KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Hey I've been busy. In fact I need to go find out if Jayb will be buying us drinks in 18 months.... rumor has it, he's buying us all several rounds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I am sad that Jayb won't be intown fo r this. Guess I'll go with Jim..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 The assumption that market forces will somehow, sooner or later, deal with improvement of gas milage is false. Look at the wonderful job the marketplace has done to date regarding any type of environmental issue where the true costs are spread over the wider social fabric. Emissions, water pollution, etc. It will take government intervention to move forward. Of course they will yelp. Gotta keep paying those bonuses to the executive level for doing nothing. Raise the CAFE standards by at least 20% over 5 yrs, surcharges for the gas guzzlers. You just have to pay the premium. The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW. More dodge and weave, JayB style. Or would that be duck and cover? This is not a discussion about unions. It's not a discussion about home insulation, which is (no shit, Sherlock) a good idea. It's a discussion about CAFE standards, and why they are a very, very good idea. So far, you've got nothing on topic in the rebuttal department. Why? Because, basically, you're a one note song. The market is good, government is bad. Why, then, don't we have privatized armed forces (OK, I mean ALL our armed forces). Or fire/police? Or roads? Water supplies? Or any one of many VITAL services that are too important to hand over to the private sector? That's actually not an accurate presentation of what I believe, or what I've argued for. Enforcing the law, preserving individual liberty, and the provision of public goods in cases where there's either no effective demand for the said good, or in those cases where one can demonstrate that the provision of the said good is a technical monopoly are amongst the areas where the case for government control is clear. I think that Friedman largely had it right: "Friedman was supportive of the state provision of some public goods that the market is not seen as being able to provide. However, he saw the scope of such goods as being minimal. And, he argued that many of the services performed by government could be performed better by the private sector. Above all, if some public goods are provided by the state, he believed that they should not be a legal monopoly where private competition is prohibited. For, example, in response to the United States Post Office's legal monopoly on mail, he said, "there is no way to justify our present public monopoly of the post office. It may be argued that the carrying of mail is a technical monopoly and that a government monopoly is the least of evils. Along these lines, one could perhaps justify a government post office, but not the present law, which makes it illegal for anybody else to carry the mail. If the delivery of mail is a technical monopoly, no one else will be able to succeed in competition with the government. If it is not, there is no reason why the government should be engaged in it. The only way to find out is to leave other people free to enter." In cases like the provision of education services, or emergency services, or the like - I think that government has a legitimate function in insuring that such services are provided to all citizens, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the government would have to provide these services directly in all cases. I also think that there's a clear link between economic liberty and political liberty, and the more dependent the citizens are on the state for the basic necessities of life the less likely they are to be able to effectively resist or discourage encroachments on their personal freedoms. The critiques will be much more interesting if they're at least accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Hey I've been busy. In fact I need to go find out if Jayb will be buying us drinks in 18 months.... Did you see the deal? I buy $100 worth of beer if both the house you choose and the CSW index for Seattle both go up. You buy $100 worth of beer if both the house you choose and the CSW go down, and if it's house-up/Seattle-down or Seattle-down/house-up we each put in for $50 worth of beer. Only way either of us wins is if the other is totally wrong, anyone at the PC wins some free beer in any case. 11/1/07-11/1/08. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 Tvash wonders why he gets no respect. Here are a few words of wisdom from the cc.com holder of all knowledge himself - all on this one thread! Nice... Hey there, girlfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Are you unemployed? Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) CAFE standards are a goofy way to try to encourage efficiency and are based on a outmoded and failed regulatory model. For the past 25 years or so that I've been buying and using vehicles, I've observed that almost nobody asks "how many MPG" as one of the prime questions when buying a vehicle. It's my first question. Just look at the threads on this board regarding "climbing vehicles." Fuel efficiencies rarely enters the picture. The fact is that the car industry delivers what people want to buy. If you look at Euro cars, many are very efficient (e.g. the VW Lupo gets about 70+mpg) and they sell because that's what people want for their style of driving, parking and fuel expense. As long as fuel is so cheap in the US, not much will change. And yes, $3-4/gal gas is too cheap. If I were king, I would: (1) put revenue neutral infrastructure and carbon taxes on fuel (2) eliminate CAFE entirely; and (3) eliminate the Section 179 depreciation for businesses for vehicles under 10,000 GVW. (they can use the straight mileage deduction instead which would favor more efficient vehicles). That would address the basic perception of what people think they need and car makers would respond accordingly. One of the reasons no one asks the mpg of a used vehicle is because they already know the answer; that information is readily available and most folks, including myself, take it into account in choosing what type of vehicle to buy before they ever talk to a seller. If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem. Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Only way either of us wins is if the other is totally wrong, anyone at the PC wins some free beer in any case. 11/1/07-11/1/08. I like those odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 CAFE standards are a goofy way to try to encourage efficiency and are based on a outmoded and failed regulatory model. For the past 25 years or so that I've been buying and using vehicles, I've observed that almost nobody asks "how many MPG" as one of the prime questions when buying a vehicle. It's my first question. Just look at the threads on this board regarding "climbing vehicles." Fuel efficiencies rarely enters the picture. The fact is that the car industry delivers what people want to buy. If you look at Euro cars, many are very efficient (e.g. the VW Lupo gets about 70+mpg) and they sell because that's what people want for their style of driving, parking and fuel expense. As long as fuel is so cheap in the US, not much will change. And yes, $3-4/gal gas is too cheap. If I were king, I would: (1) put revenue neutral infrastructure and carbon taxes on fuel (2) eliminate CAFE entirely; and (3) eliminate the Section 179 depreciation for businesses for vehicles under 10,000 GVW. (they can use the straight mileage deduction instead which would favor more efficient vehicles). That would address the basic perception of what people think they need and car makers would respond accordingly. One of the reasons no one asks the mpg of a used vehicle is because they already know the answer; that information is readily available and most folks, including myself, take it into account in choosing what type of vehicle to buy before they ever talk to a seller. If fuel taxes were high enough, CAFE standards would not be necessary. They would have to be very high, however. Politically, that's not going to happen any time soon. CAFE standards, from a political standpoint, are an already relatively popular and therefore much more feasible way to reduce consumption and emissions. A combination of CAFE standards without loopholes, carbon taxes, and elimination of subsidies for gas guzzlers are the most feasible near term solution, politically speaking, to the problem. Note bold text. Cough. Make a law that revenues gained by the fuel tax will be offset by reductions in income taxes and I think that the political resistance to the idea would diminish, especially if the taxes were phased in over the course of several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Are you unemployed? Seriously. I think I know how this works. First you find someone's place of employment, then the stalking begins. Have I got that about right, my little Fairweather? We do have a history, don't we girlfriend? A history? Please explain. Right here. In public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I think I know how this works. First you find someone's place of employment, then the stalking begins. Have I got that about right, my little Fairweather? We do have a history, don't we girlfriend? A history? Please explain. Right here. In public. Seems to me the person anxious to "meet" was trashtalkingmailboxkong who really really really wants to "hook up" with you, FW, at 9:15 am any and every Sunday at the Tiger Mountain TH. An open, public invitation, if I recall correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 What's not cool, is accusing someone of being a stalker. Not cool at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 What's not cool, is accusing someone of being a stalker. Not cool at all. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 retards putting more tax on fuel will raise the price of every good and service nation wide and if it costs more to get to work we make less money, so its a dubble wamie in which creates even less usable income for the avg joe, to save and or spend on other nessities. i do how everthink auto makers should be presured to make more efficent vehicals and simply forced to discountiue SUV and other useless, oversized cars/trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Gas is actually really cheap. Most SUV owners haven't even firebombed their own vehicles to collect insurance yet, and they probably wont unless gas goes above $20/gallon. The real question is what other prices we are paying (wars, vulnerability, inadaptibility) in order to maintain such artificially cheap gas prices, and if the answer is not satisfactory (and I don't think it is), then the solution is not to tax gas itself (two wrongs) but rather to oppose the people in government who work (or will work) primarily to keep themselves and their rich friends rich at unfair expense to the rest of the country. The collapse of fuel supply will be the next dark age, but at least the food supply should be able to adapt to some extent. Local things will once again become cheaper than shit made thousands of miles away and people ought to be able to rediscover the lost art of farm labor (unemployment goes to zero as the lazy die of starvation? ). Edited November 9, 2007 by ashw_justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 What's not cool, is accusing someone of being a stalker. Not cool at all. OR turning someone in to the secret service..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Gas is actually really cheap. Most SUV owners haven't even firebombed their own vehicles to collect insurance yet, and they probably wont unless gas goes above $20/gallon. The real question is what other prices we are paying (wars, vulnerability, inadaptibility) in order to maintain such artificially cheap gas prices, and if the answer is not satisfactory (and I don't think it is), then the solution is not to tax gas itself (two wrongs) but rather to oppose the people in government who work (or will work) primarily to keep themselves and their rich friends rich (at unfair expense to the rest of the country). There is a cultural issue at play here, and, like other issues that are contentious, and very personal, it might be best to work on changing minds and hearts first, rather than impose the will of the government - something which might very well backfire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 the biggest problem is the oil owners and their lack of vision.diversification. they have the power to make law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 impose/oppose? I'm confused, I'm just suggesting that we use whatever political power we have left to put people in power who aren't free agents to the highest bidder, or worse, company insiders who see no difference between the boardroom and the oval office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 impose/oppose? I'm confused, I'm just saying that we use whatever political power we have left to put people in power who aren't free agents to the highest bidder Like Hillary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 She's for sale and 'we' can't afford her Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I'm not buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Are you unemployed? Seriously. I think I know how this works. First you find someone's place of employment, then the stalking begins. Have I got that about right, my little Fairweather? We do have a history, don't we girlfriend? A history? Please explain. Right here. In public. Still waiting, Tvash.... and willing to take it to the next level. An apology will do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Sadly, anyone rich enough to get beamed into every living room became so by pandering to the big investors. $1 = 1 vote. Doesn't it say that in the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 impose/oppose? I'm confused, I'm just suggesting that we use whatever political power we have left to put people in power who aren't free agents to the highest bidder, or worse, company insiders who see no difference between the boardroom and the oval office. I was referring to some "solutions" put forth in this discussion by the heavy-handed social engineers. Not necessarily anything you are suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.