Stuff you hate

[x_XTacTX_x]

I hate how when you're about to take an algebra final year exam, and on that specific day you forget your calculator, which in turn was in your bookbag which you're not alowwed to take to school since it's the last week. Idiotic. Especially when your teacher refuses to lend you a classroom one, even though she has a large bucket of the items hidden in a drawer.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I am currently temporarily living in Europe (Scotland) and it has only strengthened some of my opinions concerning American politics.  Particularly those I hate (not to say that Great Britain doesn't have it's share of problems, too).  It's the whole world...

[placidchap]

I hate how some people think that the "popular" items (art, entertainment, etc) that appeal even to the lowest common denominator must in turn be mind numbingly dull and uninspired.
......
However, having said such, I still believe in Sturgeon's Law

For the record I said some and usually not all and always.  I have satisfied your Sturgeon's Law.

I hate not having any plans to go to Scotland.  Or Europe in general.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Being my first time in Europe, I love it.  I am far away from the loving embrace of my bonnie lass, but the culture is deeply rooted in history and the country is BEAUTIFUL.

I keep trying to talk about the "28 ___ Later" series and many Scots haven't seen it.

I'm seriously about ready to move here.

[FaustWolf]

Have you had a wee bit of the local brew yet, Boo? Be sure to let us know how it is.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I have been going to the pubs every night.  Theres tons of live music here.  And the local brews are seriously awesome.  And the local scotch/whiskey...

The American dollar transferred to English pounds just sucks right now.  A beer costs about 3 pounds (3 pounds = 6.2 dollars).

[FaustWolf]

HOLY cow, a $6 beer.    That got me thinking about gas prices...we're at just under $4/gallon in the US now, but $4.20+ in the big cities if I read right. I'd be interested in kind what kind of public transportation Scotland has, unless you're driving everywhere and paying up the wazoo for petrol too? Hopefully you're on the correct side of the road however you're getting around, haha.

[x_XTacTX_x]

Go for it, Boo. Universal healthcare for the masses over in Europe. With Hillary dropping out of the race over here, that's some sort of a pipe dream now.


Oh, Diesel finally hit 5 bucks a gallon in Orlando.

[FaustWolf]

I don't think Hillary's out of the picture just yet; I'm hoping Obama will offer her the VP slot, though Secretary of Health and Human Services might even be a proper fit in light of your comment, Tact. An Obama/Clinton ticket might leave a bad taste in some people's mouths, but it could go a long way toward healing the divisiveness that many Democrats feel right now.

[x_XTacTX_x]

I agree. It's almost as if this country could fall though, if we don't become socialist. Not trying to spit out propaganda, but yeah.


Offering Clinton the VP slot would be an amazing choice, though. Talk about a dream team... But think about it; if Mccain is elected, he would most likely die in office. God knows who he would pick to be his Vice president. If a Clinton/Obama leaves a bad taste, then so be it. It's still good for the country in the end.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I agree. It's almost as if this country could fall though, if we don't become socialist. Not trying to spit out propaganda, but yeah.


Offering Clinton the VP slot would be an amazing choice, though. Talk about a dream team... But think about it; if Mccain is elected, he would most likely die in office. God knows who he would pick to be his Vice president. If a Clinton/Obama leaves a bad taste, then so be it. It's still good for the country in the end.

No...they aren't a dream team at all. Clinton (and McCain) both support the gas tax holiday. That is to say, they both support ignoring experts and doing things that will harm America for no good reason at all. We got enough of that from Bush to last a life time.

[FaustWolf]

NOTE: What follows is not so much a defense of Hillary or (good Entity forbid) McSame*, but rather an appeal to absolute rigor in economic analysis.

Saying that the Gas Tax Holiday would be harmful presumes a sufficiently elastic demand curve, i.e., the curve has a "gradual" as opposed to a "steep" slope. If it's true that demand for gasoline is elastic, the economists are correct in saying that there would be a price spike as people flood into the local Sheetz to fill their tanks.

However, in my experience gasoline is an extremely price-inelastic good. Perfectly inelastic in my own case. A price hike won't stop me from going to work, and a price drop won't make me want to embark on extra trips. That being the case, I would not be tempted to buy more gasoline in the least if price came down, but I'd be damn thankful that price came down. And with no change in quantity consumed, there is no shortatge. Thus, in this idealized scenario I can see the reasoning behind Hillary's and McSame's Gas Tax Holiday plans.

On balance, not all drivers are going to behave like me, and the summer driving season is probably when gasoline consumption is most elastic in the US (though who the heck can afford a vacation nowadays?). In the end, the benefit of a Gas Tax Holiday is highly dependent on consumer psychology. I'm a bit miffed at the fact that the pundits and most economists bandy about the terms "supply" and "demand" without discussing *elasticity.* A fair analysis of the Clinton and McSame plans requires it IMHO.

*I first saw this moniker used by ZeaLitY, and I have a patriotic duty to repeat it ad infinitum. If "flip-flop" defeated John Kerry (and I met people who based their votes on that label), "McSame" might just make a difference as well.

[placidchap]

Is economics required for politicians?  It really does not seem like they now the ins and outs of economics...or is that what their "Economic Advisor" is for? 

The price of gasoline determines what kind of car people want to drive.  Does that make gasonline semi-elastic?  I recall hearing that the sale of SUVs would go up when the price of gas would drop .10 a few years back, and then they would drop when the gas would go up again. 

[Thought]

Faust, you seem to understand economics fairly well so perhaps you could clear up a bit of confusion I have; while the exchange rate from dollar to pound (or dollar to euro) is unfavorable at this point, aren't people still paying roughly the same real-value for the goods? While a single dollar might buy fewer goods than a single pound, don't people getting paid in dollars also receive more dollars in total than those getting paid for the same job but in pounds?

