Home > environment, Humboldt Baykeeper > Baykeeper Pete expands his territory

Baykeeper Pete expands his territory

Pete Nichols, the force behind Humboldt Baykeeper, is leaving his post to take an even more powerful position in the enviro badass world.  The news has dioxin apologists and pollution scoundrels pissing themselves.

The announcement from Nichols:

Friends,

It is very bittersweet to announce that, after 7 years, I will be leaving Humboldt Baykeeper to take a position with the Waterkeeper Alliance. As you can imagine, this was a very difficult decision for me. Humboldt Baykeeper’s staff, board, members, and supporters have been like family to me for the past seven years and I think we, together, did some amazing work protecting our Bay, watersheds, and coast.

While I will miss the work at Humboldt Baykeeper, I will still be involved in my new role as the Western Regional Director of the Waterkeeper Alliance. In this position I will be working to promote the work of all the Waterkeepers in the west, coordinating regional campaigns, and bringing new Waterkeeper programs to the movement. I am extremely excited for this new challenge and dedicated to working towards ensuring swimmable, drinkable, and fishable waters for all— locally, regionally, and globally.

I will still be in the area, and look forward to working with many of you in my new position at Waterkeeper. I will be leaving Baykeeper in late July or early August and will be working to ensure a smooth transition with Baykeeper’s extremely capable staff.

Thank you SO much for providing me with the opportunity to be YOUR Baykeeper for the past seven years and you can rest assured that the fantastic staff of Humboldt Baykeeper will continue to work tirelessly to fight for the bay and coast in this new chapter for the organization.

All the best, I hope to see many of you soon–

Pete

  1. What Now
    June 1, 2011 at 1:46 am

    Good luck ,Pete!
    Thanks for all of your hardwork and dedication.
    Your shoes will be very hard to fill.

  2. woodsworker
    June 1, 2011 at 7:49 am

    Pete has always been all about expanding his territory.

  3. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 8:41 am

    I mean this as a sincere question: specifically, what did Pete do for the Humboldt Bay that qualified as “amazing work”?

  4. Not A Native
    June 1, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Its the mark of a strong organization that it can attract, recruit, and retain competant and able managers. Pete has built local support for Baykeeper by effective communication and fact finding. Since he’ll be staying in HumCo, the next local coordinator will get the benefit of his counsel.

  5. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 9:05 am

    NON, what you said is very vague. I don’t understand what Pete has done or really what his position is/was all about. Can you explain the significance/impact that Pete has had as our Baykeeper?
    The best I can reason is he sues local businesses located on the bay to try to get them to meet certain environmental standards. Is that the extent of it? I know he sued Arkley and settled for millions. Where does that money go? Is the Baykeeper private or public? Does he keep the millions? Reinvest it back into bay clean-up? Does anyone know?

  6. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Teacher, I believe Baykeeper actually lost alot of money on the Marina Center settlement. Many years of expensive litigation.

  7. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Who pays for the Baykeeper’s litigation? Is the position privately or publicly funded?

  8. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Is teacher really expecting to be educated or informed by asking open questions on a blog? Either Teacher doesn’t know how to research information or the questions are just rhetorical. I suspect it is the latter.

  9. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 9:52 am

    One of Baykeeper’s successes was a full cleanup of the site at the end of Del Norte Street. Because of the BK litigation a site with documented dioxins was cleaned up rather than ignored. This is a site were people routinely visit to fish and walk. They do make a difference and a healthier place to live.

  10. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Deep thoughts 9:49. Feel free not to address the question that clearly wasn’t to you sense you have no intention of helping me answer it.

  11. Plain Jane
    June 1, 2011 at 9:58 am

    sense or since?

  12. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Humboldt Baykeeper’s website says that they are a non-profit dedicated to protecting the bay and other water ways. So, this tells me that they are private and the Baykeeper, Pete, does not keep any money from litigation, but it doesn’t tell me where they get money to litigate or where the money they are awarded in litigation goes? Pete said that they have accomplished great things. What are these things? Does the Baykeeper fund clean-ups and other projects on the bay?

  13. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Thank you PJ. Since. I have gone to the Baykeeper’s site and, as I have said, I don’t fully understand the position. Can you help explain some of these questions?

  14. Ed
    June 1, 2011 at 10:07 am

    A nonprofit using legal means on behalf of clean water and some would only care about fees. What a clear indication of values.

