<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: So maybe 10.2% isn&#8217;t REALLY the number&#8230;  UPDATED</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:15:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike gamecock DeVine</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2371</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike gamecock DeVine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:49:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2371</guid>
		<description>DeVine Gamecock!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DeVine Gamecock!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike gamecock DeVine</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2370</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike gamecock DeVine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2370</guid>
		<description>the GOP lost massive seats due to the recession that Reagan inherited but that had not been solved yet.

Same in 2010 for ObamaDems.

The difference is that Reagan had put policies in place to encourage investment and job formation. Obama&#039;s policies and the dems since 2007 are hostile to wealth creation of any kind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the GOP lost massive seats due to the recession that Reagan inherited but that had not been solved yet.</p>
<p>Same in 2010 for ObamaDems.</p>
<p>The difference is that Reagan had put policies in place to encourage investment and job formation. Obama&#8217;s policies and the dems since 2007 are hostile to wealth creation of any kind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mom2oneson</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2355</link>
		<dc:creator>mom2oneson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2355</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve never really understood what it meant as far as how it impacts everyone. Thank you for expalining. That is kind of scary about prices.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never really understood what it meant as far as how it impacts everyone. Thank you for expalining. That is kind of scary about prices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mom2oneson</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2354</link>
		<dc:creator>mom2oneson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2354</guid>
		<description>I need to start reading. I&#039;ve let my son monopolize my library checkout and interlibrary loan requests limit for too long. I&#039;m going to interlibrary loan request it. Thanks again! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to start reading. I&#8217;ve let my son monopolize my library checkout and interlibrary loan requests limit for too long. I&#8217;m going to interlibrary loan request it. Thanks again! <img src='http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aesthete</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2345</link>
		<dc:creator>aesthete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2345</guid>
		<description>I would have noted that Volcker was pretty crappy in quite a few ways (he&#039;s heading up Obama&#039;s Economic Recovery team, if that says anything), but he was right on stagflation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would have noted that Volcker was pretty crappy in quite a few ways (he&#8217;s heading up Obama&#8217;s Economic Recovery team, if that says anything), but he was right on stagflation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: realskinny</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2344</link>
		<dc:creator>realskinny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2344</guid>
		<description>As you say, there was already inflation in the US dollar.  It&#039;s just that I see the declining value of their share of the revenues triggering the nationalizations.   After all they were stealing the assets of the oil companies.    In a world where the Western nations had confidence and moral courage military action would have been taken to secure their citizens property.   Once the nationalizations were successful, greed took its course.   As you say, horrendous policy decisions were made.   Bad fiscal policy was pretty much the norm &#039;65--&#039;70.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you say, there was already inflation in the US dollar.  It&#8217;s just that I see the declining value of their share of the revenues triggering the nationalizations.   After all they were stealing the assets of the oil companies.    In a world where the Western nations had confidence and moral courage military action would have been taken to secure their citizens property.   Once the nationalizations were successful, greed took its course.   As you say, horrendous policy decisions were made.   Bad fiscal policy was pretty much the norm &#8217;65&#8211;&#8217;70.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: realskinny</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2343</link>
		<dc:creator>realskinny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2343</guid>
		<description>of ways but he did take the proper action  against the inflation of the time.   The fly in this is that the unwarranted expansion of the money supply by the Fed in latter&#039;70s was primary reason for the inflation in the first place.   Volcker also bailed out his banker buddies on the taxpayers without statutory authority and some other quibbles.   

Inflation and economic downturns have been measurably worse since the creation of the Fed than before.   Greenspan and Bernanke both have some responsibility for the current problems in that they made easy money available for the RE bubble.   ALL of the rest of the house of cards were based on the poorly secured sub-prime mortgages.   These would never have existed without the Democrat&#039;s Community Re-Investment Act.   None of the many players who screwed up would have had anything to screw up with absent Sub-Prime Mortgages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>of ways but he did take the proper action  against the inflation of the time.   The fly in this is that the unwarranted expansion of the money supply by the Fed in latter&#8217;70s was primary reason for the inflation in the first place.   Volcker also bailed out his banker buddies on the taxpayers without statutory authority and some other quibbles.   </p>
<p>Inflation and economic downturns have been measurably worse since the creation of the Fed than before.   Greenspan and Bernanke both have some responsibility for the current problems in that they made easy money available for the RE bubble.   ALL of the rest of the house of cards were based on the poorly secured sub-prime mortgages.   These would never have existed without the Democrat&#8217;s Community Re-Investment Act.   None of the many players who screwed up would have had anything to screw up with absent Sub-Prime Mortgages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Achance</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2342</link>
		<dc:creator>Achance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2342</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s on the bookshelf behind me and well thumbed.  Any time there&#039;s a wage dispute that goes to the labor board or to arbitration you have to come up with an explanation of Alaska and oil patch economics that somebody who knows nothing about Alaska and oil patch economics can understand, so my copy of The Prize has seen a lot of use.

