In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 07 2014 13:13 IgnE wrote: Please explain what that has to do with what we are talking about? Are you trying to say that shipping is uncorrelated with energy prices?
That's an index of shipping rates for dry bulk carriers, the type of ships that transport food and ore.
Of course energy prices affect shipping rates. There are other factors as well, however.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming at the heart of President Barack Obama's strategy for fighting climate change, the Republican-controlled House voted Thursday to block the administration's plan to limit carbon pollution from new power plants.
The bill targets Obama's proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency to set the first national limits on heat-trapping carbon pollution from future power plants — part of the GOP's election-year strategy to fight back against what Republicans call a "war on coal" by the Obama administration. The bill passed by a 229-183 vote. Ten Democrats, mostly from coal-producing states or the South, joined Republicans in support of it.
A similar measure is pending in the Senate but faces a more difficult path.
"The Obama administration clearly wants to use its regulatory agenda to end coal-fired power generation in this country, but that is a pipe dream," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, noting that coal provides nearly 40 percent of the nation's electricity.
Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., called the EPA proposal "one of the most extreme regulations of the Obama administration. He said the proposed limits on carbon emissions would "make it impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant in America."
As a practical matter, no new coal plants are currently being considered because of competition from cheap natural gas. But Whitfield and other Republicans argue that could change if natural gas prices keep rising. In that case, utility companies should be able to "go out and build a coal-powered plant with reasonable regulations," said Whitfield, who chairs the House subcommittee on energy and power.
On March 07 2014 13:13 IgnE wrote: Please explain what that has to do with what we are talking about? Are you trying to say that shipping is uncorrelated with energy prices?
That's an index of shipping rates for dry bulk carriers, the type of ships that transport food and ore.
Of course energy prices affect shipping rates. There are other factors as well, however.
I know what it is. What am I supposed to be taking from this graph though?
On March 07 2014 13:13 IgnE wrote: Please explain what that has to do with what we are talking about? Are you trying to say that shipping is uncorrelated with energy prices?
That's an index of shipping rates for dry bulk carriers, the type of ships that transport food and ore.
Of course energy prices affect shipping rates. There are other factors as well, however.
I know what it is. What am I supposed to be taking from this graph though?
According to wiki the index should represent cost per day per metric ton. You brought up the cost of shipping food and steel - so there's some data to go along with it.
If you don't like that data, submit some you do like.
On March 07 2014 13:13 IgnE wrote: Please explain what that has to do with what we are talking about? Are you trying to say that shipping is uncorrelated with energy prices?
That's an index of shipping rates for dry bulk carriers, the type of ships that transport food and ore.
Of course energy prices affect shipping rates. There are other factors as well, however.
I know what it is. What am I supposed to be taking from this graph though?
According to wiki the index should represent cost per day per metric ton. You brought up the cost of shipping food and steel - so there's some data to go along with it.
If you don't like that data, submit some you do like.
shipping rates have collapsed because China pushed out a massive quantity of ships from their state industrial yards as part of their pre-2009 crisis 'strategic industries initiative.' The cost of shipping is so low, a lot of shippers basically charge you just for the cost of maintaining the ships. Its not a good indicator of energy prices.
The information isn't presented in the same terms as your t-shirt information. The only thing that jumps out to me is that the costs fluctuate wildly, but we don't know what the variables are. The graph just looks obfuscatory to me, and if you aren't going to make a connection between the costs of shipping t-shirts and the baltic dry index I'm just going to assume the data presented is only tangentially related.
Let's look at costs of shipping steel from China to the United States, since that's where most of the steel used in American construction comes from. Only a cursory google search led me to this:
Article from 2007 when oil prices were high talking about higher energy prices being the most important variable in shipping costs.
edit: also as sub40apm has pointed out china's shipping business boom has lowered prices
The overarching point is that higher energy prices put a serious strain on the world economy. Is it just a coincidence that since 1970 recessions have always been preceded by rises in oil prices? There's a finite quantity of oil on the planet. There's a lot of oil left in the ground, yes. But we are talking about oil that's more difficult to recover, at higher capital cost, at lower energy return on energy invested.