  15. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 10:18 am

    I’m not sure what you mean Ed. I don’t think anyone has posted anything against working for clean water and keeping our environment clean. At the same time, I hear bad stuff about the Baykeeper from people I consider right wingers and good stuff about the Baykeeper from liberals. I’m trying to figure out, specifically, what the Baykeeper does, where the money comes from, and where it goes? Why is this bad?
    I thought I was being a good citizen by trying to stay informed.

  16. Plain Jane
    June 1, 2011 at 10:29 am

    website: humboldtbaykeeper.org
    email: pete@humboldtbaykeeper.org
    address: 424 First Street, Eureka, CA 95501
    phone: 707-268-0664
    contact: Pete Nichols

    Call, write or e-mail them with your questions.

  17. Plain Jane
    June 1, 2011 at 10:33 am

    It’s funny that the same people who call Baykeeper “Paykeeper” because they’ve sued twice and won support Arkley and his many lawsuits without a word of criticism.

  18. Anonymous answers
    June 1, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Baykeeper is part of the the Waterkeeper Alliance, or is it Riverkeeper? The money for attorney fees probably comes from the alliance. Not likely it was raised locally. The legal actions were handled by Baykeeper’s attorneys, not by Nichols. Pete is the big dickhead who takes the credit. We should appreciate the good work done by the attorneys. Maybe one will step into the BK position. Hard to imagine how anyone could be more divisive than dickhead. Looking forward to a BK that is more inclusive and less offensive. I know a couple local avid boaters who’ve used and loved the Bay for many years. A derelict off the street would have gotten a better reception from Nichols when they tried to communicate with him. He came, he swaggered,he crowned himself KING of the BAY.

    Long live the Bay. It will survive just fine without him.

  19. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 11:08 am

    I wrote Pete a letter. I will add his answers to these questions once I receive his email reply.

    “I’m a concerned citizen who is trying to better educate myself on the local happenings. I have heard your position frequently disputed between friends of mine (Plain Jane and HiFi) from varying political persuasions. Several things about your position confuse/ellude me and I was hoping you would answer some of my questions so I can be better educated on local issues.

    1. When you win a lawsuit, where does that money go?
    2. Who pays for the position of the Baykeeper?
    3. Does the position of the Baykeeper fund local projects/clean-ups on the bay and our other waterways?

    Thank you for your work protecting our local waterways and our environment.”

  20. Osprey
    June 1, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Oh, how the mere mention of Baykeeper riles up the haters. Must mean they are actually effective at what they do. BTW, I heard that Pete will remain involved in Baykeeper and will be serving on the Board to continue the good work Baykeeper has done and will continue to do.

  21. High Finance
    June 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Good work Teacher.

    Keep it up and don’t mind the liberal’s insults here. They are obviously very insecure and can only respond with insults when they are challenged.

  22. June 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Osprey what good news!
    Now would you please answer the teacher 11:08?

    I’d like some answers also. Pete,
    Why were you silent when the Manila Wetlands were destroyed? Why the silence while Manila’s fore dunes were destabilized? Why is restoration by bulldozer allowed on our coastline? Why are we pulling vegetation on our coastline in light of relative sea-level rise and increased storm intensity?
    Just saying, the crap that I’ve seen is environmental
    idiocy, so well-heeled, and incredibly destructive to our wetlands.
    Best of luck in your endeavors, Pete

  23. Haters of a Feather ...
    June 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    High Ball says:
    June 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    “Good work Teacher.”

    Those questions are as disingenuous as your ability to spell correctly or form a factual argument.

  24. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I swear to god, I’m not trying to be conservative or liberal on this. I really don’t know the answer to the questions I asked. If all the Baykeeper does is file lawsuits against polluters and filter that money back into environmental clean-up and other such things, I would be a big supporter of the position. However, it seems to me that there are some obvious questions about the position that are unanswered. Pete has responded to the email but he wants me to call him. I am hesitant to do so because I do not want to summarize his answer and possibly misquote his responses.

  25. High Finance
    June 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Troll alert at 12.27pm.

    Dude, get a life or at least seek out some help.

  26. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    haters gotta hate, right hifi?

  27. skippy
    June 1, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    The questions are reasonable and interesting; yours truly would equally enjoy the benefit of a reply without bias being part of the agenda. Teacher can fairly ask his piece, and Pete can simply give his piece back. The hater following Hi-Fi around lately is becoming tiresome in both luster and cred.