The first time I had to try to explain the Alaska economy was in &#039;90 in interest arbitration with our largest union.  The union wanted at least the CPI since &#039;87 because they&#039;d been without a contract since June &#039;86.  Because of the price crash in &#039;86 CPI had been pretty much flat but there had been a sharp uptick in &#039;89.  I had to try to lay out  to an arbitrator from MN how the price was in the toilet and we couldn&#039;t control production thus we had flat or declining revenue without regard to the CPI.  The irony of it all was, because of Exxon Valdez our revenue was down due to production disruptions and tariff issues but, typically, Exxon had thrown around $100 bills where $10 bills would have done in getting labor and materials for the cleanup and all the money they spent eased the recession and caused the CPI to go up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s on the bookshelf behind me and well thumbed.  Any time there&#8217;s a wage dispute that goes to the labor board or to arbitration you have to come up with an explanation of Alaska and oil patch economics that somebody who knows nothing about Alaska and oil patch economics can understand, so my copy of The Prize has seen a lot of use.</p>
<p>The first time I had to try to explain the Alaska economy was in &#8217;90 in interest arbitration with our largest union.  The union wanted at least the CPI since &#8217;87 because they&#8217;d been without a contract since June &#8217;86.  Because of the price crash in &#8217;86 CPI had been pretty much flat but there had been a sharp uptick in &#8217;89.  I had to try to lay out  to an arbitrator from MN how the price was in the toilet and we couldn&#8217;t control production thus we had flat or declining revenue without regard to the CPI.  The irony of it all was, because of Exxon Valdez our revenue was down due to production disruptions and tariff issues but, typically, Exxon had thrown around $100 bills where $10 bills would have done in getting labor and materials for the cleanup and all the money they spent eased the recession and caused the CPI to go up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Achance</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2341</link>
		<dc:creator>Achance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2341</guid>
		<description>but rather vice versa.  As I set out, there was already inflation in the US economy because of overspending and borrowing for both Vietnam and The Great Society.  The declining value of the dollar was a factor in the movement from the $2/bbl. paradigm towards the $8/bbl. paradigm on which the TAPS was predicated.  After nationalization there was not a free market in a vital commodity, oil.  You had a cartel willfully increasing the price of that vital commidity because they could and creating a shortage because they could.  Then, as you describe, more and more money going to oil caused less and less to be available for other things.  Likewise, those who could did what they could to drive up their earnings so they could afford more things.  Combine that with some horrendous policy decision and you got both a recession and inflation at the same time, the stagflation phenomenon and the &quot;misery index.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but rather vice versa.  As I set out, there was already inflation in the US economy because of overspending and borrowing for both Vietnam and The Great Society.  The declining value of the dollar was a factor in the movement from the $2/bbl. paradigm towards the $8/bbl. paradigm on which the TAPS was predicated.  After nationalization there was not a free market in a vital commodity, oil.  You had a cartel willfully increasing the price of that vital commidity because they could and creating a shortage because they could.  Then, as you describe, more and more money going to oil caused less and less to be available for other things.  Likewise, those who could did what they could to drive up their earnings so they could afford more things.  Combine that with some horrendous policy decision and you got both a recession and inflation at the same time, the stagflation phenomenon and the &#8220;misery index.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vladimir</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2340</link>
		<dc:creator>Vladimir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:32:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2340</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vladimir</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2339</link>
		<dc:creator>Vladimir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2339</guid>
		<description>http://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257784258&amp;sr=8-1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>http://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1257784258&amp;sr=8-1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Achance</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2338</link>
		<dc:creator>Achance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:26:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2338</guid>
		<description>It is a Pulizer Prize winner that most consider the magisterial history of the oil industry.  Can&#039;t remember the author&#039;s name.  It is a little left-leaning but mostly objective and very readable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a Pulizer Prize winner that most consider the magisterial history of the oil industry.  Can&#8217;t remember the author&#8217;s name.  It is a little left-leaning but mostly objective and very readable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: realskinny</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2337</link>
		<dc:creator>realskinny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2337</guid>
		<description>on this Achance.   The oil shocks of the early Seventies were caused by dollar inflation which was in turn the result of overspending and borrowing by Johnson and Nixon.   I depart company on only one point.   Inflation is a decline in the value of money.   It cannot be caused by a shortage (real or artificial) of a commodity.   More money spent on one or more commodities will simply mean less money spent on other goods or services.    Any time there is a general increase in prices--a symptom of inflation--it is caused by a reduction in the value of the unit of exchange.   A failure to understand this basic definition is why we see such stupidities as price controls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>on this Achance.   The oil shocks of the early Seventies were caused by dollar inflation which was in turn the result of overspending and borrowing by Johnson and Nixon.   I depart company on only one point.   Inflation is a decline in the value of money.   It cannot be caused by a shortage (real or artificial) of a commodity.   More money spent on one or more commodities will simply mean less money spent on other goods or services.    Any time there is a general increase in prices&#8211;a symptom of inflation&#8211;it is caused by a reduction in the value of the unit of exchange.   A failure to understand this basic definition is why we see such stupidities as price controls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mom2oneson</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2336</link>
		<dc:creator>mom2oneson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2336</guid>
		<description>and has a big responsibility for the mess we are in now? I&#039;m just repeated what I heard here I really have no idea. I thought for sure he was bad though?

