July 6, 2008

"What do you think playground bullies grow up to be?" "Right-wing Republicans."

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich answers a question.

Actually, when I decided I was going to blog this little interview, I planned to feature this line about why our drilling for more oil isn't a good solution to high gas prices:
When you consider that the oil we pump goes into a global oil market, offshore drilling makes no sense. We take the environmental risk, but we’d have to share the negligible price gains with Chinese consumers and every other user around the world.
He's right about that, isn't he? I love the way lefties sometimes get bracingly chauvinistic. Suddenly, it's screw the rest of the world!

Oh, I know... the gains are only negligible anyway. But read the whole interview. Reich is obviously happy that the high gas prices are pushing people into mass transit at long last. If the environment is your primary concern, of course you don't want more domestic drilling, and, what's more, you welcome the high gas prices that make people consume less.

I'm calling Reich a lefty, but I note that he lives in Berkeley (where he's a professor of public policy) and he says "here I am on the right of most arguments."

And this is good. He's asked about whether he dated the college-age Hillary Clinton:
To call it a date is an exaggeration. She and I went out to see Antonioni’s “Blow-Up.” The only thing I remember is that she wanted what seemed to me to be an extraordinary amount of butter on her popcorn.
Yes, very tasty! Yes! I like it! I like it! Go on!



You know, if a woman indicates she wants extra butter, that means something:
Only an economist could go on a date and study trends in butter consumption. Isn’t that a kind of wonky thing to remember?

Yes, it is. I recall the extra butter costing more.
If the man balks at giving her extra butter on her popcorn, if he seems to calculate the expense, I think she can make some predictions about what any sexual relationship will be like. Later, when Bill took Hillary to the movies — maybe it was "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" — I bet Bill was all come on! Double extra butter! And Hillary fell in love. I wish I could find a clip of that scene where Julie Christie pigs out on eggs in front of Warren Beatty and he therefore knows she's quite the woman.

Now, Reich is also very short — 4-foot-10 1/2 — and he notes that he's "much more economically and environmentally sustainable."
I exhale less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I use up less space. I have a little house.
In the future, you will have to buy carbon offsets if you want to be tall or fat.

Anyway, it's at the end of the interview that we get to the quote that I highlighted above. Reich says that because he was short, he was bullied a lot as a kid.
People frequently tell me in interviews that they were bullied as children. But no one ever steps forward and says, “I was the bully.” They don’t want to admit to being a bully.
This provokes the questions-and-answer used as the title of this post.

As for Reich's answer, isn't it more likely that kids who were bullied grow up to be bullies themselves? You're very short and/or weak, but you're smart and you study... then you figure out how to crush your erstwhile tormentors by winning in business or politics. Right?

As my ex-husband used to say — maybe he's still recycling this line — "Life is 'Revenge of the Nerds.'"

77 comments:

AllenS said...

Hillary Rodham: "I want extra butter."

Robert Reich: "No."

Hillary Rodham: "For a little guy, you're kind of a bully."

Robert Reich: "I'm trying to save money. I'm wondering, could we save money on our purchasing of tickets, if we promised to only take up one seat? I could sit on your lap."

[Cartoon bubble forms over Hillary's head: "I wonder what that Bill guy is doing?]

rhhardin said...

Swamp Buttercup.

You hold them under somebody's chin to see if they like alligators.

1jpb said...

Funny, I was thinking that maybe he was kidding a little. This sounds like an off the cuff non-serious statement, that people constantly spew. Then, I read your next post where you acknowledge that it can be a mistake to get all flustered by literal interpretations.

Who knows, but most folks probably don't take these Bob and John comments seriously.

Regarding oil: This is one of the least BS filled assesments I've seen because it tells what both sides say (this could actually make it the most BS filled report.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/business/26offshore.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

The bottom line is that drilling isn't the solution, no matter what BS you believe. And, apostate Chemical Engineers are part of the problem, sorry.

Richard Fagin said...

How does crushing one's erstwhile childhood tormentors by winning at business or politics constitute bullying if it's done honestly and legally?

Playground bullies grow up to be losers, or gangsters. Your ex husband was right, Prof., life IS "Revenge of the Nerds."

Theo Boehm said...

If he had taken her to the opera, would it have been Madam Buttersubsidy?

Ron said...

Seeing David Hemmings reminds me of Rick Wakeman's Journey to the Center of the Earth! Sorry. It just does.

Reich is one of those annoying terrier bullies who thinks they're tough because they hang on to your pants leg. Eventually, you just have to chuck them out the window...

PatCA said...

Reich's statement about the futility of drilling is another one of those "there might be a down side, let's not do anything" statements. Dems and enviros said that 10 years ago about drilling in the US, and here we are, funding jihad around the world by borrowing money and buying oil from some of the most repressive regimes in the world.

