<p>I was emailing my Dad about this fairly depressing book I recently read that discusses peak oil, bird flu, climate change, etc-- and he replied:</p>
<p>“If you want to worry, there are more real concerns to occupy your mind. How about the vast disparities of wealth in America leading to social upheaval? Or the fiscal and foreign trade deficits? How is the next recession to to be confronted without rampant inflation?”</p>
<p>My Dad is rich, conservative, and-- much to my horror-- voted for W the first time. You don’t have to be liberal to see what’s going on.</p>
<p>Interesting data, but are you sure you want to use this source to make your point? Let’s look at the percent of total income represented by the top 1% and 5% of filers for the Clinton administration and the Bush administration:
</p>
<p>Notice anything? Like the constant growth in the share of wealth among the top earners during the Clinton yeras and then the drop in percentage of wealth at the top end of the spectrum when Bush came into office? If you want to use this a barometer of being a “good” president versus a terrible president, then it looks quite convincing … and Bush thanks you for the support that you have provided him. Too bad Clinton doesn’t come off too well with your metrics. Oh well.</p>
<p>FF, I’m not unaware of the impact the stock market boom and bust had on the IRS figures. Nor do I suggest that one year’s movement makes a trend, or, for that matter, that a president has that much control over the economy on an short-term basis. What about congress? The courts? I was responding to what Jlauer and w1cked were saying about the growing gap between the rich and poor - which actually began in the Reagan administration. GWB’s personal addition to the situation, which he is responsible for, is to add to the already massive national debt (the rest of it was run up in the Reagan and Bush1 administrations. At this point it’s Republican debt, plain and simple.) So we’ll have wealthier wealthy, poorer poor, and a middle class saddled with the burden of the debt. That’s not just the fruit of GWB’s regime - it’s the triumph of the neocon policy over the past 25 years.</p>
<p>Congratulations, FF - your side won. Now you get to take credit for the consequences. (I know - it’s really Clinton’s fault.)</p>
<p>You find my concern amusing? Why, because of the irony that oil use is linked to climate change? Or because you don’t think either of these problems is real?</p>
<p>As you might suspect I am no fan of over-consumption of oil and I recognize fossil fuels’ contribution to global warming. I see the irony of concurrently being concerned about both issues. However, both ARE big problems for human beings and my concern about both is in human terms.</p>
<p>Peak oil is a big concern because the ‘2nd half’ of available oil will be used much more rapidly than the first half, and it is much harder to extract. Eeven if poor quality oil remains somewhere, when energy used to extract one barrell approaches energy provided by one barrell, we’re done with oil. </p>
<p>Our economy and way of life are very much set up around plentiful and (relatively) cheap oil. Suburbs, agriculture, shipping, etc all rely on plentiful oil. </p>
<p>The best way I have seen it put is that in about 150 years we’ve blown through millions and millions of years of stored energy, and set up our whole economy in this “boom” time, with no easy fuel replacement in sight. </p>
<p>The agricultural carrying capacity of this planet has been temporarily inflated by oil-based fertilizers and factory farming-- maybe 5 or 6 times the number of humans now exist than could be supported by traditional, sustainable agriculture models. We are in for a major reorganization when oil dries up and the human toll will be high.</p>
<p>Even the development and implementation of alternate energy technologies relies on oil. (Making titanium windmills for windfarms, etc.) Thus waiting to ramp-up new technologies will mean that the ramping-up becomes more and more difficult.</p>
<p>Oh I see…So you take global warming seriously? As for oil, I think there’s plenty left for at least another 100-150 years or so. By that time we will obviously find a better source. Who in 1800 would have thought that oil would be a major source? Same thing applies here.</p>
<p>Nice try at diverting and covering up. However, it was you and oog who first brought up the erroneous issue of the income gap widening under Bush - not Jlauer and w1cked. Rather than admit that the data (that you so conveniently provided) supports just the opposite conclusion, you now back-peddle and try to blame the courts and Congress!! And then you try to claim that you “were just responding” to what others were saying. Please!! </p>
<p>Sadly, I was just starting to think of you as being credible with your views in the Duke case, but then you take 10 steps back with, first making statements like this and then, rather than admitting that you were wrong, you try to sidestep the issue. Perhaps when it comes to GWB, you just suffer from temporary insanity. I think Driver’s term for it is Bush Derangement Syndrome.</p>
<p>FF, you’re dead wrong, as usual. OO and I were posting about the effect of Bush’s tax cuts, who they benefit, and who they will hurt. Allmusic posted that “The “tax cuts” have benefited the rich very nicely. It always was the neocon intent to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.” The discussion then shifted to “the neocon agenda” and I brought up the shift in wealth since 1980, which I credit not to a single politician, but to the accumulated efforts of the right for decades. I’ve posted about this numerous times before - it’s not a secret what my thoughts are on this subject. I’ve never suggested that the economic war on the middle class started with GWB.</p>
<p>I know you don’t care - for you it’s all about “scoring points” for your side. (Go right! Go right! Fight! Fight! Fight!) For me, it’s about the shape of the world my children will inherit. I get that you don’t care - your post #45 was a classic - but for me it’s not so much how much to blame Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1, or Reagan, but a matter of actually acknowleding the existance of the shift in wealth, considering the consequences of it, and (hopefully) ending the trend and returning the distribution of wealth to healthier historic norms.</p>
