Lead (Pb) price continues to skyrocket

wrote:


to
reality,
exonomy
Republicans: fighting to produce even more prosperity to all; all of those who already have it. Along with giving prosperity to those already rich goes the corollary of preventing prosperity for everyone else. It works every time republicans are in power.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm not defending the democrats, because they have their share of problems; but yeah, the repubs have been corporate stooges since *at least* the Reagan era. The end result of unregulated capitalism is obvious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If that were true, I wouldn't have said otherwise. However, if it were true, there would be evidence other than "Because Rush told me so."
Just because someone makes you feel smart doesn't mean they aren't filling your head with lies. Engage your skepticism the most when you most *want* to believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:41:28 -0500, "Adam Corolla"

The CBO said so.
Care to dispute it?
You really really need to take your own advise.
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I hate to interfere with a good fight, but maybe it would be a better fight if it were fought on a little higher plane. Gunner, what the CBO has said is that tax revenue increases amount to roughly 17% (labor) and 50% (capital) of the tax revenues LOST through lower tax rates. In other words, cutting taxes cuts revenues, but not by the full amount of tax cuts. And this is exactly what most sophisticated supply-siders have been saying for some time now. If you looked at the Wikipedia entry for supply-side economics (one of their better efforts), you see the "left-side, right-side" issue that's the core of intelligent analysis of tax-cutting effects today.
An easier way to see what's going on in this debate is to start with Bruce Bartlett's op-ed article in the NYT earlier this year. Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders and arguably its strongest proponent. He was an advisor to Reagan and an author of the Kemp-Roth bill that was the roadmap for Reaganomics. You can view NYT articles for free now but I don't know if you'll have to sign in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html
Here's about as much of it as I can paste without worrying about copyright:
=============================================AS one who was present at the creation of "supply-side economics" back in the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.
Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates - the tax on each additional dollar earned - as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity.
The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains even at a lower rate.
But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." Senator John McCain told National Review magazine last month that "tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues." Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White House, saying, "He's seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand - higher revenues from lower taxes."
=============================================The rest of it is worth reading. It's pretty short and will give you a good idea of what smart and knowledgeable supply-siders have to say for themselves today.
--

Ed Huntress




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Cool, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying. Tax cuts result in increased spending but the bulk of that spending is on foreign goods and services, meaning that while tax cuts do stimulate the US economy, they are an inefficient way to do so and result in significantly less money being spent in the US economy than if that money were kept by and spent buy the government. Therefore tax cuts would not result in increased revenue. It just doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Once again, if someone can point me directly to a reliable source that shows tax cuts consistently resulting in increased revenues, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Surely, with all the right-wing web sites out there, there must be thousands of links to reliable sources of this information?