  28. yawn
    June 1, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    skippy says:
    June 1, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    “The questions are reasonable and interesting”

    Those questions were straight out of the RA playbook. Reasonable and interesting? I think not. Boring and predictable to say the least. Skippy, High Ball, and Teach are a one note song, “Arkleyville, Here We Come (and Wal*Mart Too)”

  29. skippy
    June 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    That’s rich. Surely you jest. :)

  30. Mitch
    June 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    I agree that Teacher’s questions can believably be construed as reasonable and interesting, whether or not they are intended to be so.

    I hope Teacher calls Pete Nichols — it could be an education for both. If Teacher declines, I hope Pete Nichols replies further via email.

    Like “Teacher,” I wonder what it is that many people do, and it can be a frustrating question.

    For nurses, real teachers, doctors, construction workers, ditch diggers, scientists, assembly line workers and so on, it’s a fairly easily answered question.

    For others — bankers, “consultants,” “entrepreneurs,” lobbyists, lawyers, advertising account executives, salespersons — it’s a harder question.

    As an example, I often roll my eyes when I hear stock market “experts” offer their analysis on the news, knowing that they have an analysis to fit every situation: if the market goes up, they have a handy analysis, and if the market goes down, they have an equally handy analysis. The fact that they are equally prepared to explain random daily activity whether it is up or down suggests that they do nothing. The fact that they are presumably well-paid suggests that they deliver a service of value to someone, filling air-time at the very least.

    Teacher might wish to recognize that delivering a service of value to someone-who-can-pay is “doing something,” according to capitalist ethics. Whether the service is of value in the wider view is a question that can only be answered by applying one’s personal values.

    For example, I find jobs like “stock broker,” “banker,” and “advertising account executive” to be of negative value to our society. Clearly, though, the jobs are providing value to people who are willing to pay to have them filled.

    There’s an interesting distinction between what is deemed of value by those who can pay and what is deemed of value in the abstract. Given a society in which every member had a reasonably equal share of the wealth, the two converge. In a society where wealth has become very unevenly distributed (for whatever reason), the two need not be the same at all.

  31. gump
    June 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Damn Mitch…That made sense.

  32. wurking stiff
    June 1, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Baykeeper has sponsored and organized a first flush survey of local waterways to test water quality after the first rains which tend to be full of pollutants.

    Baykeeper has run docent tours on the bay for kids and other interested citizens.

    Baykeeper has litigated successfully to require best possible cleanups of several sites including the old simpson mill on del norte st. and now, the balloon tract.

    Since non-profits are required to produce an annual report there is a source available for questions of budget specifics, however environmental non-profits are funded by private donations and grants.

    Often, lawyers will help and/or take on a case on contingency so awards and legal fees go to covering legal costs. In general, big awards go largely to lawyers, expert witnesses, filing fees, copies, etc. As non-profits they are not allowed to make a profit, so surpluses from awards are required to go back into operational expenditures. And sure as shootin’ no one is getting rich doing environmental advocacy. It is a true labor of love.

    You might say that environmental non-profits are among the greatest of open market performners since they are the market choice for so many people who choose to spend their dollars to fund their activities.

    Of course those who repeatedly either allude to the notion &/or state outright that such non-profit eco-litigators are in it for the money are either ignorant fools parroting right wing talking points or they are straight up liars who know better but persist in their falsehoods to make a political point. The telling point that makes them liars or fools is the failure to ever offer any proof to back up their claims. That is both sad and despicable and I am grateful that Teacher is trying to ascertain the actual facts of the situation at Baykeeper rather than throw in with the fools and liars on this issue. Good on ya teach.

  33. Teacher
    June 1, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Wurking Stiff, that is exactly what I have been looking for. I appreciate the well-thought specific examples of the positive things that the Baykeeper has done in our community. I’d say that paints the Baykeeper in a positive light and next time I hear people arguing on this topic, I’ll have some reference for what is complete bullshit, partial bullshit, and what may be closer to some actual truth. Once again, thank you for taking the question seriously and answering it in a very informative manner.

  34. anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Non-profits are required to produce an annual report, but Baykeeper is not an independent non profit, it is a project of the Klamath Environmental Law Center. Not much is reported by them about BK’s finances.

    Agree with wurking stiff, anyone thinking environmental groups get rich by suing on behalf of clean water, air, etc. are really ignorant. One exception might be the Sierra Club – a phony environmental group.

