The question, apparently pre-screened by the campaign, came from a Black woman standing behind him on the stage, reading from a card. This staging is fair enough and the issue is prominent. Both campaigns will have briefed their candidates with bullet-point answers.
Trump’s reply was 981 words long. 141 words (14%) can be charitably described as relevant to the question, though they are generic blather and did not include any of the specific proposals asked for. The remaining 840 words (86%) were fact-free rants about trade with China, Hannibal Lecter, immigration and election fraud.
By Trump’s recent standards, his grocery rant is exceptionally *focused*. In the few public events Trump has not cancelled. we have been treated to a greatest-hit singalong instead of questions, and musings on Arnold Palmer`s penis. American voters do not need expert knowledge to conclude that Trump’s current mental deterioration makes him unfit for any kind of paid employment, down to sweeping leaves in their gardens, let alone occupying the most powerful office in the world. The real candidates for the White House are Kamala Harris and JD Vance.
My prediction: after his election defeat, Trump’s criminal cases will be swiftly closed by an admission of unfitness to plead
The economics of energy seems to be a major point of debate. And it is not just the money costs that seem to excite passions. Site locations seem to be a major sticking point. Energy generation has to be located at the most efficient location. That is the only way to provide the least cost alternative. But often that location is in regional areas. This is not new. Coal mines were located in regional areas for centuries. The same goes for oil rig service towns and gas delivery ports and electricity transportation infrastructure.
The complaint that regional areas are doing the heavy lifting could also be true for coal, gas and petrol. It is the most likely outcome. Social costs of alternative energy production appears to be similar to those for non-renewable energy production.
That brings it back to money costs. But here the debate gets clouded. Coal mining infrastructure is already established. The same is true for coal fired power plants. Much the same could be said for oil; though natural gas may be an exception.
The infrastructure needed to generate energy stream from alternate energy sources is a major investment in social overhead capital. This can be a sticking point as it involves a large public investment commitment. Political considerations now tend to dominate debates about any transition to alternate energy. The economics of energy transmission is straight forward; but the politics is convoluted. Some form of balance must be struck to compensate regional areas for their burden. This may involve an energy rebate based on regional locations or simple tax concessions. But the political debate will dominate all monetary considerations.
John, I have two potentially novel ideas I’d like to run by you that may align with your areas of interest. One concerning wealth inequality and asset prices, the other is about political economy and climate action. Can I email you (short) descriptions?
Trump on groceries
Donald Trump was asked a question about grocery prices during a town hall event in Oaks, Pennsylvania, on Monday October 14. WAPO reporter Philip Bump had the bright idea of publishing a literal transcript of his reply. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/15/heres-how-donald-trump-will-lower-grocery-prices/
The question, apparently pre-screened by the campaign, came from a Black woman standing behind him on the stage, reading from a card. This staging is fair enough and the issue is prominent. Both campaigns will have briefed their candidates with bullet-point answers.
Trump’s reply was 981 words long. 141 words (14%) can be charitably described as relevant to the question, though they are generic blather and did not include any of the specific proposals asked for. The remaining 840 words (86%) were fact-free rants about trade with China, Hannibal Lecter, immigration and election fraud.
Contrast Harris’s proposal to counter price gouging on food by retailers, eg here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/08/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-in-raleigh-nc/ You may or may not agree with this – if you ask me it’s a token measure to address a largely imaginary and media-generated problem, and would be a vulnerability in the hands of a serious opponent – but it is at least a substantive and feasible policy proposal, directly relevant to the issue.
By Trump’s recent standards, his grocery rant is exceptionally *focused*. In the few public events Trump has not cancelled. we have been treated to a greatest-hit singalong instead of questions, and musings on Arnold Palmer`s penis. American voters do not need expert knowledge to conclude that Trump’s current mental deterioration makes him unfit for any kind of paid employment, down to sweeping leaves in their gardens, let alone occupying the most powerful office in the world. The real candidates for the White House are Kamala Harris and JD Vance.
My prediction: after his election defeat, Trump’s criminal cases will be swiftly closed by an admission of unfitness to plead
The economics of energy seems to be a major point of debate. And it is not just the money costs that seem to excite passions. Site locations seem to be a major sticking point. Energy generation has to be located at the most efficient location. That is the only way to provide the least cost alternative. But often that location is in regional areas. This is not new. Coal mines were located in regional areas for centuries. The same goes for oil rig service towns and gas delivery ports and electricity transportation infrastructure.
The complaint that regional areas are doing the heavy lifting could also be true for coal, gas and petrol. It is the most likely outcome. Social costs of alternative energy production appears to be similar to those for non-renewable energy production.
That brings it back to money costs. But here the debate gets clouded. Coal mining infrastructure is already established. The same is true for coal fired power plants. Much the same could be said for oil; though natural gas may be an exception.
The infrastructure needed to generate energy stream from alternate energy sources is a major investment in social overhead capital. This can be a sticking point as it involves a large public investment commitment. Political considerations now tend to dominate debates about any transition to alternate energy. The economics of energy transmission is straight forward; but the politics is convoluted. Some form of balance must be struck to compensate regional areas for their burden. This may involve an energy rebate based on regional locations or simple tax concessions. But the political debate will dominate all monetary considerations.
John, I have two potentially novel ideas I’d like to run by you that may align with your areas of interest. One concerning wealth inequality and asset prices, the other is about political economy and climate action. Can I email you (short) descriptions?
Notwithstanding a dissent on you post on coal exports, I; still be grateful for the following links to appear:
"Shipwrecks and Money" [Spain 16 th Century]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/shipwrecks-and-money
"Fuel Taxes Do Not Fuel Inflation" [UK contemporary]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/fuel-taxes-do-not-fuel-inflation
Deficits and Tax Expenditure [US fiscal policy, nest administration]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/deficits-and-tax-expenditures
Thanks
No problem. That's what the Message Board is for