Who was worse - The Clinton or Bush Administration - and why?

Remove all ads!

Especially this economy.

 

NOG,
the European economies do regulate their CO2 emissions and apparently didn't take a blow.

So maybe that fear of CO2 regulation wrecking the already ailing economy is a standard issue industry fearmongering argument?
*whisper*If they regulate CO2 you might lose your job!*whisper*

When you regulate the CO2 output, it forces the market to adapt, and so generates investment into reduced-CO2 technology. It merely forces the producers to adapt. So they would need to modernise plants, invest into new filter technology and orders would go to companies developing, producing such technology. It can be argued that regulating CO2 output would benefit the economy. Of course, regulation induced investment will have to be diverted from somewhere. On the other hand, the production of real things by real people in real jobs for the re-invested money generates something palpable and in face of the recent banking and finance crises something more credible and durable than reinvesting profits into the finance economy. Yes, it will certainly lead to reduced profit for the large companies affected by CO2 regulation. That would primarily be the energy sector. After their record profits over the last few years, thanks to the high energy prices, they're up to it. It's just that they don't want to because CO2 regulation is not in their shareholder's interest more investment, less dividends

If $ 50 million investment into lobbying can spare you $ 1 billion dollars investment in modernisation, it is a good investment.

 

Ragusa, from what I hear, most European economies aren't doing tha great these days. Secondly, an investment in CO2 control technology would mean taking a lot of money away from other products, increasing the costs of other products, and probably cutting jobs. I'm working with a group that's going through something similar right now (only it isn't CO2 and the technology is already existing). They're looking at maxing out loans, getting federal aid, raising rates, and cutting jobs and they still may not be able to do it. How would it help the economy if gas prices went up more, if all new cars now cost an additional $5-$10K for increased gas milage, if electricity and natural gas prices went up more, if prices on everything shipped any real distance sky-rocketed (which includes most of our food)...

Now, of course, the real cost is entirely dependant on how much you regulate it. If you regulate CO2, but give every individual a cap of 500 billion tons a day, that won't hurt the economy, but what Gore has been talking about would.

 

Compared to the US?

 

According to whom? And exactly what economies are doing badly? Generally the Euro-area is doing better than the US at the moment. Growth is certainly at higher levels than in US at the moment, at the same time the European balance of trade is more, well balanced than in the US. Our inflation also is currently lower while it's certainly quite high. Our unemployment ratings are higher though but they allways tend to be. Also the big European economies are generally making either small deficits or surplus in the public economy unlike the US.

However Ragusa is not all correct in his assessment. European economies will take a blow in reducing CO2 emissions, Finland certainly will take a very significant ones and so will plenty of others. It's just that the blow has not quite come yet and the newly agreed restrictions are not yet quite implemented. When they will be it will certainly cut back on growth. How much damage it will do remains to be seen.

 

Morgoroth,
under Kyoto and LUCLUF Finland will be able to compensate for their emissions at least in part through their extensive forests, which act under Kyoto as CO2 sinks. I don't think that Finland will do all that bad. They probably suffer more due to the current high energy costs than through the emission reduction.

The latter can be beneficial for an economy in that it enforces modernisation (less consumption through greater efficiency, less CO2 output). It is, however, true that enterprises probably are going to retain their gains and add the cost of their investment on the consumer price. So costs will rise anyway, independent of the actual energy prices.

 

Higher energy costs though are partly because some of the more CO2 intensive but inexpensive methods of producing energy need to be cut down. Energy prices are also largely determined by futures which means that any new agreement of cutting CO2 emissions will directly hit energy prices. Way over a half of our energy is produced through CO2 intensive methods either through burning of forest products or oil. These of course with the new regulations have to be replaced by something, which will probably include nuclear power, imported natural gas and renewable energy.

I'm not sure what the forests actually compensate from the emissions but when the unions, the industries, the politicians (well all except the ones from the green party) all agree that the reductions will damage the economy, it sort of makes it difficult to disagree. I'm sure some of the panic is unwarranted and the economy will eventually adapt but saying that European economies will take no significant hits from CO2 emission reductions is simply not true.

 

I've heard that unemployment in europe is noticably higher than the US and that economic growth varies from positive to negative (US has yet to have a negative quarter, no matter what the news says). From those two I figured the economy was weaker than here.

As for power, the vast majority of electricity in the US comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. Almost all transportation is gas or deisel powered (thought there is a growing market for biodeisel). Any construction to replace the power plants on the grid would take decades and cost fortunes (and probably require that they kill the restricitons on nuclear plant building and uranium mining). Replacing the cars could go faster, but would still be very expensive.

 

Morgoroth,
my argument for Finland rests on my presumption that Finland has a lot of forest. For illustration, a starkly simplified, fictitious sample:

Finland agrees to reduce CO2 by 150.000 tons/year.
The forests under LUCLUF have an area of x hectar, which are under the calculation methodology, a dump for 100.000 tons/year.
Finland would have to reduce CO2 output by 50.000 tons/year.