All the bus trips in the world don't make up for that. Maybe we could have the peace society they claim they want if we stopped enabling the bad guys.

Re the date, I think Bill would have pumped that extra butter on her popcorn himself. He would have known she wanted more.

Scrutineer said...

What do you think playground bullies grow up to be? Right-wing Republicans.

Reminds me of a stories I've heard about Pat Buchanan's somewhat thuggish youth.

bearbee said...

If the environment is your primary concern, of course you don't want more domestic drilling, and, what's more, you welcome the high gas prices that make people consume less.

Higher gas prices cause higher food prices. But I gass that's a good thing considering that we are a nation of fatties and less consumption we help us losethe lard particularly the poor and elderly.

On the positive side, higher prices will force innovation, help break our oil dependency and stop the transfer of wealth into oil producing countries most of which hate us. Of course, that will take decades, in the meanwhile Congress, picking lint of its collective bellybutton, is unable to propose a coherent energy policy....

As for Reich's answer, isn't it more likely that kids who were bullied grow up to be bullies themselves?

Or they go into politics.......but I repeat you.

re: oil, peak oil, this quote by Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, responsible for the transformation of Dubai into a modern port city and commercial hub, reflecting concern that Dubai's oil will run out in a decade or two:

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."

AJ Lynch said...

There are many liberals like Reich who are glad gas prices have gotten so high. They take great pleasure in seeing high gas prices are forcing consumers to involuntarily change their habits.
By using their own power and influence to impede drilling for more oil, they have become bullies themselves. It is a new form of elitist bullying. It poses no risk of physical harm because they can pontificate from the Oped column or the university or the Senate floor and don't actually have to enter a schoolyard to face their victims.


Here is an example of another OPED where the writer gleefully predicts the American car culture is dead (and FYI he embellished his argument with false ridership data)


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/19049604.html

George said...

Back in the early 1980s, when Japan was riding high, Reich advocated a Japanese-style centrally-planned "industrial policy" for America, ala the oversight provided by Tokyo's MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry). This was back in the day when everyone thought Japan's interlocking conglomerate/export industies were going to rule the world.

Under Reich's scheme, companies would have been forced to accept "coordination" from Washington in return for accepting various government wage and labor policies and R&D money.

Reich stopped talking about what a great idea this was the instant the Japanese economy tanked in the late 1980s.

This "industrial policy" concept was all the rage among liberal Democrats. You don't hear much about it anymore, though it seems to be working for the Chinese.

For the time being.

Bissage said...

(1) I’d imagine that Robert Reich was a kind and generous lover.

Years ago I knew this young woman who was sort of promiscuous. She said she always slept with younger men because they were more grateful.

You get the idea.

(2) A young Bill Clinton once took Hillary for dinner at McDonald’s but she got stuck in one of the golden arches. They eventually got her out by buttering her hips and holding a Twinkie in front of her.

That joke wasn’t sexist.

I stole it from Joan Rivers.

(Originally about Elizabeth Taylor.)

(3) Gee, that Thomas dude in “Blowup” was kind of a bully, huh? Always shouting and stuff . . .

(4) Was David Hemmings very handsome? It’s always hard for a hetero guy to know but I somehow get the feeling he was very handsome.

If I were ever to have had a homosexual experience I would have wanted it to have been with a young David Hemmings. But he’d have to be nicer than Thomas.

And he’d have to buy me a nice dinner first.

And extra butter would be a given.

ricpic said...

Right wing Republicans, bullies? Is there any amount of pushing around they won't take? Why they're practically considered non compos mentis in their own Party!

Jeff with one 'f' said...

"Double extra butter!"

Bill took her to see Last Tango in Paris- sealed the deal for both of 'em!

Robert said...

In my more reflective moments, I came to the same conclusion as Reich re:bullies versus their prey. I have a nice income as a lawyer, while the bullies I knew growing up are either in prison (yes, literally) or washing my car. An elegant or sophisticated bully is also more effective ("We have a problem. There are still bugs on the windshield. Re-do it.")

And whether it really means you're a bully if you use law or politics to achieve your ends: please. Of course it is. Ask any litigator about the type. Ask Chuck Schumer, or Spitzer before the fall. Bullies. Legal, perhaps, but still bullies. And I think Reich was playing around anyway. He does have a sense of humor. Just keep him away from any position of responsibility or power. Berkeley is just fine for him.

XWL said...

Let me state up front, that I'm an awful person, and this comment is completely unfair (maybe not entirely unfair) . . .,

but seeing the picture accompanying the NYT interview, I can't help but think that there should have been an additional caption

"Object as appears, ACTUAL SIZE"

rhhardin said...