It's a typical neocon tactic. Repeat a lie often (Democrats are big spenders!) then speak as though the lie is common knowledge ("Why would anyone vote for a Democrat--we need to DEcrease spending!") and no one seems to check the facts to find out it's a lie.
Once again, and there is no possible way to stress this enough:
"FROM 1948 to 1981, THE NATIONAL DEBT REMAINED VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED EVEN THROUGH THE VIETNAM WAR. FROM 1982 (Reagan's first budget) THROUGH 1989 THE NATIONAL DEBT MORE THAN DOUBLED from its 1981 VALUE. (All values are adjusted for inflation.)
Since I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it, check the US treasury department's info to confirm, and use an inflation calc such as the one found here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl To adjust the values. You don't have to check all of them, just spot check here and there to see if you find any that are off.
Here's the graph:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f331/qwertyuiopass/debtgraph.jpg
AGAIN, look at the national debt chart please, during the Vietnam years--barely a ripple--then starting with Reagan's first budget a sudden, drastic leap up every year since then except for the PC boom during Clinton's era. How were we able to support ourselves during the Vietnam war with nearly imperceptible additions to the national debt, but not during the peacetime years that followed?
1. If Reagan cut taxes and spending, why did he double the national debt? (Not the deficit, but the entire national DEBT.)
2. If Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, why did he double the national debt--why didn't he just increase spending by the amount that federal revenues increased from the tax cuts?
3. If you adjust for inflation for each year, the amount of money borrowed by Reagan, Bush and Bush lite through from 1982 to 2006 is about seven trillion dollars. (The amount borrowed by Clinton is about a quarter to a third of a trillion, but again, I don't credit Clinton for that but instead I credit the PC boom which Slick Willie was lucky enough to preside during.) Seven trillion dollars in new spending, going almost exclusively into the US economy (even spread out over the last 16 years that the neocons held the white house) can't help but stimulate the economy. Assuming an average of 125 million in the labor force during that time, that's $3500 per worker per year for 16 years. Now, it's not going directly to the workers, but because it is spent buying US goods and services, it's creating a hell of a lot of new jobs and competition for labor.
That's the basic theory behind supply-side economics, that if you stimulate businesses by buying, the investment trickles down to the workforce and everyone is better off. However, the neocons want you to think that the economic stimulation came from cutting taxes, which is blatant nonsense in light of the facts. In reality, the tax cuts helped very little and were mainly for buying lots and lots of rich friends for the neocons by appealing to their avarice.
The skyrocketing debt that Reagan created and that Bushes perpetuated will have to be paid off eventually. The only practical way to do that is with a severely deflated dollar. If the dollar deflates to one hundredth of its value, then the trillions owed currently drop to tens of billions.
Reagan and the neocons are the big spenders--they spend more than they take in and borrow the difference. They are the true "liberals" in the worst sense of the word--liberally spending (wasting, mostly) money that has been borrowed from America's future generations. They have set the US on a course for economic catastrophe. Within the next five to twenty years, look for continuing loss of the petrodollar's exclusivity, devastating inflation and the economic collapse of the US. This much seems obvious. What follows is more along the lines of speculation.
During this time, Americans will be confused, disoriented and terrified. The US government will, if staying true to form, blame some scapegoat such as terrorists, Mexicans or "liberals" for this collapse. In their panicked state, Americans will look naturally for comfort from the strongest leaders, much the way Germany did in the years after world war 1. And history repeats...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip> >>

I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. <g> Gross imports are only about 13% of our GDP, so your point would take some work to prove, but I see where you're going with it. You'd have to cover the amount of the tax cuts that went into investment as well. Because the bulk of the tax cuts go to the wealthy and to corporations, I think you'll have a hard case to make.

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened. Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the more sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were sky-high.
And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any increased revenues.

I don't think that George Bush is lying about it. I think he's too ignorant about economics to have an opinion worthy of the name. McCain is dissembling. Forbes is blinded by ideology. Giuliani probably knows better.
<snip>
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm
you may find it of interest
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, I did. And you might find it interesting and quite surprising, too, if you ever actually read it. d8-)
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

I did. Again. Seems it backs up my statements.
Gunner
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not exactly. You said that reducing the tax rate increases revenue. That's not what this page shows. It shows that reducing a tax rate *that's too high* increases revenue. That's a big difference. Otherwise, the more that the feds cut taxes, the more money they get in return, until the tax rate is zero--which of course isn't so.
The Laffer curve is a hemispherical curve--starting at the zero point, arcing to maximum, and curving back to zero. If the tax rate is 100%, no business can occur and therefore no taxes can be collected. However if the tax rate is the opposite, 0%, then no taxes will be collected regardless of what business does.
Laffer pointed out that there is a theoretical "best tax rate" which results in maximum intake of revenue by the feds (and probably a practical one, though it may vary from year to year depending on the global business climate.) When taxes go above or below that point, revenues are reduced.
In Reagan's case, though, his vastly increased borrowing and spending was more likely the cause of any economic upturn. Assuming an average workforce of 118 million people during his time in office, Reagan increased the debt more one point three two trillion dollars in eight years (adjusted to year 1986 values) or over two and a half trillion in today's values, approximately $2700 per worker per year for the whole eight years.
Dumping $2700 per worker per year into the US businesses for eight years is going to make a big difference in the job rate, wouldn't you say? Unemployment down, competition for labor (and thereby wages) up, means more people paying taxes and the ones who were already paying taxes would be paying more, even if the rate was cut slightly.
The "Reagan Republicans" would have you believe that they came up with a magic formula to have your cake and eat it too--however, they are stimulating the economy by borrowing money and spending it. That's not fiscal responsibility, it's setting the US economy on the path to catastrophe. When the catastrophe happens, they'll be blaming the liberals, al Qaeda, Mexico--everyone but the real culprits!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world factbook, but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small percentage of imports.
Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with 2006 US imports!): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html
However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our exports value around 60% of our imports: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html
However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How much of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that even claim to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly here from components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such as sales, support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our imports account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting besides food and raw materials?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html

