (FB).

Seems to me, if you complaining about these fund managers you may want to actually look at who has controlled congress for the last 4 years.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2015
"Seems to me, if you complaining about these fund managers you may want to actually look at who has controlled congress for the last 4 years."

Seems to me that you might want to check your facts before posting. Just a little hint for the ignorant, look up the meaning of Congress.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2015
"The 100 biggest donors of 2014 gave nearly $174 million to Democrats, compared to more than $140 million to Republicans, according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service."

Read more: http://www.politi...OWpxamJ2
howhot2
5 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2015
"Seems to me, if you complaining about these fund managers you may want to actually look at who has controlled congress for the last 4 years."

Seems to me that you might want to check your facts before posting. Just a little hint for the ignorant, look up the meaning of Congress.

Sorry, I meant "House of Representatives" nit-pick. But the point I am making is what are the priorities of the NEW Republican house of representatives... It's to screw everyone that makes below 350k by shifting taxes to state and local and off of federal. Then the right pulls the safety net for those under 20K and makes them fend for themselves? Millions of poor people stress and starve to make a couple of billionaires a couple more million on tax savings? That is just plain evil and highly unjust law.

So, my @R2 friend reminds us of the donor disparity of Dems vs Repugs and looking through that list I'll pick the Dems any day! Why? Because they care about society, and Repugs just rape it.

MR166
not rated yet Jan 14, 2015
OK, so you meant the House. So let me ask you, why did the Democratically controlled Senate pass the bill and why die the Democratic president sign it???????????

Get your head out of the sand and at least blame both parties.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.