The traditional answer is that high school bullies grow up to be real estate developers.

William said...

In the bad neighborhoods, the bullies tend to be the Bill Sykes type--people who use not just their physical strength but an aura of violence to get their way. This strategy works for a time but rarely for a life. Such people end up dead or in prison before middle age. Among the better off the bullies use wealth, status, or ridicule to get their way. This strategy works just fine for an entire life...I have known bullies of all types. I take satisfaction that I have prospered better than the thugs I knew when young. It is a matter of some resentment that others have prospered more than I because of their dexterity in pulling rank.....I think a lot of working class kids can sense even when young that they are going to end up behind the eight ball and take the opportunity to take a few swipes at the jerks who are going to make the rest of their lives miserable....Adulterers, thieves, bullies: these vices transcend party lines. Smugness is to Democrats what jingoism is to Republicans.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Say, isn't cutting our carbon dioxide emissions another of those things where most of the benefits go to foreigners? Screw 'em!

Paul Zrimsek said...

Surely it's no accident that our bulliest President was the Republican neocon Theodore Roosevelt.

Cedarford said...

When you consider that the oil we pump goes into a global oil market, offshore drilling makes no sense. We take the environmental risk, but we’d have to share the negligible price gains with Chinese consumers and every other user around the world.

As an economist of fairly lousy reputation, Reich gets another issue badly wrong.

He assumes that bleeding out a trillion bucks of our domestic wealth each year on oil has no effect. It is not just the current account deficit. Every billion bucks sent overseas costs us 50,000 good jobs we could create domestically and a 7-11X money multiplier that feeds into the rest of the economy and ALLOWs creation of services that are dependent on either private enterprise wealth creation or government revenue (taxes).

He is wrong on price. Self-sufficient, or oil-exporting nations can withdraw from his precious global market and subsidize if they choose to.
Many do. Others use the revenue from domestic energy production to build national infrastructure or set up the country to be competitive in other industries and grow the economy.

The idiot dwarf is also wrong on environmental risk. The safety technology of the oil and gas industry has meant no significant spills in 40 years in either the stormy North Sea or in the Gulf despite 30 major hurricanes damaging and even sinking rigs.

Althouse - And most do.He's right about that, isn't he?

Nope, he is wrong as he could be, and that doesn't even get into his Open Borders boosterism creating enough new energy consumers to wipe out any conservation or efficiency gains. Or that we have at least 4 trillion in oil or synthoil sources now locked away from development by environmentalists. Or that all the "exciting alternative energy sources" will take 30 years to become significant IF they can be made far cheaper than present technology and materials allow - and we need at least 30 years to transition from our entire modern infrastructure built since the 1890s on oil.

I love the way lefties sometimes get bracingly chauvinistic. Suddenly, it's screw the rest of the world!

It sure is a change from screw the public to protect dubious "symbols" of the environment, or cripple oil, nuclear, gas, and coal in the name of what is in the minds of most experts. An acceptable risk compared to the collapse of the economy and the failure to be able to deliver social services as we once were able to do.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Reich is obviously happy that the high gas prices are pushing people into mass transit at long last. If the environment is your primary concern, of course you don't want more domestic drilling, and, what's more, you welcome the high gas prices that make people consume less.

Once again the urban centric left that can't imagine or doesn't care that the large majority of the world doesn't have access to mass transit. They don't seem to be the least bit concerned that this myth of man cause global warming is literally starving people to death world wide because we're burning up our food supply on a false altar.

Now, Reich is also very short — 4-foot-10 1/2 — and he notes that he's "much more economically and environmentally sustainable."
I exhale less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I use up less space. I have a little house.In the future, you will have to buy carbon offsets if you want to be tall or fat.


Wow.. just think how much less carbon dioxide usage all those aborted babies from the left are not using. I wonder if people will be able to get carbon offsets in the future for aborting their children or stunting their growth so that they grow up to be obnoxious little twerps like Reich.

veni vidi vici said...

I always thought his name was "Robert Reich the Third", or at least, it would've been quite ironically funny if it were.

As for the butter, one look at Hillary in an extremely rare non-bust shot (i.e. showing the full-length view), particularly if what pass for her ankles are within view, and it quickly becomes clear where a lifetime of extra butter went.

garage mahal said...

Oil was $11 per barrel when Clinton and Reich left their posts, but it's the baby aborting global warming leftist hoaxters fault it's at $144 currently.

Fucking LOL.

ricpic said...

Anyone named Mohammed is a bully.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oil was $11 per barrel when Clinton and Reich left their posts, but it's the baby aborting global warming leftist hoaxters fault it's at $144 currently.