And now lets get to the fun part: Countries have an emission volume, and companies receive emission or rather pollution rights from their governments. As a result of American insistence CO2 certificates can be traded (a market driven approach, nothing less! ), so for a company it is possible to buy foreign CO2 certificates to be able to emit as much as they need to. Now imagine an Indian company that has two factories, one old and obsolete with a great CO2 emission and another just modernised plant that's much more efficient. They will close the older plant. They will then sell their emission rights to an buyer in the West, ideally a competitor. That way they can earn money while doing nothing. Better still, they can use the profit as a de-facto subsidy for their competing product at the expense of their competitor

Such exploits are one of the shortcomings of the emission trading system under Kyoto. To bridge that gap: For that not Clinton is to blame but rather the entire western participants in the negotiations, those of my country explicitly included. That is going to be addressed in the next negotiating round if my sources are right.
But this is taking us seriously

 

Needless to say that you are oversimplifying matters quite alot. I can't say I'm all certain but I don't think that any country within the union is currently facing negative figures of growth. Estonia for one is heading there, but then so is the US. Overall the EU growth figures are higher than in the US at the moment. Also the unemployment is in a large part unemployment of choice. EU has traditionally had a higher unemployment rating than the US, it's largely due concious policy choices, a very bad indicator of the current economic situation.

 

That we will never know, since neither have, nor more than likely will ever be prez. Instead, America was unlucky enough to have the worst president in its history: A lying, deceitful, incompetent, little frat brat who passed himself off as a "world leader," and whose world leadership turned out to be rather small and narrow in the end. Better luck next time.

 

In general, the Eastern European countries have more rapidly developing economies, and thus are imo more volatile. In all honesty, the Baltic States have been experiencing very impressive economic growth figures, so it is unfair to imply that they are facing serious decline.

Of course, one can't deny that the European economies in general are vulnerable both to domestic problems and, the latter being imo more frequent, catching on downturns in the US economy. However, while most European economies aren't doing exactly "great", they are making do fairly well.

 

Please Chandos, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

Oh, and try to take the Dem goggles off -- you're exaggerating again, but it is an election year so I guess it's expected.

 

It's not decline it's only a recession looming. A lot of that growth has been within the housing and building buisness, and it has created a bubble, now it's bursting and growth in Estonia is grinding to a halt. Not sure about the other baltic states but I don't think the situation in them is quite so bad. Not that Estonia will be that bad off either but it's a natural balancing force which comes to play after a period of high growth. The years of high growth figures in the baltic states are certainly beginning to be a thing of the past and they'll have to settle with similar growth with western Europe.

EDIT: Checked from the treasury of Estonia and the official growth number for Estonia in the first quarter was 0.1%. While it's technically not a recession yet it's pretty much as close as it gets.

 

No, that's where you are wrong. The thing for me is that I love this country - not any party. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. What appears to happening here is a bit of projection and tranference. It's easy for some to believe that all of us are either Democrats or Republicans. So if one supports another who might be better for the country, then it must be that it's always a case of differing partisanship. How disrespectful that is. Your comment denies me the satisfaction of having drawn my own conclusions regarding which are the best options for getting this country back on track again. It denies me the ability of free-will. So since that's the way we are going to engage in this dialogue, then let's continue.

I'm really not very fond of the Democratic party, but at this point in time, it is the best we've got, which is rather unfortunate. But I have been asking myself, how much deeper into depravity can the Republican Party sink before the "party faithful" let go?

But, by any chance, is anyone on this board a conservative? I did not think so. Let me describe a conservative, which is certainly an endangered species, since I never see them anymore: Conservatives support a balanced budget, less taxes and less government spending as a rule. They even want a Constitutional amendment to ensure a balanced budget. Imagine THAT in the time of the Bush regime. Things must be really tough on conservatives these days.

Real conservatives support a fiscally responsible government; one that respects the Constitution; one that is less intrusive in people's personal lives; one that takes responsibility for its actions and can point to a level of achievement. For more info on what conservatives believe, see the "Contract with America," which was supposed to be a statement of conservative principles. If you can't find a copy, ask a conservative, if you can find one.

 

Hmm, Bush and the Republicans I have known in my life seems to fulfil most of the criteria I have for conservatives. My point being, be wary when you state what a real "something" is. We all seem to have our very own definition of pretty much anything.

In my eyes Bush is very much a classical conservative, religious, traditional, quick to shoot stuff, patriotism over all and suspicious of anything foreign. You definition of a conservative is my definition of a liberal. So, I am not sure if it is wise to talk about "real" anything.

 

Well, Joacqin, that's the European definition of liberalism

 

Excellent response Chandos. I lean strongly towards the conservative ideals (except when it comes to abortion, religious right positions, and education). From your posts over the past few years you tend to lean toward liberal ideals.

I should have put down "anti-Bush" goggles (you are a bit biased on that subject). I stand corrected.

 

Thanks for the correction, T2.

There are different types of conservatives, just as their are varying types of liberals. In 1994 the Republicans took over the government from the Democrats. During the election they drafted a statement of principles. That statement was signed by almost every Republican in Congress at that time, or Republican who was running for office. It had a set of core principles upon which most conservatives were in agreement - a unifying set of core principles for conservative Republicans.

How much of this resembles the Bush regime? Of course, any set of core principles can change over time. However, this is how many still view conservative principles. If there are any conservatives on this board, then what principles do they think Republicans should have in common?

joacqin - You have pointed out the negative aspects of "conservatives." But realistically, one has to view what is good about the "other side" as well. Otherwise, one runs the risk of becoming just another partisan hack, without any credibility.

As a liberal, I don't agree with everything within the contract. But I believe that part of the success of the 1990's was not only Bill Clinton, but the Republican Congress as well. A fiscally responsible government and the balanced federal budget, with lower taxes, were key to the economic boom, which is now "history." I think that even some Democrats have come to see how important the government's economic responsibility is. That in itself is a conservative achievement. Of course, where does GWB fit into that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

 

I do not see many good things with what I perceive as conservatism. I can see many good things with my definition of liberalism even though I tend to vote socialist. For me the political struggle is between socialism and liberalism while conservatism is just an old albeit dangerous dinosaur that shouldn't have any relevancy.