Achance that is so interesting thanks for the history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and has a big responsibility for the mess we are in now? I&#8217;m just repeated what I heard here I really have no idea. I thought for sure he was bad though?</p>
<p>Achance that is so interesting thanks for the history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aesthete</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2335</link>
		<dc:creator>aesthete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2335</guid>
		<description>esp. on foreign policy. I do give him credit for appointing Volcker at the end of his term to end stagflation, but besides that, he was just awful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>esp. on foreign policy. I do give him credit for appointing Volcker at the end of his term to end stagflation, but besides that, he was just awful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Achance</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2334</link>
		<dc:creator>Achance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2334</guid>
		<description>one that was already pretty well developed when he took office in early &#039;77.  He gets plenty of blame for handling the economy and foreign affairs ineptly, but he didn&#039;t start the problem; that&#039;s all on President Nixon and a Democrat Congress&#039; heads - with a lot of help from our Soviet friends.

The US stood idly by when Ghadaffi, then a Soviet client, nationalized the Libyan oil fields, in &#039;70 I think.  The other Soviet client, Iraq followed suit, followed by the more Westward leaning Saudi Arabia and the emirates.  At that point OPEC became something much more than social club or trade association.  It seems lost to memory that these now rich and powerful Arab states and leaders had done little or nothing to develop the oil; they had just accepted their baksheesh and the Western oil companies fronted all the skill and money to develope the provinces, the biggie being AARAMCO, a joint venture of, principally BP and Exxon.  With the nationalization, the World price of oil began to rise inexorably.  The US was already fighting inflation because of the &quot;guns and butter&quot; policy in financing Vietnam.  Increases in commodity prices led by oil aggravated the inflation to the point where Nixon instituted wage and price controls in &#039;71 or &#039;72.  I&#039;m working from memory so some of this may be a little off but the bright colors and broad strokes are right.

The Arab States felt real power in the &#039;73 War iwth Israel but with, and the Arabs thought because of, US intervention with weapons for Israel, the Arabs ultimately were defeated.  The Arabs did no go gently.  Since they now controlled all the oil from the Middle East, they put an embargo on oil exports to The West.  The West&#039;s economic paradigm was based on oil in the $5-8/bbl. range and even reaching that price paradigm had caused considerable inflation as pre-nationalization ME oil had been under $2/bbl.  The TransAlaska Pipeline, at the time the largest and most expensive construction project in history, was based on economic viability with oil at $7.50/bbl., then very expensive oil when the project was approved in &#039;71.  With the Arab Oil Embargo of &#039;74, the price of oil, if available at all, simply skyrocketed, ultimately reaching the mid - $30s/bbl. and the economy tanked as it did.  About the only thing good that can be said for Carter&#039;s tenure is that he didn&#039;t much interfere with constrution of the TAPS though his Greenie friends certainly did and the price of the TAPS skyrocketed as well.  By the time the environmentalists were through what had been projected to be about a billion dollar project had become an $8 billion dollar project, but by &#039;80, it was producing almost 25% of America&#039;s oil.  At the same time, BP, then an arm of the British Governent as well as Norway were bringing on the elephant field in the North Sea.  By &#039;81, the dramatic increases in oil production combined with more resolute economic and foreign policy from both President Reagan and PM Thatcher first stabliized the price of oil and allowed the Western economies to catch up with that price and establish a new price paradigm.