The price of oil has nothing to do with babies or abortion. Futures traders and the law of supply and demand come to mind. Less supply because we refuse to drill for oil or construct refineries. More demand because other parts of the world (China, India etc) are rapidly industrializing and demanding more supply.

I was poking fun at the Left's penchant for tying everything in the world from lightbulbs, how much gas Reich exhales, how short the little pug is and anything and everything else to global warming. If you have short children or abort your children I guess you get to give carbon offsets to those people who have larger families and let their children grow to be tall......at least according to Reich.

Sarcasm is always lost on the loonie left. Garage is a prime example. No sense of humor and they want to control EVERYTHING by government fiat.

Butter is better for you than margarine. When making popcorn always use kosher salt as it sticks better to the buttered popcorn. YUM.

rcocean said...

'Nope, he is wrong as he could be, and that doesn't even get into his Open Borders boosterism creating enough new energy consumers to wipe out any conservation or efficiency gains.'

Exactly, its the open borders population growth that makes any "conservation" measures worthless. Thats why I never trust liberals when it comes to economics.

Given our current immigration levels we'll add another 50 million people in next 20 years. Which means any energy saving due to reduced consumption will be wiped out.

And this mass immigration will add to crowding and pollution. That's why "open borders" liberals who claim to love the environment are just slinging BS.

Wall Street, of course, doesn't care about the environment - "open borders" mean cheap labor and big profits.

Cedarford said...

garage mahal said...
Oil was $11 per barrel when Clinton and Reich left their posts, but it's the baby aborting global warming leftist hoaxters fault it's at $144 currently.


The free trade agreement Clinton and the greedy corporatists signed with China meant China could use it's dirt cheap labor wipe out industries in other countries, transfer all that production of formerly good-paying jobs in other countries - into 11-14% per annum GNP and 13-18% industrial growth rates.
Which has meant China is now the largest creditor nation, gaining more wealth than countries like ours took 80 years to build up and piss away. Clintons deals mean China has been (unofficially 10 years inc. all their coalbed fores, 6 months now on just acknowledged emissions, the world's largest carbon emitter with what they say, no intent of complying with any global cap.

For oil, this has meant that 60% of the rise in global oil demand since the ink was signed on the China trade treaties - is due to China demand. Which drove up demand until prices exploded.

Bush and our terrorist foe gets modest blame (15-23 bucks a barrel for terrorist instability premiums plus bungling that cost 4 years time in boosting Iraq output.) 60% of the rest to the increase from 40 dollars is the demand caused by the US-Elite enabled, explosive Rise of CHina.

***************
Bearbee - On the positive side, higher prices will force innovation, help break our oil dependency and stop the transfer of wealth into oil producing countries most of which hate us. Of course, that will take decades.

Except most of the idiots blocking a national energy policy don't understand it will take decades to fix what 30 years of doing nothing caused, that innovation may not yield magic bullet "exciting alternative energy" cures (think of where ethanol, the magic solution to US energy problems and global warming now stands in credibility today). And even if "magic bullets" that are not so costly as to cause a substantial reduction in standard of living are found, we STILL have 30 years work to get off that part of the oil-based infrastructure we cannot afford to use anymore.

And the idiots in DC, the brainless NIMBYS of the general populace - are about due to find out that without productive jobs in the USA, and reasonably priced commodities, with a hard drop in standard of living - there is nowhere near the money we once had for courts, social services, welfare, schools, our unfunded medicare and SS liabilities.

And that means a big cut in the "non-productive" jobs liberals
flock to - lawyers, social services bureaucrats, teachers, money available for heath care of the poor...
And huge drops in charitable giving as losing our productive jobs to China and failing to anticipate that the global oil market would fail if countries stopped looking for energy sources thinking it would just magically appear if money was waived...

****************
1jpb - The bottom line is that drilling isn't the solution, no matter what BS you believe. And, apostate Chemical Engineers are part of the problem, sorry.

No matter how much lefties and environmentalists say that domestic energy must not be developed from any source but their dwindling list of exciting alternative energies the fact remains we must use energy sources we have the technology to rapidly implement in the meantime.

Drilling and temporarily trashing a river or two to get the extraction & industrial process water to where 4 trillion barrels of oil are locked up in the USA are part of the solution.

Solution?

Coal+Coal to Oil+nat gas+nuclear+oil shale+conservation - however many net new energy users pour in as immigrants or future descendents of immigrants+3-8% added by exciting alternative energy (which is now non-price competitive, and much unusable as an oil substitute)

The problem is that much of the US population has been propagandized into believing that all "conventional" energy sources are environmentally unsafe and must not be used, that it would be "racist" to control immigration, and mighty magic in conservation and "exciting alternative energy" is right around the corner.

