Full Post

Gelinas makes a good point. But this is hardly a comprehensive solution either to pricing externalities or to controlling oil demand. Note first this free-market pricing of risk will only work if the U.S. government holds oil companies’ (in this case BP) feet to the fire for the full cost of damage and cleanup. Which will require that a reasonable number of pro-business politicians ignore the special pleading of BP and do the right thing. Because, in the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, those costs are likely to run well into the tens of billions of dollars; enough to wipe out the better part of a couple of years’ worth of BP profits.

But U.S.-based production accounts only for a smidgen of world oil production. Oil is a fungible asset. BP sells its oil from the wellhead to refiners who get crude from all over the world, refine it, then sell it back to BP’s chains of gas stations. The oil from a BP pump doesn’t necessarily come from a BP well somewhere. I might come from a Petrobras or a Yukos well.

Those who think that free-market approaches to pricing in externalities and risk would be well-advised to do a little research on the success of the residents of the Niger Delta region in getting adequate settlement for the environmental degradation of their region by various oil companies. Hint: not much. Or of the efforts of environmental activists in Russia. Hint: they end up dead.

Also, next week I will be in Des Moines on business on Wednesday and Thursday. I’ll be staying overnight Wednesday night and instead of staying in my hotel watching porn, I figure I could take the same $20 or so and have some stimulating conversation.

Drop me a line if you want to suggest a meeting place somewhere a) a short cab-ride from the west end of downtown b) that has good food and good beer. I’ll post the location early next week.

So, this is your advanced notice that there probably won’t be much to see here this week. In the meantime, enjoy a Cute Overload Moment courtesy of Dexter, the love-sponge.

Where have all the little dogs gone?

Also, look for our takes on the State-of-the-State message tomorrow by Noon on the website and on Wednesday in the print edition of the Register.

Now, I wonder if Katie Koberg will take the bait?

I also wonder if my editor will call me out for using the term, “circle jerk.”

The Big Lies Part II: The Gays Are Coming For Your Families

Homosexuality has been with us since we climbed out of the trees. The work of humans who prefer the company of their own gender has contributed to what and where we are today as a civilization and cannot be denied, undone or unmade. To describe such people as abnormal or unusual is nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

We have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the normalization of homosexuality in our society. For a political party to manipulate the discomfort that some straight people fele about homosexual acts as a way to demonize the gay community and rally the party faithful is a disgusting and inhuman act. Thus, when I hear such sentiments expressed I conclude that the speaker is either rather uncomfortable in their own sexuality or a lying scumbag who will stop an nothing to achieve another step up the greasy political ladder.

Is Grassley Really Vulnerable

As of October 1, the Iowa Secretary of State’s office reports that Democrats retain a voter registration advantage over Republicans of 105,447. The latest Iowa Poll shows his support with the Republican base is stronger than ever at 80 percent. What has to be troubling is that his approval among independents has dropped 11 points to 55% and dropped 24 points for Democrats leaving him at 42 percent approval. Those last two figures are key. While a majority of independents still narrowly approve of Senator Grassley, his approval among Democrats once net positive is now negative.

That is the kind of statistical landscape that makes people in the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee stop thinking about the Grassley seat as permanently ungettable and perk up and go, “with the right candidate, this is in play.”

I Got 99 Ideas But A Fiscal Policy Aint One

I’ve been waiting to write the Jay Z headline since I saw Chris Rants’ new website, 99ideas.org.

I’m sorry. Orange?! That’s a pretty bold choice there Mr. Rants. What are you saying? That if you win it will be some sort of Glorious Revolution? But, I digress…

After a couple strong doses of Iowa’s Dest Dutch Courage I think I can come out and admit it, a couple of these are quite interesting. First of all they mostly obey Anderson’s Dicta and do not mention tax cuts, gays or abortion. So props right there.

No one likes to pay taxes. I am a small business owner. If my tax liabilities were to disappear tomorrow it would be the difference between running a business where we just about break even and making a tidy little profit. But I’m not stupid enough to think that if taxes went away tomorrow it would usher in a personal or national utopia.

My taxes pay for many of the things I need to run a business and have a good life: the roads I drive on to get to my customers and on which products like my inventory and my food are delivered to me, the schools that educate my children, the pipes that bring drinkable water to my house and take filth away and keep me from dying of dysentery or cholera, the soldiers, sailors and airmen who keep our nation safe from marauding hill tribes, the police and firefighters who protect my community and my family, and even the robotic spacecraft that beam the wonders of the cosmos to me and lift my mind towards the divine.

It is a common misconception that Americans are taxed to death. In fact we are one of the least taxed industrial countries in the world. Which probably goes some way to explain why we are special. But it also means that Republicans’ constant drumbeat about the evils of American taxes are a big lie. American taxes are often inefficient and imbalanced, but scarcely harsh by global standards.

My new test for taking any Republican candidate for any office seriously is very simple: Can (s)he give a speech and elucidate at least three ideas for improving whatever insitutution (s)he is running for without once mentioning cutting taxes, abortion, or gay people?

This seems an almost impossible task given the makeup of the current party. Firstly, if one refuses to even believe in many of the problems that are bedeviling us i.e. climate change, corporate irresponsibility, or equality for all, then clearly one’s proposed solutions are going to miss the mark. Badly.

Want to trim the state budget by a million or three? How many departmental man hours could be saved every year by replacing the work that those departments do in searching, sorting and writing reports against their data if we simply released the raw data to the public and let nature take its course?

My blogging agreement with the Register stipulates that my content there be exclusive. So, I can’t cross-post everything. More ranting is just a mouse-click away though.