Criticized as xenophobic and an American Nightmare, not Dream, by ABC and HuffPo. Aired during Academy Awards and I think Sochi. Saw George Stephanopoulos on TV lambasting it. I'm wavering between surprised and not surprised at something so obviously provocative to be just humorous igniting such coverage. It's just a TV ad, but then again, this is US Politics.
the most appalling thing about this ad is the idea that anyone would button both buttons in a two-button suit
So true, I thought the same thing when I saw it.
Is it me or have we all lost our sense of humor? I mean that thing is pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. Maybe my "OFFENSIVE!!!!1!" radar is just off.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Thursday that liberals don't understand disadvantaged students would rather have parents who care for them than a free lunch at school.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Ryan said Republicans offer their constituents "ideas" while Democrats offer a "full stomach and an empty soul."
He then told an anecdote he said was relayed to him by Eloise Anderson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) Department of Children and Families secretary.
"She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program," Ryan said.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Thursday that liberals don't understand disadvantaged students would rather have parents who care for them than a free lunch at school.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Ryan said Republicans offer their constituents "ideas" while Democrats offer a "full stomach and an empty soul."
He then told an anecdote he said was relayed to him by Eloise Anderson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) Department of Children and Families secretary.
"She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program," Ryan said.
I keep waiting for Paul Ryan to admit his entire career was a bizarre social experiment and that it was intended to stretch people's commitment to a political party or something crazy like that. This honestly sounds like the Onion.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Thursday that liberals don't understand disadvantaged students would rather have parents who care for them than a free lunch at school.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Ryan said Republicans offer their constituents "ideas" while Democrats offer a "full stomach and an empty soul."
He then told an anecdote he said was relayed to him by Eloise Anderson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) Department of Children and Families secretary.
"She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program," Ryan said.
I keep waiting for Paul Ryan to admit his entire career was a bizarre social experiment and that it was intended to stretch people's commitment to a political party or something crazy like that. This honestly sounds like the Onion.
It's statements like that that really make me wonder why some people think Biden puts his foot in his mouth more than Palin/Ryan/GenericRepublican. Don't these people have aides who can tell them not to say these idiotic things?
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
There is mobility in Denmark too, except with cheaper universal healthcare and universities you get paid to attend (and greek spend more hours at work than Americans). Surprised Danglers wasnt more salty about the commercial, I would have thought that Danglers, whose tax dollars were stolen to bailout socialist government motors, would find it an insulting commercial, mocking his values and whatnot.
Well, Seb, call it water under the bridge or a Tea Party conservative picking his battles. I liked laughing at the commercial and some of the more "I'm incensed, outraged" responses to it. I'm not taking up again for now the bailout and all that for now since the discussion has shifted and its been eclipsed in importance to other matters. Maybe we'll see another "Too Big to Fail" argument for a gov't bailout later and it'll come up again. I laugh with most of the good-humored political comedy and I wanted to share because I thought some more here would laugh too.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
You know everything you said about the ACA is false but you don't care.
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
I feel like I've already pointed this out probably a dozen times in this thread, but we have one of the worst social mobility rates in the developed western world. Most heavily socialized countries have better rates than we do.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
You know everything you said about the ACA is false but you don't care.
No, it's correct, as far as we can estimate at this time. The CBO is estimating net job losses and there are other studies showing that premium rates in MA will go up:
AIM is conducting a survey of its members to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums for those businesses that must renew their plans in January, the first time parts of the the new law will be in effect. ...
59 percent of businesses are seeing their premiums increase, 27 percent are seeing their premiums decrease and 14 percent are seeing their premiums remain flat. ...
If the national law were to be fully implemented next year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Insurance found that while many individuals and some small businesses would see their premiums drop, a large number of small businesses would see their premiums spike.
According to that study, 83,000 small employer plans would see premiums drop by more than 10 percent under the new rules – but 181,000 would see their premiums increase by more than 10 percent. For 6,000 of those small employers, the growth in premiums would be more than 30 percent.
For individuals buying their own health insurance, 23,000 people would see their premiums drop significantly, while 7,000 would see their premiums rise significantly.
Since the report came out, the state petitioned the federal government and received permission to phase in the new ratings system over three years. Next year, Massachusetts will be allowed to take into account two-thirds of its soon-to-be-disallowed rating factors. It can use one-third of the disallowed factors in 2015.