We can get our way back to prosperity, but we have 3 decades of distastrous policy to repair and open questions if our form of government is globally competitive anymore. We have 30 years of propaganda directed at young people creating a mass delusion about actual risks and actual energy supply we can get and use

Are we locked in Courtroom lawyer, special interest group paralysis?

We may end up in the Declared State of Emergency and Martial Law following energy and food riots that the Lefties fear so...

cubanbob said...

The solution to the energy price problem? Simple! Ban all registered democrats, commies and greens from owning any personal transportation vehicles and air conditioners as well as any light bulb with a higher than 40 wattage.

If that doesn't do the trick, turn them in to bio-fuel. For the good of Gaea.

P. Rich said...

1jpb

There are no balanced reports in the NYT.

Theory: Dems want traditional energy costs to become prohibitive because that's the only way progressive-chic alternatives which are already cost prohibitive can gain any traction. Their green base will then be ecstatic, as will all the leftists who want to see evil corporations fail and everything revert to government control - toward which subsidies are a clever first step. Negative side effects are irelevant in their calculations, as are any recognizable principles of economics. Isn't it obvious?

AJ Lynch said...

Cubanbob For President!

Devertt said...

Two things.
1) I question whether a short person is more efficient enviromentally. Uless he has a lot of ladders in his house, he probably uses only the bottom shelves in the Kitchen and Bookshelves, taking up more floor area for the same amount of storage space.
2) As for bullies, which party is the one that keeps demanding our lunch money?

Devertt said...

Two things.
1) I question whether a short person is more efficient enviromentally. Uless he has a lot of ladders in his house, he probably uses only the bottom shelves in the Kitchen and Bookshelves, taking up more floor area for the same amount of storage space.
2) As for bullies, which party is the one that keeps demanding our lunch money?

1jpb said...

Cedarford & P. Rich,

Everything should be on the table. But, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that Nukes and fossil fuel industries are dependent on government subsidies.

And, it is important to consider the relative costs to the environment (yes, manufacturing and implementing some alternative energy systems do have these costs too.)

There was an interesting caller to Rush on Friday (I think.) A very conservative guy with two interesting characteristics. First, his support of McCain was not based on issues, his comments were the sort of thing that wingnuts use to make fun of some of BHO's supporters when they use the same kind of thinking.

Second, he did think that some consideration should be given to environmental concerns. Rush was silenced when this guy recalled the Cuyahoga River being on fire. But, he could have just pointed to China (among other places) today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html

The Drill SGT said...

Oil was $11 per barrel when Clinton and Reich left their posts,

And 16 months ago when the Democratics took over Congress gas was $3/gl, not $4/gl. Pelosi said in the first hundred hours the'd end subsidies to big oil and lower the price of gas.

Now how increasing costs, reducing investments and R&D would lower costs, I don't know. Maybe Reich planned that as well. Anyway, hasn't worked out well has it.

Most of the increase in oil price is demand driven, and some is speculation on the part of producers and middlemen.

Works like this. If you think the price of oil next year is going to be XX% higher than this year and XX% is higher than you can earn my selling a barrell today and investing the money, then the rationale person keeps the barrell of oil in the ground and waits another year to pump it out.

However, if we start pumping oil, and the ever climbing spiral of oil prices falters, then there is an instantaneous incentive to start increasing supply to catch the top of the oil market today.

Drill Now!

Richard said...

What do little left-wing schoolyard pussies grow up to be? Robert Reich.

AJ Lynch said...

Sgt said:

"Drill now".

That is going to be a big big election issue. Voters are gonna demand it and ask what the F our Congress has been doing?

DEM members of Congress in states like PA (i.e my Senator Casey) will have to throw enviro extremists like Barbara Boxer overboard. She is in a pretty safe state re her next election but many others represent less extreme states and districts.

Maguro said...

Second, he did think that some consideration should be given to environmental concerns.

Pure strawman. What Republican politician demanded drilling with no environmental concerns?

No one said disband the EPA or drill without restrictions. The Brits and Norwegians have managed to drill the North Sea for years now without major problems, no reason we can't do the same.

1jpb said...

Maguro,

The guy told Rush that the environment was the one area where it made sense for Rs to compromise with the D position.

And, you may have missed it, but a lot of Rs fight and deny the legitimacy of the D position on the environment, rather than compromise with it.

Look at Cedarford's arithmetic to see that the environment is not a term (not to mention that the subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels don't show up as coefficients.) This is the problem with R thinking. Faulty math. (Of course, Ds leave out plenty of terms and coefficients too.)

Everything should be on the table.

MF said...

This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
"It is my sad duty to inform you of a four-foot restriction on humanoid height."

WhidbeyIslander said...

"In the future, you will have to buy carbon offsets if you want to be tall or fat."