The fields in Alaska and the North Sea went into production with the highest uplift rates of any major fields in the World.  Uplift rate is production as a percentage of proven reserves.  Throwing all that oil on the market combined with rational economic policies in both the US and GB broke the OPEC monopoly and the price of oil crashed in &#039;86, flirting with $10/bbl. and even less.  A sound dollar, conservative tax policy, and a low, stable oil price all contributed to starting a boom that lasted from the mid-eighties until last September with only the minor and mostly media induced early &#039;90s recession that helped elect WJC who is given all the credit for things he had little to do with.

So, Carter had both bad policies and bad luck and even worse luck as the result of his own bad policies.  Reagan had both good policies and good luck as did GHWB until the &quot;recession.&quot;  WJC would have had bad policies which would have led to bad luck but he overplayed his hand in &#039;92-93 and lost control of the Congress causing him to have to accommodate Republican policies.  The economy was robust enough to weather the bursting of the tech bubble and GWB and a Repubican Congress kept the economy rollicking despite the Democrats&#039; best efforts to talk the economy down.  The Dem/Media propaganda war and weariness with real wars brought a Democrat Congress in &#039;06 and something, I think something really bad, brought first skyrocketing oil prices in &#039;07-&#039;08 and an economic crisis and a communist takeover in late &#039;08.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>one that was already pretty well developed when he took office in early &#8217;77.  He gets plenty of blame for handling the economy and foreign affairs ineptly, but he didn&#8217;t start the problem; that&#8217;s all on President Nixon and a Democrat Congress&#8217; heads &#8211; with a lot of help from our Soviet friends.</p>
<p>The US stood idly by when Ghadaffi, then a Soviet client, nationalized the Libyan oil fields, in &#8217;70 I think.  The other Soviet client, Iraq followed suit, followed by the more Westward leaning Saudi Arabia and the emirates.  At that point OPEC became something much more than social club or trade association.  It seems lost to memory that these now rich and powerful Arab states and leaders had done little or nothing to develop the oil; they had just accepted their baksheesh and the Western oil companies fronted all the skill and money to develope the provinces, the biggie being AARAMCO, a joint venture of, principally BP and Exxon.  With the nationalization, the World price of oil began to rise inexorably.  The US was already fighting inflation because of the &#8220;guns and butter&#8221; policy in financing Vietnam.  Increases in commodity prices led by oil aggravated the inflation to the point where Nixon instituted wage and price controls in &#8217;71 or &#8217;72.  I&#8217;m working from memory so some of this may be a little off but the bright colors and broad strokes are right.</p>
<p>The Arab States felt real power in the &#8217;73 War iwth Israel but with, and the Arabs thought because of, US intervention with weapons for Israel, the Arabs ultimately were defeated.  The Arabs did no go gently.  Since they now controlled all the oil from the Middle East, they put an embargo on oil exports to The West.  The West&#8217;s economic paradigm was based on oil in the $5-8/bbl. range and even reaching that price paradigm had caused considerable inflation as pre-nationalization ME oil had been under $2/bbl.  The TransAlaska Pipeline, at the time the largest and most expensive construction project in history, was based on economic viability with oil at $7.50/bbl., then very expensive oil when the project was approved in &#8217;71.  With the Arab Oil Embargo of &#8217;74, the price of oil, if available at all, simply skyrocketed, ultimately reaching the mid &#8211; $30s/bbl. and the economy tanked as it did.  About the only thing good that can be said for Carter&#8217;s tenure is that he didn&#8217;t much interfere with constrution of the TAPS though his Greenie friends certainly did and the price of the TAPS skyrocketed as well.  By the time the environmentalists were through what had been projected to be about a billion dollar project had become an $8 billion dollar project, but by &#8217;80, it was producing almost 25% of America&#8217;s oil.  At the same time, BP, then an arm of the British Governent as well as Norway were bringing on the elephant field in the North Sea.  By &#8217;81, the dramatic increases in oil production combined with more resolute economic and foreign policy from both President Reagan and PM Thatcher first stabliized the price of oil and allowed the Western economies to catch up with that price and establish a new price paradigm.</p>
<p>The fields in Alaska and the North Sea went into production with the highest uplift rates of any major fields in the World.  Uplift rate is production as a percentage of proven reserves.  Throwing all that oil on the market combined with rational economic policies in both the US and GB broke the OPEC monopoly and the price of oil crashed in &#8217;86, flirting with $10/bbl. and even less.  A sound dollar, conservative tax policy, and a low, stable oil price all contributed to starting a boom that lasted from the mid-eighties until last September with only the minor and mostly media induced early &#8217;90s recession that helped elect WJC who is given all the credit for things he had little to do with.</p>
<p>So, Carter had both bad policies and bad luck and even worse luck as the result of his own bad policies.  Reagan had both good policies and good luck as did GHWB until the &#8220;recession.&#8221;  WJC would have had bad policies which would have led to bad luck but he overplayed his hand in &#8217;92-93 and lost control of the Congress causing him to have to accommodate Republican policies.  The economy was robust enough to weather the bursting of the tech bubble and GWB and a Repubican Congress kept the economy rollicking despite the Democrats&#8217; best efforts to talk the economy down.  The Dem/Media propaganda war and weariness with real wars brought a Democrat Congress in &#8217;06 and something, I think something really bad, brought first skyrocketing oil prices in &#8217;07-&#8217;08 and an economic crisis and a communist takeover in late &#8217;08.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Achance</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2331</link>
		<dc:creator>Achance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2331</guid>
		<description>on this site it&#039;s always either 500 errors or &quot;Cannot Display the Page&quot;  There are two ads that completely hang up my IE8; the one with the growing noses and the one about the telephone tea party.  If either of those are displayed, only the left side of the page displays; no Diaries, Red Hot, or comments.  Just have to keep refreshing the page until another ad is displaying and then the whole page will load.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>on this site it&#8217;s always either 500 errors or &#8220;Cannot Display the Page&#8221;  There are two ads that completely hang up my IE8; the one with the growing noses and the one about the telephone tea party.  If either of those are displayed, only the left side of the page displays; no Diaries, Red Hot, or comments.  Just have to keep refreshing the page until another ad is displaying and then the whole page will load.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: realskinny</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2330</link>
		<dc:creator>realskinny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2330</guid>
		<description>could forget.   The economy was far worse than today.   Voting in the AM for Reagan brought on such a sense of euphoria I couldn&#039;t get the silly grin off my face all day.   When I came out of the voting booth I couldn&#039;t help myself and shouted &quot;I&#039;ve waited 4 years to fire that SOB&quot;.   Every one in the church basement laughed.