All good questions, for which I can't give you complete answers. The CIA World Factbook is good for summaries, but the details lie within the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis spreadsheets, which can be a little difficult to navigate. If you really get into it I'll try to help you find what you're looking for, but I always dread a new project like that because I have to re-learn it each time.
In broad terms, though, it's not too tough. You see a lot of imports in the department stores because that's where the imports are concentrated: in consumer goods. You see much less of it in industrial goods, and oil is a big wild card that biases the statistics. Don't base your impression on machine tools. They've *always* been a very small percentage of industrial goods. Even back in the mid-'70s, the total volume of all US machine tool builders, added together, would have placed them at number 274 on the Fortune 500 list. I remember that number because the publishing company I worked for, which was then only the 4th largest, was number 273.
As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic production is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese builders, Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and M-B) have plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make their high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production. My Ford, in contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)
Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small proportion of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend to be consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false impression that the volume is much higher than it is.
Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it on your own, a good place to start is www.fedstats.gov. The government statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make the navigation easier. It's partly successful.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That's partly what I mean. If the drivetrain and chassis are made overseas, shipped here, and welded together on robotic assembly lines, can they count it as a US production?

Thanks much!! I will look into it and try to sort it out myself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip> >>

I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as a US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.
You probably could Google this one up.

Take your time. It will be very frustrating at first, but almost anything you could want is there somewhere. A browser with tabs is a great help for that work.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:58:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed

While he's at it, he should googlize this: http://www.google.com/search?q=north+american+union
That's a border around the whole of Canada, the USA, and Mexico, with no division between us. The concept of abrogating our power (adding Canada's liberals and Mexico's communists to our already too-socialist regime) scares me shitless. Life, as we know it, would end. <shudder>
--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
quickly quoth:

Well, life as *you* know it might end. Life as I know it wouldn't skip a beat. <g>
Did you ever see that map that divides North America into "The United States of Canada" and "Jesusland"? It's a hoot.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:03:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed

I might be willing to lay you long odds on _that_ one, bubba.

I'll have to find one. A pair of Mor(m)ons showed up at my door yesterday. I smiled real big and one of them, realizing my recognition of them, said "Yes, we're from the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons." I simply told them that I didn't believe in religion and closed the door as he started to spout Jesus at me.
A guy across the main highway from me just put up a leanto and his religious squatters on his lower 40 yesterday. I saw them on the way into town. He's the guy who will put almost a megawatt of xmas lights up, too. <sigh> Is it late January yet? WallyWorld had some hick singer squealing out some xmas song 2 weeks ago, in OCTOBER!
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Can I shift dimensions into a non-religious world for a few months, please?
--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip----

Having lived in Utah for the vast majority of my life, and being married to a wonderful lady that came from the religion, a term I use in the loosest of possible meaning (and has long since withdrawn from that miserable excuse of a religion), I can attest that they are very capable of making a huge nuisance of themselves.
Prior to Susan's withdrawal (a decision she made without my assistance), we were rudely interrupted one day by a knock at the door. It was but one of many intrusions, by "missionaries" that had been sent, specifically, to get me bent over.
I inquired of them, "did you know who lived here when you knocked on the door?" "We're you sent, specifically, to attempt to convert me?------because I'm married to a person that is a known member (of sorts) of your organization?"
The answer I received, obviously, was "yes", that they were there to convert me. I informed them that if they didn't call off the dogs-----I would bloody one of them. They were admonished to never darken my doorstep again. Believe it or not, it was strangely effective. I have not been intruded upon since, not by the mormons. Now if I could find a way to discourage the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Blood threats should be particularly effective on them, they'd sooner die than receive a transfusion.
I'm sure glad the scientologists don't go door-to-door.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.