  35. Not A Native
    June 1, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Baykeeper has also gathered water quality data in the bay and publicized those results to get the State Water Board to recognize Humboldt Bay as impaired under the Federal Clean Water Act.

    Nonprofits like Baykeeper often do things that local government are tasked to be doing but don’t have the resources(or management’s priority) to accomplish. That has value to me.

  36. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Was the cleanup at the end of Del Norte really a full one? I remeber reading that it was capped.

  37. Pete Nichols, Baykeeper
    June 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Man, am I going to miss you guys! Teacher: Call me, and let’s meet. I can easily answer your questions, but I have learned from past experience that my answers are never sufficient for some in the blogoshpere, and I find it all frankly a huge time suck. But let’s talk, you can take notes and post away. You’ve got my contact info. Thanks for the thoughtful inquiry.

  38. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    7:44 – Not sure what you mean by “full one”. Remediation (cleanup) of a site is never absolutely complete – some compounds may be very dispersed and in concentrations of parts per trillion. However, the best possible remediation that takes into account dioxins and the best possible methods is much better than going through the motions. Installing a cap is not necessarily a sign of an incomplete remediation.

  39. Anonymous
    June 1, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Next, someone can explain how “servicing a loan” is a benefit to society. Sounds like a middleman who makes money by shuffling paper, without producing anything useful.

  40. June 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    “Wurking Stiff” makes the value of nonprofit groups exlplainable. and “Teacher

    is asking legitimate questions, never think “I don’t need to know>”
    Raging Granny

  41. June 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    “Wurking Stiff” makes the value of nonprofit groups exlplainable. and “Teacher

    is asking legitimate questions, never think “I don’t need to know>”

  42. skippy
    June 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Thanks, Pete, for the kind reply above and being available. To give good credit where it’s due, Mr. Nichols was called up on another matter a few days ago and available when few could be roused on Tom’s blog here.

  43. Anonymous
    June 2, 2011 at 6:08 am

    “Next, someone can explain how “servicing a loan” is a benefit to society. Sounds like a middleman who makes money by shuffling paper, without producing anything useful.”

    this is collecting the payment and dispersing the proceeds to the appropriate parties. somebody has to take the checks to the bank. i suppose it has the same value as a bookkeeper, accountant, or property manager.

  44. June 2, 2011 at 7:04 am

    It’s the same with all fascists. First it’s some group who is deemed: “Unproductive.” Then it’s the “Leftist Intellectuals.” (Anyone with an education.) And then finally…..”It’s the Jews!”

    “Nothing you can do that can’t be done, nothing you can sing that can’t be sung, nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game, it’s easy; all you need is love.”

  45. High Finance
    June 2, 2011 at 8:31 am

    9.15pm, if servicing a loan was not a useful service nobody would pay people to do it.

  46. Percy
    June 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Wonder if teacher and his cheer leader hifi have the same curiosity and thoughtful questions about the Pacific Legal Foundation that is also a non profit and involved in lots of local litigation?

  47. Teacher
    June 2, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Percy, I asked nothing but honest questions. I contacted Pete Nichols, the Baykeeper. We communicated, I posted said communication on this blog, and now I’m happy I did because I feel like I have a better understanding of what the position does and its positive influences. How can you take my actions and twist them into something partisan?
    I try to be informed, question both sides, and make my own mind up regardless of someone or something’s political leanings. If you always believe things because they come from the left, that is your prerogative. Just don’t mistake your blind following for critical thinking and/or intelligence. Blind following of the left is just as flawed as blind following of the right.

  48. Anonymous
    June 2, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Teacher, where did you post information on your phone call with Mr. Nichols?

  49. Percy
    June 2, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Don’t lecture me and don’t assume you know anything about me teacher, because you don’t. You are either a fool or a paid tool, and your polite little comments and admonitions don’t do a thing for me except set off my bullshit detector.

  50. Anonymous
    June 2, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Teacher, I see only your questions directed to Mr. Nichols and not his responses. Also, did you ever speak to Mr. Nichols? I was confused by your previous post, where you said you didn’t wish to speak to him because you might misquote him or inaccurately summarize his answers.

  51. Teacher
    June 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Percy, I’m not sure where your hostility or your “bullshit detector” comes from and nor do I care. Carefully reread your prior post where you tell me I don’t know anything about you…blah…blah… blah… Then look at what you say and assume about me. What world are you living in where you think I’m a paid tool? Who’s paying me? Arkley? Al Quada? How did asking and discovering who pays the Baykeeper further my conservative/terrorist agenda? I beleive that your “bullshit detector” may have sensed your attempt at serious thought and gone off. Better go get it checked.