Volker, head of the Fed, was a Democrat and didn&#039;t care how bad the economy got with a Republican in the WH.   He raised interest rates enough to choke inflation.   Reagan took the price controls off oil and prices began to drop almost immediately.   He went to the people and got the Democrats in the House to pass the tax cut.   They phased it in so the effects weren&#039;t felt until &#039;83.   The Dems scored big gains in &#039;82 but by &#039;84 everyone in the country but the media knew who was responsible for the boom..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>could forget.   The economy was far worse than today.   Voting in the AM for Reagan brought on such a sense of euphoria I couldn&#8217;t get the silly grin off my face all day.   When I came out of the voting booth I couldn&#8217;t help myself and shouted &#8220;I&#8217;ve waited 4 years to fire that SOB&#8221;.   Every one in the church basement laughed.</p>
<p>Volker, head of the Fed, was a Democrat and didn&#8217;t care how bad the economy got with a Republican in the WH.   He raised interest rates enough to choke inflation.   Reagan took the price controls off oil and prices began to drop almost immediately.   He went to the people and got the Democrats in the House to pass the tax cut.   They phased it in so the effects weren&#8217;t felt until &#8217;83.   The Dems scored big gains in &#8217;82 but by &#8217;84 everyone in the country but the media knew who was responsible for the boom..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scope</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2326</link>
		<dc:creator>Scope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2326</guid>
		<description>I have no clue at all what you just said.  You seem to say that it is a, Internet Explorer 8 problem, and add, it also is a problem with Firefox.  Is that what you are saying?  I am not so sure that it is a search engine problem.  I have tried both IE and FF, and,  both seem to have the same conclusion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no clue at all what you just said.  You seem to say that it is a, Internet Explorer 8 problem, and add, it also is a problem with Firefox.  Is that what you are saying?  I am not so sure that it is a search engine problem.  I have tried both IE and FF, and,  both seem to have the same conclusion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Mullins</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/2009/11/07/so-maybe-102-isnt-really-the-number/#comment-2325</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Mullins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mbecker908/?p=283#comment-2325</guid>
		<description>because I use FF and seem to have that problem. I think IE 8 that I have here for Vista has gotten fixed a bit, but still seems to have problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>because I use FF and seem to have that problem. I think IE 8 that I have here for Vista has gotten fixed a bit, but still seems to have problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