A study commissioned by the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, estimated that once all the factors are taken into account, the Affordable Care Act will raise premiums for individuals and small groups by an average of 3.7 percent in 2014. The cost of premiums will vary widely, with some insurers showing a 20 percent decrease and others a 26 percent increase, with wider variations for individual buyers.
Democratic senators intend to occupy the Senate floor from Monday night at 10 P.M. ET through Tuesday morning at 9 A.M., taking turns speaking to urge action on climate change.
The event, organized by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), features 28 Senate Democrats, including the top four leaders and members of the Senate Climate Action Task Force.
"Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, and it is solvable," Schatz said. "Congress must act."
Legislative action on climate change has been seen as a lost cause since Republicans won the House majority in the 2010 elections. In 2009, the Democratic-led House passed a sweeping climate bill but the Democratic-led Senate took no action. As a result, President Barack Obama has sought to address the issue via executive actions where he can. The scientific community overwhelmingly believes climate change is being exacerbated by human activities like burning fossil fuels.
The talk-a-thon won't disrupt any Senate business as the chamber would probably not be in session during that time. They intend to broadcast their efforts on social media with the hashtag #Up4Climate.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
You know everything you said about the ACA is false but you don't care.
No, it's correct, as far as we can estimate at this time. The CBO is estimating net job losses and there are other studies showing that premium rates in MA will go up:
AIM is conducting a survey of its members to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums for those businesses that must renew their plans in January, the first time parts of the the new law will be in effect. ...
59 percent of businesses are seeing their premiums increase, 27 percent are seeing their premiums decrease and 14 percent are seeing their premiums remain flat. ...
If the national law were to be fully implemented next year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Insurance found that while many individuals and some small businesses would see their premiums drop, a large number of small businesses would see their premiums spike.
According to that study, 83,000 small employer plans would see premiums drop by more than 10 percent under the new rules – but 181,000 would see their premiums increase by more than 10 percent. For 6,000 of those small employers, the growth in premiums would be more than 30 percent.
For individuals buying their own health insurance, 23,000 people would see their premiums drop significantly, while 7,000 would see their premiums rise significantly.
Since the report came out, the state petitioned the federal government and received permission to phase in the new ratings system over three years. Next year, Massachusetts will be allowed to take into account two-thirds of its soon-to-be-disallowed rating factors. It can use one-third of the disallowed factors in 2015.
A study commissioned by the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, estimated that once all the factors are taken into account, the Affordable Care Act will raise premiums for individuals and small groups by an average of 3.7 percent in 2014. The cost of premiums will vary widely, with some insurers showing a 20 percent decrease and others a 26 percent increase, with wider variations for individual buyers.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
You know everything you said about the ACA is false but you don't care.
No, it's correct, as far as we can estimate at this time. The CBO is estimating net job losses and there are other studies showing that premium rates in MA will go up:
AIM is conducting a survey of its members to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums for those businesses that must renew their plans in January, the first time parts of the the new law will be in effect. ...
59 percent of businesses are seeing their premiums increase, 27 percent are seeing their premiums decrease and 14 percent are seeing their premiums remain flat. ...
If the national law were to be fully implemented next year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Insurance found that while many individuals and some small businesses would see their premiums drop, a large number of small businesses would see their premiums spike.
According to that study, 83,000 small employer plans would see premiums drop by more than 10 percent under the new rules – but 181,000 would see their premiums increase by more than 10 percent. For 6,000 of those small employers, the growth in premiums would be more than 30 percent.
For individuals buying their own health insurance, 23,000 people would see their premiums drop significantly, while 7,000 would see their premiums rise significantly.
Since the report came out, the state petitioned the federal government and received permission to phase in the new ratings system over three years. Next year, Massachusetts will be allowed to take into account two-thirds of its soon-to-be-disallowed rating factors. It can use one-third of the disallowed factors in 2015.
A study commissioned by the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, estimated that once all the factors are taken into account, the Affordable Care Act will raise premiums for individuals and small groups by an average of 3.7 percent in 2014. The cost of premiums will vary widely, with some insurers showing a 20 percent decrease and others a 26 percent increase, with wider variations for individual buyers.
These 3 sources are all written by the same woman... who is conveniently leaving out the fact that health insurance rates have been going up by over 12% a year since 1999, and that rate has actually slowed under Obama.
Don't know but it's troubling we have a federal solution to fix state-based problems. Massachusetts already has an Obamacare-like health care system, Vermont has single payer, etc. Obamacare is a "one-size-fits-all" cure-all, and those never work.