  52. Teacher
    June 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    11:43, I wrote the Baykeeper 3 or 4 emails and he replied to each. I actually assumed that Wurking Stiff was the Baykeeper (I’m still suspicious) as that email came immediately after a back and forth where I asked him to post directly on the Herald so that I wouldn’t have to summarize and possibly misquote his words.

  53. Fact Checker
    June 2, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    High Finance says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:31 am

    “9.15pm, if servicing a loan was not a useful service nobody would pay people to do it.”

    The taxpayers have paid up to $7.7 Trillion so it must be a “useful service”.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=&sid=an3k2rZMNgDw

    ROTFLMAO at No Class Finance, what a tool!

  54. Fact Checker
    June 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Teacher says:
    June 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    “11:43, I wrote the Baykeeper 3 or 4 emails and he replied to each.”

    Well Teach, what was it? 3 or 4? Your insincerity is only be equaled by your poor use of the English language. Teacher? Indeed!

  55. Teacher
    June 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    I feel like people are messing with me. Fact Checker, HiFi’s point makes perfect sense. You may disagree with him, but that doesn’t dismiss his point that anything that has value to someone is inherently worth something. It is the definition of value. If I am willing to pay you for your lack of writing and thinking skills, they suddenly take on worth (completely theorhetorical as the market on stupidity is currently flooded).
    If you are going to criticize my use of the English language, please provide specific examples in order to help me better myself and to demonstrate that your knowledge of something other than name calling. For example, since you seem to be concerned about grammar, let me help you help yourself. Quotation marks, as all 4th graders know, go outside the punctuation (i.e. service.”). Trillion doesn’t need to be capitalized as it is not a proper noun, and it is not starting a sentence. Lastly, you need a comma before the word “so” to separate two independent clauses. Why don’t you Fact Check the grade you would receive for making three errors in one sentence?

  56. Fact Checker
    June 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Teacher says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    I feel like people are messing with me. Fact Checker, HiFi’s point makes perfect sense. You may disagree with him…”

    The taxpayers have paid up to $7.7 Trillion so it must be a useful service. Yeah Teach, I disagree with him. You apparently do not. Neither do the thieves and bums on Wall Street. You are in interesting company. “Perfect sense” to someone who lacks critical thinking skills. What a tool!

  57. Anonymous
    June 2, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Teacher, this became confusing because you stated at 10:00 am that you posted “said communication” with Pete Nichols on this blog. You did not enlighten anyone else, until asked, about your assumption of Wurking Stiff being the Baykeeper. Therefore, people were left wondering where your email exchanges could be found.

    Did you ever speak to Pete Nichols? If so, did the points made by Wurking Stiff correspond?

  58. Not A Native
    June 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Gee, clean air is very important to me and I don’t pay anything to breathe it. Should I be paying and to whom?

    The point that conservatives Hi Fi and Reader choose to ignore is that monetary ‘value’ is often created by confiscating access, limiting alternatives(competition), and simple economic power(I have it all, you must pay any price I demand).

    Only reason I don’t pay for air is because Hi Fi and ilk haven’t yet found a way to privatize(confiscate) it for their benefit.

    And value doesn’t equate to worth. Servicing mortgages may have value but that value might not be are large as the price being charged. The financial services industry for one continually invents practices that create captive markets.

    Under their ‘free markets exist in reality’ ideology, Hi Fi and Teacher would have you believe that the worth of labor farm workers’ labor is equal to the value they receive in wages. Exploitation and coercion just don’t exist. Neither does slavery.

  59. Teacher
    June 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    NAN, it is called supply and demand. What you are saying makes no sense. If you charge something, and people pay it, then it is worth that price. If you charge something and people don’t pay for it, then it is not worth that price. It is complicated but take a second and try to wrap your brain around that idea. Your example of physical labor is perfect. It may not be pleasant, but it takes few skills and virtually anyone can do it. Thus, a farm laborer is not paid well but they are paid their value. Contrast that with someone like a veterinarian who has a massive, specific knowledge. Few people have this knowledge and can do this job. You guessed it NAN, they get paid well. It’s not the well-being of animals is more important than humans’ source of food, it is that anyone can farm and only a tiny percentage of people possess the knowledge to be doctors.

