Perry leads KBH by 12 points in GOP primary polls (credit, employment)

[hstfan82]

Originally Posted by tyanger

All of it paid for in full with the money saved after 2-3 months with the lower bills - so it did not 'cost more' and in fact over the course of 1 year (you do the math) I did get to pay 'the lowest price.' In any case - the biggest savings came from the lower rate - the other stuff was more so I could feel like I was being as green as I could be (not very)

The free market does work (now I'm not assigning labels like 'good' or 'bad') if you let it and if you can stomach the ruthlessness of it. I guess thats one of the biggest problems - people get squeamish and interfere at the worst possible times - just when the free market is about to correct inefficient and unsustainable activity/behavior right out of existence. Then they turn around and blame the free market for the mess (I admit it can get messy) that they just compounded/intensified with their meddling (see Obama Administration - the first 6 months).

I would bet anything you are still paying more than someone with a similar house in a regulated market. The electricity market is not like other markets, which is why the prices can't compete with a regulated market. Show me a state where deregulation has LOWERED prices from pre-deregulation levels, and you might convince me. By the way, we were promised by legislators (who are bought off by energy companies) that prices would be cheaper than 8 cents/kwH people were paying back in 2000.

For your second point, are you kidding? If there was never repeal of the 1930s Glass Steagall act there would have never been the problems that we had last year. If we would've just let the banks fail, as you would do, most economists believe we would be in the The Great Depression II. Both President Bush's economists, and Obama's, believed this. President Obama, if anything, has been too cautious in his response to the recession. The stimulus should have been much larger. The banks should have been temporarily nationalized and broken up into smaller entities that aren't too big too fail, and then sold back to the private sector. The other problem is that Geithner is heavily influenced by the financial sector, and is keeping real reform from taking place.

Your point that people just back out when things get too tough is not falsifiable, and therefore, not a sound argument. I could conceivably argue that communism would've worked if it were only given more time, or, if it had been in every country, like Trotsky wanted. I don't believe these things. I'm just showing you how you can't argue that way.

[tyanger]

Not sure about electricity prices in subsudized cities, maybe someone can post prices, but having energy subsidized with having more "regulation" (read taxes) might mean the check you write each month to the utility co is lower, but it does not mean the energy has a lower cost. Someone is paying for it/will pay for it - usually the net effect is just taking money from someone else - and I believe the final/total 'cost' is actually higher if the government is involved. I can't think of a single thing where government involvement has made something run more efficiently/cheaper - someone help me out.

So that single instance was the only factor that determined the current situation? And changing that single event would have left everything else that's happened in the past 80 years (good and bad - but I would say more good) exactly the same, except it would have prevented the events of only the past 1 year? If Christopher Columbus hadn't 'discovered' America none of this would have happened either, right?

So the 5%(or so) of the stimulus package that has currently been spent was enough to prevent Great Depression #2? Better tell Obama we don't need to spend the rest of it.

Fascinating theories (Like morpheus said to neo,"you think that's air that you're breathing? interesting." I don't think we're going to change each others minds here, but it is interesting to hear how other people think, eh? Totally off topic also.

[hstfan82]

Not sure about electricity prices in subsudized cities, maybe someone can post prices, but having energy subsidized with having more "regulation" (read taxes) might mean the check you write each month to the utility co is lower, but it does not mean the energy has a lower cost. Someone is paying for it/will pay for it - usually the net effect is just taking money from someone else - and I believe the final/total 'cost' is actually higher if the government is involved. I can't think of a single thing where government involvement has made something run more efficiently/cheaper - someone help me out.

Once again, you're not presenting any evidence for the things you say, only plausible scenarios that are not falsifiable. Anything can be proposed which is not falsifiable.