Trust me, I didn't get to choose my height.

Ernst Blofeld said...

Surprised Ann didn't use the Yardbirds rave-up from Blow-Up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJGEn4FDys

To the extent the Chinese have an industrial policy it holds them back. The state banking system may yet auger in.

Ernst Blofeld said...

Also: what would that piece of guitar be worth if sold on E-Bay today?

LBJay said...

in effect we have subsidized the automobile.

Always amazes me, 40,20 & 10 years ago they called it an investment.

Of course under Clinton and this guy, taxes became "contributions".

stevewhitemd1 said...

what's more, you welcome the high gas prices that make people consume less.

Only if the government gets the money in taxes. It's no good if the oil company gets it because they might, you know, invest in finding more oil. Whereas gummint could piss all the money away with nothing to show for it.

Joe said...

Reich is a moron. He has absolutely no clue just how much oil the US is sitting on. Yes, any single well produced a negligible amount in world supply terms, but in total the US is sitting on enough oil reserves to supply the world. Problem is that unlike the middle east, this oil is harder to get out. However, if we don't drill the oil off of Florida, someone else will.

Beyond oil, we are sitting on centuries of Oil Shale reserves. Technology is not quite there yet, but companies won't invest with the current "you can't" attitude of congress.

There is one solution we can implement now. Coal gasification. The technology is here, we have the coal. What we don't have is the political will.

Maguro said...

And, you may have missed it, but a lot of Rs fight and deny the legitimacy of the D position on the environment, rather than compromise with it.

What we are talking about is letting drilling go forward subject to all the existing EPA regulations and guidelines, which are voluminous indeed. Relax, no one wants to set the Cuyahoga on fire again.

Meade said...

XWL, Then I'm an awful person too because I laughed - albeit because of the rhythm of your comic writing more than at Robert Reich being, well, height-challenged.

As the great Johnny Carson used to say: funny stuff.

Jim C. said...

"As for Reich's answer, isn't it more likely that kids who were bullied grow up to be bullies themselves? You're very short and/or weak, but you're smart and you study... then you figure out how to crush your erstwhile tormentors by winning in business or politics. Right?"

Any cites to show that?

But can't you crush people in court? Or in academia? Or students who annoy or disagree with you? How about it, tenured and full professor of law Althouse?

fcai said...

Typical socialist rhetoric. Reich's comment about doing well in business is especially laughable, as he, and his leftist friends work in government, not industry. He wasn't tall enough to get on the rides...

buck smith said...

Reich is wrong about environmental risk. The maount of oil spilled when it is moved in pipelines is effectively zero. Oil shipped to us in tankers carries a much highr risk of spills.

Cedarford said...

1jpb - Look at Cedarford's arithmetic to see that the environment is not a term (not to mention that the subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels don't show up as coefficients.) This is the problem with R thinking. Faulty math. (Of course, Ds leave out plenty of terms and coefficients too.)

1jpb, if you want a complete Bernoullis as applied to economics to characterize energy supply vs. demand, you are into serious computer time and thousands of variables.
And even then you have factors that are not easily quantifiable. Wind Power vs. the value of view of the Ruling Elites summering in Hyannisport, MArtha's Vineyard, Nantucket?

I kept mine pretty simple, basic present & foreseeable energy sources, conservation gains, and losses from new energy users. Simple, but people completely miss the most rudimentary stuff now and have a mass delusion that perfect, unpolluting and cheap energy sources capable of powering 2800 reliable 1000MW power plants and all out vehicles are right around the corner...and stupid little conservation measures will counteract going from 220 million people in the USA in the 1st Oil Crisis to 300 million now, to 363 million in 2030, to 420 million in 2050.

China had a population of 400 million in 1900. India+Pakistan+Bangladesh had 286 million.
High breeding rate Mexico had only 13 million, in 1900. Less than the unwanted surplus of low-educated poor they dump off on us every decade.

******************
rcocean - its the open borders population growth that makes any "conservation" measures worthless. Thats why I never trust liberals when it comes to economics.

Given our current immigration levels we'll add another 50 million people in next 20 years. Which means any energy saving due to reduced consumption will be wiped out.

And this mass immigration will add to crowding and pollution. That's why "open borders" liberals who claim to love the environment are just slinging BS.


It's worse.
And your numbers of arriving breeders are low.

Environmentalists and hard Left Democrats that go into hysterics about the temporary damage a spill or plant leak might do - are utterly unconcerned (along with supply side Republican Voodoo worshippers and greedy corporatists playing both sides, plus the usual identity politics groups) about permanent wildlife habitat losses, and water and arable land losses from mass immigration and high breeding rates by the most parasitic in America.