  60. Smart 5th Grader
    June 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Teacher says:
    June 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    “NAN, it is called supply and demand. What you are saying makes no sense. If you charge something, and people pay it, then it is worth that price.”

    Jeez NAN, haven’t you been to economic school with Teach and No Class Finance? If the taxpayers paid $7.7 TRILLION for “something”, “then it was worth that price.” With such barf coming out of the mouth of “Teacher”, is it any wonder students have such poor critical thinking skills? P.S. Teach, I know trillion is not normally all caps.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=&sid=an3k2rZMNgDw

  61. Anonymous
    June 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    What you say is true, Teacher, to an extent. But you are overlooking the fact that we live in a world where supply is often manipulated. We see it every day, from oil to iPhones to toys and so forth where supply is intentionally limited to inflate perceived value. So a popular item or necessity is technically “worth” what a person is willing to pay at a given point in time and only to those willing to pay the price. As for laborers vs. educated professionals, your example may not be so relevant in the current economy where many people with advanced degrees find themselves unable to find work in their field. Their “worth” as plummeted to the level of the laborer.

  62. High Finance
    June 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Teacher is 100% correct. People pay for an item what it is worth to them. If they pay $10 for a cup of coffee from Starbucks, they are exchanging equal value for equal value in their minds.

    But 4.09pm is also correct. This only works if both sides of the supply vs demand are free. If a cartel artifically limits the supply of something that is necessary there is no longer a free market.

    But not all items can monkey with the supply. For example, if you limited the supply of chickens, people would simply switch to more beef. But people need gas & the oil cartel can manipulate those prices much easier.

    Demand can also be manipulated to some degree. Starbucks spends tens of millions of dollars a year creating a demand for their coffee.

  63. Plain Jane
    June 3, 2011 at 8:38 am

    LOL! Ya think, HiFi? How many trillions do you suppose are spent on manufacturing demand for everything from coffee to politicians?

  64. Mitch
    June 3, 2011 at 8:54 am

    It’s absolutely true that the price of things is determined by supply and demand (*) and that, therefore, pure capitalism is the best way to allocate resources.

    (*) Except in the real world, populated by human beings, not “rational actors” behaving the simplified rules of mathematical models.

    (**) Hey, how doez one get grammer “help”? here.

  65. Mitch
    June 3, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Thanks for the correction teach. You’re absolutely right, I either left two words out or used the wrong one. You’re a gem.

  66. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    June 3, 2011 at 9:21 am

    High Finance says:
    June 3, 2011 at 7:55 am
    Teacher is 100% correct. People pay for an item what it is worth to them. If they pay $10 for a cup of coffee from Starbucks, they are exchanging equal value for equal value in their minds.

    But 4.09pm is also correct. This only works if both sides of the supply vs demand are free. If a cartel artifically limits the supply of something that is necessary there is no longer a free market.

    But not all items can monkey with the supply. For example, if you limited the supply of chickens, people would simply switch to more beef. But people need gas & the oil cartel can manipulate those prices much easier.

    Demand can also be manipulated to some degree. Starbucks spends tens of millions of dollars a year creating a demand for their coffee.

    Response: As if many the consumer are educated enough to understand “real-valuations”. Actually, it is the thought of personal greeds and consumption gains that spurs most “non-basic” consumptions. So, mind power over pocket power it is, as Hi Fi suggests from Teacher. Question: How many husbands feel pressured to buy, buy, buy for their wives, especially after the honeymoon and a home and kids discussion ensues?

    Yep, if it were not for women and children, “non-bsaic” retail consumptions would be a pittance of what they are currently. Face it, government depends on stupid consumers for tax revenue, just like businesses depend on stupid consumers for market shares and ill-gotten(grafted, flawed product, etc…) profit margins.

    Advertizing is “eye-candy” for those whose monetary bowell movements are uncontrollable and require a baggie for storage. Then, when filled-up, on to the next fecal matter collector.

    Lastly, manufacturing demand is like “forcing upon others unwanted protocols”. Yes, manufacturing demand IS FORCING DEMAND, especially when done regulatorily.

    JL

  67. Mitch
    June 3, 2011 at 9:24 am

    We have a new winner in the favorite HoJ quote contest!

    “Advertizing is “eye-candy” for those whose monetary bowell movements are uncontrollable and require a baggie for storage. Then, when filled-up, on to the next fecal matter collector.”