<p>wicked, The first half was used in ~100 years, when most of the world was pre-industrial and even the industrial world was much less profligate. The second half will go MUCH faster, especially because the last 15-20% of the oil will be left in the ground due to costs of extraction.</p>
<p>Yes, I take global warming seriously. </p>
<p>As much as our current world society and economy have been built during an energy bonanza, thanks to oil, so too have they been built during a blissfully temperate period. That seems to be changing and human actions seem to accelerate the changes.</p>
<p>I would suggest you study about ‘global warming’ before you link it to oil. Did you know, for example, that gases like methane are 20X more potent than CO2 as ‘greenhouse gases’? Or how about that 97% of greenhouse gas is good ol’ water vapor? Besides, there haven’t been any study linking climate change to burning oil.</p>
<p>I am saying that we shouldn’t worry about oil because we will come up with something better before its all used up.</p>
But yet the apogee of the disparity was under eight years of a Democratic administration - so your point is …?</p>
<p>
And your proof of that would be …? When it comes to “scoring points” you seem to make a valiant effort as well - why else would you bring up data to support the false hypothesis that one of the reasons that Bush is the worst President ever is because he is widening the income gap? Too bad the data shows the opposite. It’s also too bad that your excellent dissertation on the value of data with regards to the Duke case doesn’t carry forward in your political views. You have your views and then either ignore the data or try to skew it to fit your views, or, as in this case, throw it out there as if it supports your view and then hope that nobody calls you on it. You’ve been called.</p>
<p>FF, sometimes a thread goes “off-topic” - that is, the discussion varies somewhat from the original post. From Bush being the worst president to “the neocon agenda” is a short trip. Bush isn’t the architect of the neocon agenda, he’s merely one of the instruments of it. I don’t care if the peak of the income disparity in the past few years came at the height of the dot-com stock market boom or in 2004 (numbers not in yet) or 2005 (ditto) My concern is the long-term trend. Are you going to claim that GWB did anything to restore income distribution to historical levels, instead of doing his part to ensure that the trend continues? I note you didn’t mention the tax rates reflected in the IRS chart. What impact do you suspect the Bush tax cuts will have on this trend? The IRS numbers only go to 2003. If I thought the “apogee” had actually been reached already, I’d be less concerned.</p>
<p>One more time: to me, this isn’t about Bush (either one) Clinton, or Reagan. You seem to think that if you can blame Clinton for it, you win. (Yet I doubt that you give Clinton exclusive credit for the economic boom and budget surpluses of the 1990’s, do you?) It’s not the result of the policies or philosophy of any one man, it’s the accumulated efffect of many, many influences on society, including tax rates, congressional legislation, court rulings and numerous other things. But the bottom line is about one economic fact: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the extremely wealthy. Jlauer and w1cked denied that, and I corrected them. I think that increasing concentration is a bad idea. I think Bush’s actions and policies have and will aggravate that but he’s far from alone in that.</p>
<p>Let me ask you personally: how do you feel about the economic trend? Do you support having more and more of the nation’s wealth and income concentrated at the very top, or do you think it would be better to have it spread around in the proportions which existed prior to 1980? Or do you care?</p>
<p>kluge, I really don’t worry too much that people like oog have a lot more money than I do. </p>
<p>What I do worry about is a government that thinks it’s its business to equalize things. I look at Europe as a prime example of an economy of the verge of collapse because of this mentality. I see in the United States the strongest economy in the world largely due to its more capitalistic basis. I believe in the concept espoused by JFK - a rising tide raises all boats. So, in answer to your original condescending remark about me not worrying about our kids’ future - I do worry and that’s why I resist efforts by the Dems to bring us more in line with a European economic model.</p>
<p>If nobody worries, what’ll motivate those magical new technologies actually getting done? See, we’re better off a little worried.</p>
<p>I realize there are many other forces at work in climate change and that the history of our planet’s climate proves this. But what we’re doing isn’t helping. </p>
<p>I am even more concerned about aquifer depletion, wetlands, and affluenza.</p>
<p>ff, agreed-- I wouldn’t suggest outright socialism; nobody wants to kill initiative. But can’t you see that the finger is heavily on the other side of the scale right now? It isn’t exactly “hard out here” for the upper 5%, 1%… Hello.</p>
<p>Look, 30 years ago, people were concerned with global cooling, based on trends from the 40s-70s. Global warming is not a scientific, but a political problem. I suggest you check out <a href=“http://www.junkscience.org%5B/url%5D”>www.junkscience.org</a>, since they have some interesting material on this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you be concerned about swamps? They are the breeding grounds of mosquitoes and the like. Affluenza? How do you suggest we ‘cure’ this? Have another Soviet Union? People who wish to be left alone and make some money should be free to do so. Thats the reason countries with economic freedom succeed. If you want to demolish greatness, just create a socialist state.</p>
<p>Funding Father: Did anyone ever tell you that you remind them of Steven Colbert on The Colbert Report? You and his TV character share at least two traits: disdain for the facts and a superiority complex.</p>