Electricity regulation keeps providers from collaborating to all have higher prices than what they should be. It's a different kind of market, and there is such a long lapse between the price set by the suppliers and when the electric companies post their prices. This allows for collaboration. You cannot expect consumers to be knowledgable enough to understand these tricks like you can in other markets. Regulating is keeping prices at the levels that are in keeping with the actual supply of the product when it comes to electricity. I shouldn't have to spend hours trying to understand how to, moving to my house/apt, when I'm moving here from another state, setting up electricity.

So that single instance was the only factor that determined the current situation? And changing that single event would have left everything else that's happened in the past 80 years (good and bad - but I would say more good) exactly the same, except it would have prevented the events of only the past 1 year? If Christopher Columbus hadn't 'discovered' America none of this would have happened either, right?

It was not the single instance. I was giving you one example to illustrate the larger point that deregulation has made us more susceptible to abuse of power because of the close links betweeen big government and big business. We do this for the same reason we don't leave the fox in charge of the henhouse.

So the 5%(or so) of the stimulus package that has currently been spent was enough to prevent Great Depression #2? Better tell Obama we don't need to spend the rest of it.

With economics, we can learn from past experience. Hoover's economists believed that letting the market work itself out would be the best policy, and things only got worse. The only year when the economy got worse during the New Deal was when FDR tried to balance the budget in '37.

Fascinating theories. I don't think we're going to change each others minds here, but it is interesting to hear how other people think, eh? Totally off topic also.

If you wish to end the discussion, I'm fine with that. There is relevance to the governor's race though since we are discussing state politics.

[tyanger]

...If you wish to end the discussion, I'm fine with that...

[mboyle1988]

Originally Posted by hstfan82

Don't misinterpret attempts to improve one's state as biting the hand that feeds you.

Have you lived in MN? You sure seem to know a lot about it. I'm not saying there aren't any benefits to living in Texas. In fact, I like it reasonably well here (and I especially like the food more), but to suggest an inverse relation between having better public services and a job market is unfounded in reality.

The DMV was a first hand example of the kind of public services provided here. I mentioned it because I could say that I haven't just been reading this somewhere. I discussed the more serious problems, none of which you addressed, and I left out plenty of others.

A low gas tax is not a "blessing" if it costs more money to do the same thing! My point was that funding would be available if there were a will to do it, but that would take some leadership on the part of the legislature. It's an example of short-sighted thinking and nothing else. Conservatives and liberals alike dislike toll roads in DFW, but commuting to many portions of the metroplex would be hell without them, which is why people don't really have a true option to not use them.

Your energy data is out of date and misinterpreted. As anyone on here can tell you, prices for electricity have skyrocketed in DFW over the past 2 years. I pay almost $300 in electric bills for my 2 bed 2 bath apartment during the summer. Some people with 3,000 Sq ft. homes pay 700-800 dollar bills a month in the summer. Also, some areas of the state are regulated and some are not. The regulated areas, like Austin, were almost half as much as the DFW average last summer, so a statewide average is not the best way to look at it. Deregulation does not always lead to lower costs in certain quasi public markets, like electricity, just like it doesn't make roads cheaper.

1. Why would you ask a question that I've given the answer to? No I haven't lived in Minnesota. I made a statement that its economy is not as strong as Texas's. This statement is easily backed up by a quick trip to NYtimes.com and viewing their recession chart. Be my guest.
2. Yes, actually, state services, funded by high taxes, and a healthy business climate, driven by low taxes, ARE mutually exclusive. One requires high taxes, one requires low taxes. The lower the taxes, the better the business climate and the worse the services. The higher the taxes, the better the services but the worse the business climate. The issue is finding a happy medium--taxing enough to have excellent public services that matter (roads, education, law enforcement) without wasting money on social welfare programs that drain the economy. I think Texas does the best job of any state at this, but the balance by its nature forces some compromises that are not particularly convenient.
3. It costs YOU more money, but overall, it costs the average Texan less money, and it costs YOU a lot less than it costs a New Yorker to drive on worse roads.
4. Care to provide updated statistics instead of just telling me that mine are wrong?
5. I tried to address every last issue you had with the government in your original post, so please do not say that I ignored certain issues and just focused on the DMV. It is possible that I skipped some, but be specific please.