In California, population growth since 1970 has caused a 20% loss in arable land available for crops, a 15% permanent loss in wildlife habitat. Other states have seen greater wildlife habitat losses, available water losses.

(Overseas, it is a far worse situation as human breeding is predicted to cause mass extinction events in Africa, Asia, Latin America rainforest and coastal environments. Something no energy source accident could ever threaten. Some islands are now denuded of once substantial wildife surrounded by dead, fished -out ocean, and packed to the gills with surplus people now wanting to get to America with their 6-10 children. Whereas Bikini Atoll and Einwetok Atoll were saved from that and made the world's greatest marine reserves by dropping a little under a dozen large hysdrogen and boosted fission bombs and people prevented from going there and killing anything for dinner.)

Prince William Sound was over the Exxon Valdez in under two years in terms of fish, marine mammals, bird numbers. Oil slicked areas left untreated were covered in biomass in 5 years, and had the same wildlife numbers as areas where 100s of millions were spent steam-cleaning rocks.

Still, it's going to take some time to reverse 30 years of brainwashing on our kids by teachers that worshipped environmentalist ignorance and false prophecies of extreme dangers, and the idea that it would be "racist" to stop anyone who wants to come here or deny them family reunification of their whole interelated village of clan relatives.
Or dispel the brainwashing that if only they demand their parents recycle and use Gore-bulbs that the American population quadrupling in the 20th Century and predicted to more than double in the 21st will avoid the congestion and squalor of China and India when they had similar numbers.
Or remind them that Haiti's population increased 1050% in 100 years and they all want to get here get 80 different welfare benefits, and fill in the Everglades and have nice shacks and be able to fish in waters they haven't cleaned of all sealife.

Environmentalists, liberal Democrats, and greedy corporatists don't give a crap about human destruction of the environment - only blocking what the masses want and augmenting their power over them.

1jpb said...

Cedarford,

Nice last statement. That's the kind of thinking McCain needs to adopt. In one statement you've summarized your comment (which is a Rush and Savage combo, heavy on the Savage.)

Keep spreading the word.

Cincinnatus said...

"As for Reich's answer, isn't it more likely that kids who were bullied grow up to be bullies themselves? You're very short and/or weak, but you're smart and you study... then you figure out how to crush your erstwhile tormentors by winning in business or politics. Right?"

It goes to show, never go up against a Cicilian when !death! is on the line!
Ahahahahahahaha ahahahahaahah ahahaaha...

Peter said...

All this year I thought that Democrat Congress had not passed any of thier campaing promises. They were going to lower gas and energy prices. That worked well. They promised to lose the war.

Now I find yhat they managed to repeal the law of supply and demand. Who knew that increasing the supply of oil would not lower prices? It always has.

Kev said...

Cedarford said:
And that means a big cut in the "non-productive" jobs liberals
flock to - lawyers, social services bureaucrats, teachers, money available for heath care of the poor...


I agree with you on all but one of those; teachers are hardly a part of the non-productive class (provided that they're actually teaching something and not just spouting ideology).

School administrators? Another story entirely...

Beldar said...

Robert Reich wrote,

"We take the environmental risk, but we’d have to share the negligible price gains with Chinese consumers and every other user around the world."

Well, yeah. Americans would then be to citizens of the world as Texan and Louisianans are now to Californians and Floridians.

Howard said...

Why do people keep calling this guy an economist? He does not have the training as an economist, which explains a great deal of why he sounds like such an idiot on economic questions. No one calls me an astronomer for looking at the stars and not understanding how it all works, so why does he get called and economist when he looks at the economy and doesn't understand how it works?

former law student said...

Who knew that increasing the supply of oil would not lower prices? It always has.

Not if the currency you offer in exchange declines more rapidly. The dollar has lost a third of its value on W.'s watch. Had the dollar maintained parity with the Euro, gas would be under $3/gallon today. W. is starting to make Carter look like an economic genius. He has my vote for worst president since Warren G. Harding, and that might be judging Harding unfairly.

reader_iam said...

Just perused a bunch of the "bios" publicly, easily and obviously available on the 'net with regard to Reich.

Why, given that he's served in connection with presidential administrations and is also an influential public figure quite apart from that, is it so darn to difficult to easily find--searching the way your average person would--his precise undergraduate degree; information about his Oxford sojourn, beyond a famous co-Rhodes scholar; and so forth?

A question asked in proxy.

rhhardin said...

Loss of jobs, balance of trade, etc etc, is not seeing the benefits of trade.

Mike Munger in this podcast is even entertaining.

All the Munger stuff is good, in the archives.

M. Simon said...

Of course drilling is not the answer.

Why the prices for oil would be practically unchanged if producers cut supplies by 10%.

Nothing we can do changes anything. Well, except for CO2 incinerating us.