Bah, I've never been able to develop my desired understanding economics; the entire system seems like it is just an Second-Order Idiot Plot.

Anywho, for the election...

While a "dream team" of Obama and Clinton might heal the Democratic Party, it would make things more difficult in the general election. Republicans hate Clinton about as much as Democrats hate Bush, while a good number of them are at least willing to consider Obama. A Clintonless ticket has a possibility of crossing the party divide.

To be fair, Obama almost needs Hilary for the Latino vote; without it, it is conceivable that he could loose in California (still unlikely, but it does become possible). Of course, in the same turn, it is quite possible that a joint ticket will just turn everyone away; Obama might still not have the Latino vote and he might loose the perceived tolerance from moderate Republicans, and it is possible that even the African American community would feel slightly betrayed by Obama (Clinton didn't endear herself very much). Those are votes that Democrats can't afford to loose. This isn't to say that such people would magically go vote for McCain, but it is just as bad if they stay home. McCain’s biggest challenge in the general election isn't convincing people that he's a good choice for the presidency; it is getting the people who already believe it to actually vote. We saw it in the primaries; Republican voter turnout was incredibly low compared to Democratic turnout. That is the obstacle McCain faces; if Obama alienates too many supporters by taking on Clinton, he may well level the playing field.

Even if Obama does take on Clinton and they win, what sort of vice president would she make? She's been playing first violin for too long to make a good second fiddle; even if she didn't mean too (and I suspect she would mean to), her vice-presidency would steal the thunder from Obama's presidency, making it more likely that he could loose the White House in 2012. Indeed, he might not even loose it to a Republican in 2012. Given the circumstances, the next president will be facing some rather nasty challenges (regardless of if it is Obama or McCain). It is almost certain that the president would make at least one mistake, and the American public isn't as forgiving of honest mistakes as it once was. All Clinton would have to do is be smart enough to take an opposite stance from Obama that one time and she could run for the presidency again in 2012. She'd get a degree of credit for all the successes of the prior term (even if she had nothing to do with them), and she'd stand out from the incumbent by saying "See? I wouldn't have made those mistakes." Of course, that is assuming that Clinton would place her own advancement above the welfare of Obama and the Democratic party. Perhaps I am just cynical, given her various behaviors in the primaries, but I believe such is a fairly safe assumption.

Placid, no, economics isn't required for politicians (actually, there are no technical knowledge requirements). However, while a good president is one who taps advisors, the public perception is quite the opposite. Consider President G.W. Bush; almost no attention is given to the intelligence of his advisors. He's seen as a dim bulb, so his entire presidency is seen similarly. As such, politicians at least need to appear as if they know the "ins and outs" of whatever topic is important. Such an appearance is easy; all a politician has to do, really, is appear to know more than the general public. Given that the general public knows comparitively little about the topics they are concerned about, it is rather easy for a politician to construct such an illusion. Doesn't mean there is substance behind it, however.

[FaustWolf]

That's an excellent question Thought, and theoretically identical goods should have the same real price. There's actually something called the "Big Mac Index" that measures the very concept you're wondering about, which is heavily related to purchasing power parity.

The Big Mac Index historically shows that, in fact, people in different countries are not paying the same real prices for identical goods in many cases. I tend to attribute the real price difference to local cultural factors -- the demand for a Big Mac in the US is going to be different from the demand for the same product in other countries. Note that the Wikipedia article shouldn't even mention India, because it's not even on the Big Mac Index list: can't serve beef in a Hindu country (I think?), and it is difficult to compare vegetable burgers or whatever Indian Big Macs are made of to the burgers we chow down here.

Regarding the price of gasoline, yes, it's definitely impacting what people want to drive. General Motors just shut down some plants in Ohio, though their factory in Lordstown, OH, which produces the little Cobalt, is doing wonderfully. Though I don't know what nuclear families with more than three small kids are going to do -- they almost need the SUV or some type of minivan to travel anywhere as a group, unless they constantly hire baby sitters.

Getting back to politics, I fear there are a significant number of Hillary supporters who will choose to remain at home - or even write her name in out of sheer spite - rather than vote for Obama on Election Day. The pundits and the Democratic Party itself shy away from considering this, but it is a very real problem. A large part of this attitude stems from the perception that the media treated Senator Obama as a demigod while practically ignoring Senator Clinton -- an objective review of the media coverage would show that this is clearly not the case (Rev. Wright, anyone?), but the attitude is there, and it is vicious, and it is dangerous. Plus, Hillary did garner a majority of the popular vote in the Democratic contest, and this resurrects shades of Gore v. Bush in 2000. Thus, I continue to feel that the VP slot for Hillary is necessary to heal the very real divisions within the Democratic party right now.

Let nobody be fooled by the 20,000+ crowd Obama drew last night compared to McSame's 200 or so in Louisiana: the future of our country is in serious jeopardy. I worry that the media celebration of Obama's victory will lull those inspired by this wonderful candidate into a sense of security, of certainty that their man will win and nothing can stop him. We must all be willing to donate some time to the Obama campaign, whether that means making calls, doing data entry, or getting on our feet and canvassing on his behalf. For those who are inspired by Obama but prefer not to be affiliated with the Democratic Party, my advice is to buck up and visit your local Democratic campaign headquarters anyway, because this is too effing important. We need to push Obama into the White House, because otherwise we young people are going to find our asses shipped to Iran. I already worry enough that the Bush Administration will launch an airstrike just before Obama takes office, thus forcing Obama to fight another war whether he likes it or not.

EDIT: Actually, now that I've examined some blogs ZeaLitY refers to below and completed my own independent investigation into the matter, I have convinced myself that Hillary did not win the popular vote as she and her campaign officials claim.