  68. Anonymous
    June 3, 2011 at 11:17 am

    I like the part where he alludes to women as “stupid” consumers. And the question about men feeling pressured to “buy, buy, buy for their wives.” Is the latter based on some sort of study or personal experience, I wonder. I can think of plenty of men who succumb to advertising “eye candy” on very big ticket items, such as expensive cars. I’m a woman, btw – if you couldn’t tell.

  69. Smart 5th Grader
    June 3, 2011 at 11:19 am

    High Finance says:
    June 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “Teacher is 100% correct. People pay for an item what it is worth to them.”

    The taxpayers will pay for the $14,284,352,734,984 (that is $14+ trillion Teach) and growing deficit PLUS interest. Coincidentally, all borrowed from banksters. People will pay for this Fiancial Wiz, is it worth it?
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  70. Plain Jane
    June 3, 2011 at 11:33 am

    What they used to pay in taxes they now loan to the government with interest. Great deal, no?

  71. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    June 3, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Anonymous says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:17 am
    I like the part where he alludes to women as “stupid” consumers. And the question about men feeling pressured to “buy, buy, buy for their wives.” Is the latter based on some sort of study or personal experience, I wonder. I can think of plenty of men who succumb to advertising “eye candy” on very big ticket items, such as expensive cars. I’m a woman, btw – if you couldn’t tell.

    Response: My wording apparantly was “re-configured” to include only women. The Poster says “she’s” a woman, btw. Ok, cool then. Time for political correctness to be fair in discussion then, yes? So, you included yourself, as a feminista, in an opposite sorta, deceptive style…way to go dudette.

    So, besides a ticket item being used in the line of work or some necessity, those men buying those very big and expensive ticket items like cars, who are they really buying that ticket item for or to impress and WHAT are they tryin’ to dip into for that matter??????

    Sorry, no sexism allowed, just reality and facts. There was a news story on The Point about what men and women purchase, but it was not exactly, how shall I say it, a refined study, yet interesting when considering how it could apply to various income levels when a person inputs different “social” variables to understand what makes a person spend money and where they spend it.

    JL

  72. What Now
    June 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    Smart 5th Grader says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:19 am
    High Finance says:
    June 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “Teacher is 100% correct. People pay for an item what it is worth to them.”

    The taxpayers will pay for the $14,284,352,734,984 (that is $14+ trillion Teach) and growing deficit PLUS interest. Coincidentally, all borrowed from banksters. People will pay for this Fiancial Wiz, is it worth it?
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    ***************************************************
    Excellent post,5th.
    The system is rigged so severely that Al Capone would blush.
    Corporations have the rights of people, no responsibilities to others than their bloated shareholders and the big bad bugaboo NGO, Community Development Agencies and non-profits are the ones mucking-up the works.
    If the damned unwqashed masses would just go back to eating their cake and not annoying the haves with their petty issues of survival and persuit of happiness all would be well in the modern corporate craprocracy of the unites states of bulemia.
    PFFFFFHT!

  73. Tripper
    June 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Everyone has a different approach to making a living. Humboldt Baykeeper is the local franchise of the national Waterkeeper Alliance. Pete Nichols is the local head, soon to be the regional manager of the national group. Citizen lawsuits provided for in the Clean Water Act are the foundation of their business model. Their business is litigation against individuals/organizations and their perceived violations of the Act. They pursue what government agencies can’t/choose not to enforce. Working with private money/donations from individuals and special interest groups, Waterkeeper lawyers seek violations of environmental law and build lawsuits to force a change in practices, win a settlement or go to court for a damages and court costs incurred.

  74. High Finance
    June 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    So their job is to stop developments and progress. Their job is put take away other people’s jobs.

  75. Ed
    June 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “pollution is somebody”s profit.”

  76. June 5, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Humboldt Baykeeper’s is under the umbrella and arm of Ecological Rights Foundation:

    http://www.humboldtbaykeeper.org/mission.html

    The name of the game is to internalize private profits while at the same time externalizing your cost onto the public, thus increasing your bottom line to your shareholds. This maybe in the form of development credits, tax credits, pollution credits, restoration grants and or donations to local non-profits envionmental law center. Take your pick or all of the above.

  77. Not A Native
    June 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Tripper, I think you’re confusing a ‘business’ and a ‘project’. IMO, Waterkeeper would like nothing better than to not have to challenge polluters because the pollution didn’t occur and adopt an educational purpose. Your incorrect idea would also say that Government regulatory agencys’ objectives are to levy fines and police objectives is to give tickets. And soldiers objectives is to kill people. Those groups all do those things and make livings from it but that’s not their purpose or objective.