Half of Americans aged 18 to 33 are self-described political independents, but a similar proportion of so-called millennials acknowledge leaning toward the Democratic Party, a new survey suggests.
The percentage of respondents indicating an inclination to support the Democrats represents the highest share for any age group over the past decade, the Pew Research Center survey indicates.
In addition, young adults tend towards being increasingly single and churchless, researchers found. Almost two-thirds don't classify themselves as "a religious person," and only about 1 in 4 millennials is married. At that age, almost half of baby boomers were married.
The new survey shows how millennial adults are "forging a distinctive path into adulthood," said Paul Taylor, Pew's executive vice president and a co-author of the report.
This was especially pronounced in the realm of politics. Fifty percent of the millennials surveyed identify themselves as political independents – up from 38 percent in 2004 – while only 27 percent called themselves Democratic and 17 percent said Republican.
The number of self-described independents is lower among their predecessors. Only 39 percent of those in Generation X said they were independents, along with 37 percent of the boomers and 32 percent of the Silent Generation.
Pew describes Gen Xers as those of ages 34-49, boomers as 50-68 and the Silent Generation as those 69-86.
When the self-identified Democratic millennials combined with the self-described independents who lean Democratic, half of the millennials are Democrats or Democratic-leaning; 34 percent are Republicans or Republican-leaning, Pew said.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
You know everything you said about the ACA is false but you don't care.
No, it's correct, as far as we can estimate at this time. The CBO is estimating net job losses and there are other studies showing that premium rates in MA will go up:
AIM is conducting a survey of its members to determine the effect of the Affordable Care Act on insurance premiums for those businesses that must renew their plans in January, the first time parts of the the new law will be in effect. ...
59 percent of businesses are seeing their premiums increase, 27 percent are seeing their premiums decrease and 14 percent are seeing their premiums remain flat. ...
If the national law were to be fully implemented next year, a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Insurance found that while many individuals and some small businesses would see their premiums drop, a large number of small businesses would see their premiums spike.
According to that study, 83,000 small employer plans would see premiums drop by more than 10 percent under the new rules – but 181,000 would see their premiums increase by more than 10 percent. For 6,000 of those small employers, the growth in premiums would be more than 30 percent.
For individuals buying their own health insurance, 23,000 people would see their premiums drop significantly, while 7,000 would see their premiums rise significantly.
Since the report came out, the state petitioned the federal government and received permission to phase in the new ratings system over three years. Next year, Massachusetts will be allowed to take into account two-thirds of its soon-to-be-disallowed rating factors. It can use one-third of the disallowed factors in 2015.
A study commissioned by the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, estimated that once all the factors are taken into account, the Affordable Care Act will raise premiums for individuals and small groups by an average of 3.7 percent in 2014. The cost of premiums will vary widely, with some insurers showing a 20 percent decrease and others a 26 percent increase, with wider variations for individual buyers.
Yep you don't care, you know thoses "studies" are either wrong, or you are reading what you want in them (for the CBO report). I've made a study, I've come to the conclusion that having moderation on teamliquid increase the rate of banning, so I suggest we stop all moderation on TL...
I decided I wanted to play that game too ! So here is my own study, from the CBO :
The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.
Summary of Findings[...] Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in esponse to the structure of subsidies.
Average premiums would be 7 percent to 10 percent lower because of a net reduction in costs that insurers incurred to deliver the same amount of insurance coverage to the same group of enrollees. Most of that net reduction would stem from the changes in the rules governing the nongroup market.
Average premiums would be 7 percent to 10 percent lower because of a shift in the types of people obtaining coverage. Most of that change would stem from an influx of enrollees with below-average spending for health care, who would purchase coverage because of the new subsidies to be provided and the individual mandate to be imposed.
Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law. The weighted average of the differences in those amounts equals the change of 10 percent to 13 percent in the average premium per person summarized above, but the percentage increase in the average premium per policy for family policies is larger and that for single policies is smaller because the average number of people covered per family policy is estimated to increase under the proposal. The effects on the premiums paid by some individuals and families could vary significantly from the average effects on premiums.
So basically, it's an increase in efficiency all over the board, covering more people, a wider range of health problems, for lesser costs compared to the same amount of coverage...
EPT
