I almost just threw my remote through my TV (I won’t mind if the TV dies, but I might miss my remote control.” The stupid Republican Congressman from Florida just said on MSNBC something to the extent of “It defies common sense that record high gasoline prices coincide with record oil company profits… ” How does that defy common sense? “It shows they’re doing it because they can and that doesn’t make it right.”
The level of intellectual bankruptcy in the energy debates is astounding.
Companies found to have charged “unconscionably excessive” prices could face fines up to $150 million, according to the sponsor of the price gouging legislation, Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat. The legislation has more than 120 co-sponsors.
The Senate Commerce Committee earlier this month approved its version of price-gouging legislation. That’s expected to get a vote by the full Senate next month as part of a broader package of energy measures.
I believe this only applies to oil companies, and let us hope that this legislation with can be described as either stupid or useless does not apply to electricity generators. Otherwise our whole electrical system is about to become FUBAR. The electricity producers rely on infrequent, short-lived, extreme price spikes to generate extra revenue and to stay in the black. Although the consumer may not know it, electricity prices can vary by more than 1000% in a day. In other words, our electrical system would, without doubt, fail if modern anti-price-gougers got hold of it.
Anyway, what does “unconscionably excessive” mean? The loose interpretation is “we don’t know what it means and you surely don’t know what the hell it means but eventually we’ll investigate and possibly decide to charge someone and then after a lengthy trial determine them to be innocent.”
Thus the legislation is stupid because it will cause more harm than good, or it is completely useless. I don’t have the legal expertise to know which.
Aside from this stupid legislative nuisance, we also have Harry Reid selling more pure BS.
“This administration may be content to sit by as oil companies continue to profit at the cost of our national security, economy and environment, but Democrats are not,”
Our national security is threatened? Oil companies aren’t supposed to profit? And please explain to me how he wants to help the economy and the environment at the same time. To help the economy, the only choice is to use cheap energy. The only cheap energy is fossil fuel, which must be burned. There is no magic bullet that will let you have one without the other.
I’m not too surprised by these guys trying to dash across the tops of of a row of Port-o-johns at the Preakness.
But I am surprised at the sheer volume of things being hurled at them. Or at least I was surprised until I remembered that the Preakness is in Baltimore.
The answer, sadly, is that Zimbabwe, a global example of how to ruin a productive economy, has just been chosen to head the Commission.
If the motto of the UN isn’t “of the leaders, by the leaders, and for the leaders,” it ought to be.
Alex Tabarrok has more in the lousy situation in Zimbabwe. My old posts are available here.
For as pleasurable as it is to live in a nice home, I’ve decided that my best choice in the short term is to live cheap. Thus I am going with House 1. The rent is low. The neighborhood is nice. And, the roommates are fun.
I’ll basically be living at the level of someone making half as much as me. That of course translates to mega-savings, which will one day lead to mega-super-awesome retirement.
After a detailed examination of the financial circumstances of people close to retirement, two economists, Stephen F. Venti of Dartmouth and David A. Wise of Harvard, concluded that the primary reason for differences in retirement assets was differences in propensities to save. It is not unusual to see low-income households with high savings rates holding more financial assets at retirement than high-income households who saved a smaller fraction of their income.
I ran across that quote yesterday. It helped strengthen my resolve to live cheap. In the long run, I expect to have both a high savings rate and high income.
Hey Howard, do you take clients who live in other states?
My Saturday was spent traveling up to DC and looking at potential places to live. The end result that there are basically 3 places in contention and all have at least one very appealing feature.
House 1 reminds me of Woodland Circle, but nicer. There are 4 bedrooms (I get the smallest) and basically 3 living rooms. On the upside I wouldn’t be confined to living in the basement, as in the Woodland Circle case, and the roommates seemed fun. House 1 is the cheapest of the 3 options.
House 3 actually looks like Woodland Circle on the outside. On the inside, however, is a house that is nicer than my parents’. For a price that is at the top of my budget, I get a bedroom, bathroom, and office to myself. Plus the den has a huge plasma TV and surround system. The kitchen is brand new and has all the cool new features: granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, and even the pot filler over the stove. Plus the neighborhood pool, pond, and tennis courts are essentially in the backyard.
Houses 1 and 3 are not within walking distance of the office, but are only a short drive away.
I’m not exactly sure which one to pick. I’d really like to live in House 3 and feel like a real adult. On the other hand, House 1 is about $400/month cheaper than House 3. At the end of the year, I think $5,000 will feel more adult than living in a nice house.
So I think I’m going with House 1. What would y’all do?