    And HiFi, every corporation want to gain market share from their competitors. And it strives to do that by having fewer emplyees than the combined competitors have. So, companies strive to eliminate jobs.

  78. Tripper
    June 6, 2011 at 12:07 am

    “Tripper, I think you’re confusing a ‘business’ and a ‘project’.”

    NAN, I am not confusing the two at all.

    and

    “IMO, Waterkeeper would like nothing better than to not have to challenge polluters because the pollution didn’t occur..”

    No more than a garbage company wishes there was no garbage.

  79. tra
    June 6, 2011 at 1:04 am

    So their job is to stop developments and progress. Their job is put take away other people’s jobs.

    Pure cynicism.

    And, just to take one obvious example, the case of Baykeeper’s role in the Baloon Track cleanup plan doesn’t provide any justification for that cynicism.

    If Baykeeper just wanted to “take away other people’s jobs” and stop the project, they would have just dragged out the litigation as long as possible. Instead, they reached a settlement that would allow the project to go forward, with a more thorough approach to monitoring and clean-up.

    At this point, it’s not clear to me exactly what is supposedly stopping the “development and progress” of the Marina Center project. Is Arkley still quixotically challenging the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and refusing to turn over documents to them? If so, then it seems like he’s the main impediment to the “development and progress” of his own project. Damn that Arkley — when will he stop “taking away other people’s jobs?”

    I seem to recall a slogan that said “Marina Center NOW!” As I said at the time, I think a more honest slogan would have been “Marina Center…or some other kind of retail…maybe sometime a few years down the road…if we can get our shit together.” Though that admittedly that would be a bit harder to fit on a bumper sticker!

  80. Not A Naive
    June 6, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    tra, I often find myself at odds with your opinions but have to admit I dig your wit. I’ll take a pile of the bumper stickers when you get them printed. I’m bored with the same ‘ol same ‘ol “Namaste”, “Coexist”, “Real Cleanup – Not a Coverup”….

  81. Mitch
    June 6, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    HiFi,

    No. Their job is to see that the laws that protect us are enforced, even if federal agencies under the influence of criminals do not enforce those laws.

    Progress and development that is in compliance with the law cannot be stopped by a judge, the only “progress and development” that can be stopped is that which is illegal.

  82. tra
    June 6, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    tra, I often find myself at odds with your opinions but have to admit I dig your wit.

    I feel about the same way about you, although actually I think I find myself in agreement with you more than 50% of the time. Maybe even 75%. (Hopefully you don’t find that too disturbing!)

    I have been trying (and sometimes failing) to avoid getting into stupid little pissing matches with you, as it’s just a waste of both of our time. But sometimes you do seem to have a knack for “pushing my buttons” and sometimes it seems like you’re trying pretty hard to do so. Then again, maybe I’ve just got too many buttons, and they’re sticking out too far? ;)

    Anyway, what I’m picturing is the basic “Marina Center NOW!” bumper sticker, with the word “NOW!” crossed off, and then my alterative text written in and trailing off to the right, getting smaller and smaller as it goes.

    But in order to be readable, it might have to go right across the whole bumper! (Or maybe it could be regular-sized, and you could only read it when stopped at a traffic light or walking by the parked car?)

    I’m not actually printing up any bumper stickers, but if you or someone else wants to, have at it! Perhaps whoever was behind those “No Arkleyville” stickers could take the ball and run with it!

  83. June 7, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Let’s have an assessment of wetlands and honestly account for the condition of our wetlands before and after Baykeeper.
    What will be revealed is a stunning loss of both wetland and coastal resources. While cheerleaders kept a close eye on the Balloon Tract, our coastal defenses were destroyed by prisoners pulling the binder off fore-dunes, and children pulling grasses in the hind dune.
    We now have enormous blowouts in the fore dune and eroding hind dunes with an entire forest dead. Pete will not venture this way because he might step on toes of fellow grant-grabbers. Friends of the Dunes need to repair the incredible damage they have unleashed. Maybe Pete will comment?

  84. live bait
    June 9, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Teacher: there was that time Pete took that lobster from the Co-op live tank and flew it back to Maine. In-so-doing he spared a misinformed do-gooder from releasing a non-native species into our bay. So, there’s that.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s