[hstfan82]

Once again, you've missed the point. The point is the amount of money one can make in a city is not to be considered as an end in itself, nor is it it the only means to measure a city. If it was, everyone should want to move to Mexico City.

Most people who live here, liberal and conservative alike, do not think the state government spends its time adressing the serious problems of the state. It must be nice to know what we who actually live here do not know about what it's like to live here, especially when many of us that live here have lived elsewhere.

My argument is not for social welfare, but against a government that, for instance, thinks that the best way to handle homeowners insurance rates is to just require the insurance companies inform them of a rate increase. Of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact we have the most expensive insurance rates in the country!

You'll probably be living in a major city, which means that you will almost certainly have to deal with expensive toll roads. Comparing a major Texas city to NYC is only meaningful if the two cities are equal in everything but roads, you are free to believe they are but most would think they are not. If you think it's better to pay $80 a month in toll roads over having a gas tax and paying a fraction of that for essentiallly the same service, I have no desire to convince you otherwise. Rick Perry's support of toll roads could be one issue that causes him to lose to KBH in the primary. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing.

You are acting as if the government can do nothing to make a state or place, a better place. Those of us who live here, see the problems every day, and are complaining are just suffering from severe delusion according to you. This is not the forum for a serious debate on political philosophy, but that reflects a generally libertarian belief, which I believe is completely misguided based, at the very least, on the fact no country in the world which has the means leaves its markets unregulated and believes that government plays no role in enhancing quality of life for its citizens. I find it amazing that one can look at the history of 2008 and say, I wouldn't have had the government regulate industry any more than it did, which is what you must say if you believe that the government shoud stay out of the free market.

I'm through debating this subject and with this thread because I'm tired of covering the same points over and over again, responding to a straw man you set up to tear down, and don't want this thread to spill into some debate over the benefits of one political philosophy to another, which is inevitable if you are to argue on what constitutes good policy. I also, as you can see above, see no point in debating with people who have religous like beliefs in the free market. There is nothing that can happen which they admit would change their minds about their economic/political views.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by hstfan82

For your second point, are you kidding? If there was never repeal of the 1930s Glass Steagall act there would have never been the problems that we had last year. If we would've just let the banks fail, as you would do, most economists believe we would be in the The Great Depression II. Both President Bush's economists, and Obama's, believed this. President Obama, if anything, has been too cautious in his response to the recession. The stimulus should have been much larger.

More money? These are the same "economists", and I use that word loosely, that said unemployment would top out at 8 percent. Why should we believe them now?

History has taught us if we let the banks fail and keep the Federal Government from spending AND printing up OUR money the recession would be shorter. Only when the Government meddles in affairs under the guise of helping us do we get long term ill effects.

We cut government spending AND taxes in the early 20's and we came out of that depression fairly quick. Unemployment went from 11.7 to 6.7 to 2.4 in three years. Federal government spending was cut from ~6 bil to 5.5 to under 4 bil in three years time.

[tyanger]

He said he was done with this thread. Don't egg him on or he'll come back!

[Pete53FR]

Perry has been in office to long he needs to find something else. He is no friend to Texas Consumers. Kay Bailey would not be much of an improvement either.

Anyone on this thread that argues that deregulation is a good thing is a shill for the electric companies.

[galore]

Bizarre!

We have implemented so many "conservative" policies, especially in Texas, and lots of them don't work well (electricity deregulation -> skyrocketing prices, millions of uninsured people, tons of illegal aliens employed by conservative business owners, ridiculous toll road prices with rate hikes in the double digits, collapsing banks, rising unemployment, abstinence only (=teen pregnancies, see Sara's daughter), drug war (=millions of pot offenders in prison)) and there are still people who vigorously defend those policies on message boards like this (where there really isn't any benefit for defending anything).

Some people like turd sandwiches, if they are advertised as caviar by talk radio (and fox/gop news).