Thank heavens for left wing politics which says supply and demand make no differences in the oil market. Because, you know, oil is special.

Of course righties believe that the laws of supply and demand don't exist in the market for illegal drugs. Because, you know, drugs are special. So each side has their own blind spots.

M. Simon said...

Who knew that increasing the supply of oil would not lower prices? It always has.

Not if the currency you offer in exchange declines more rapidly.


Why yes. The currency has lost 1/3 its value and oil prices have more than doubled. So the cost of oil is strictly a monetary phenomenon. You just have to believe.

If my math was that good I'm sure I could design a working perpetual motion machine.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

On second though, I won't say that.

bearbee said...

In 2000-1 California experienced rolling blacks. When that begins to happen nationwide because of inadequate infrastructure and insufficient energy resources then finally Americans will get mean.

It is a tragedy that that is what it takes to motivate a dithering Congress. They would rather play Russian roulette and politics with the nations future rather than understand potential problems and make the tough decision to take action to circumvent.

Had the dollar maintained parity with the Euro, gas would be under $3/gallon today. W. is starting to make Carter look like an economic genius.

How about the role of the Fed/Greenspan/Bernanke and Congress in this whole thing? The Fed reports to Congress not the Prezident.

Pogo said...

Instapundit pointed to the usual fin de si├Ęcle of all leftist 3rd way socialism, which relies on state-sponsored bullying:
Strikes Poised to Cripple UK

Robert Reich is an economist in the same way Mariah Carey is a recording artist, both producing sweet-tasting crap for the masses; each new piece rises, then falls into complete obscurity.

Quick, hum a Mariah Carey tune.
Now recall a successful Reich initiative.
Can't be done.

Roger J. said...

Wasnt Reich (who is not an economist, but, I believe a lawyer), is also the dude that fabricated conversations in the tell all book he wrote when he left the Clinton Administration. His justitification, IIRC, was that those are the conversations that would have taken place (if he had engaged in). Loser.

Henry said...

Now, Reich is also very short — 4-foot-10 1/2 — and he notes that he's "much more economically and environmentally sustainable."

More chauvinism. Those damn Dutch.

former law student said...

In 2000-1 California experienced rolling black[out]s.

In 2000-1 Enron was manipulating California's electricity supply. Calling a third of the plants generating California's power, and telling them they need to shut down "for maintenance" will cause a shortage every time. Read "The Smartest Guys In the Room" for the whole story. Luckily, the people ultimately responsible for the rolling blackouts are now dead or in prison.

So the cost of oil is strictly a monetary phenomenon.

I never said that. I'd just rather pay $3 a gallon (oil supply vs. demand) than $4.50 (dollar supply vs. demand).

Pogo said...

I'd just rather pay $3 a gallon (oil supply vs. demand) than $4.50 (dollar supply vs. demand).

I would hope then you oppose proposed moratoria on house foreclosures, much as Greenspan's false interest rates, with federal relaxing of loan requirements, and the relaxation of regs on the transfer of loan ownership, combined to create the housing price bubble and crash. All have made the dollar worth less, and delaying the pain will make it even worse.

Freeman Hunt said...

So did they like Blow Up or not?

former law student said...

All have made the dollar worth less

You need to show me how the fall of the dollar correlates to the domestic housing market. The dollar fell continuously from early 2002 to 2005, recovered a bit that year, then continued its steady downward progrss from early 2006 till now.

Bissage said...

I don’t know about them but I loved it. And I would have never rented it were it not for Althouse.

It was one of those rare movies where I found it fascinating while watching it, enjoyed talking about it afterwards, and still later felt like it had all been worthwhile.

About two-thirds/three-quarters into the movie Thomas says something that absolutely shocked me and I had to see everything in a whole new light.

It was then I realized the director had used my go-along inclinations to make his contrarian point for him.

Brilliant!

We watched it twice and now I want to see it again!

(See? No spoiler in any of the foregoing!)

Paul said...

Robert Reich: expanding domestic oil exploration and drilling "makes no sense" and would have only a "negligible" impact on price.

You: "He’s right about that, isn’t he?"

Not necessarily, no. Did you see the July 1st Wall Street Journal op-ed by Harvard economics prof and former Council of Economic Advisors chair Martin Feldstein? Feldstein argued that modest changes in expectations about future oil supplies can have a suprisingly large impact on oil prices in the short run. I won’t belabor the point –- if you’re interested, the piece is still available on the WSJ website (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html). But I thought Feldstein refuted the view expressed by Reich (and you?) rather handily.

bearbee said...

T. Boone Pickens Plan

bearbee said...

ps.....to anyne wondering why we have a trade imbalance, consider the annual $700 billion and growing outflow.