Slashdot Mirror

"[T]he mortgage interest deduction [encourages people to] buy bigger and more expensive homes."

The word "encourages" implies social engineering.

Examples? No problem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

http://reason.org/blog/show/tw...

The EPA has a terrible track record with the SCOTUS, repeatedly getting slapped down often with scathing words about their nonsense.

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four - fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events.

Nothing about the big-dig is associated with any "lowest bidders". Speaking as a Bostonian, the project was a massive demonstration of the sort of crony capitalism that runs on Beacon Hill, and especially within the various transportation departments. Massachusetts, for example, spends roughly 7 times per highway dollar as New Hampshire, and yet has far worse roads. It's all about kickbacks to cronies. http://reason.org/studies/show...

Wow! what country has executions for not paying your bills?

Not the death penalty yet. But apparently you can be incarcerated indefinitely in some states of the USA for failing to pay your bills. The police are thinking of changing their motto to "To serve and collect".

I'd like to know as well.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the annual immigrant visa quota is 140,000 for employment-based (EB-x) immigration. EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 each receive 28.6% of the total number, while EB-4 and EB-5 each receives 7.1% separately.

For the current 40,000 quota of EB-2 preference, each country receives 7%, with 3,000 available for China and India, 2,500 for the other countries, and 9,000 remaining for use by those countries in need, such as India and China.

Linus could also have come in through one of the 32,000 diversity (DV) visas available to Europeans.

Once here (legally with a green card). having American citizen children or an American citizen spouse is one of the fastest ways to be come a citizen (3 years as a spouse, 5 years for children).

The best guide to understanding US immigration laws is this handy poster.

Bzzz. The power outages were caused by the CA government creating a central electricity trading market, which only allowed trades once a day. That meant companies were not able to react to the constantly changing customer demand, and that led to rolling blackout. In other words - per usual - blame government and price controls for the shortages.

Would You Like To Read More?
http://reason.org/news/show/powering-up-california

Calculating WHERE the money comes from is not hard at all. (I'm speaking strictly about the US here)

Government is not a wealth producer.

I don't mean that in the generic, libertarian, anti-Fed sense. I mean that in the strictest sense.

Every dollar that government has came directly from the private sector.

Government produces nothing. Government provides services (quite poorly and less efficiently than the private sector, IMHO) in "exchange" for Taxes but based on the various budget shortfalls you can make two assumptions:

- Government isn't "charging" enough for those services
or
- We're getting a terrible bargain as citizens.

Also, there's some disagreement on the impact of wartime spending:

http://reason.org/news/show/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor

I'll also look and see what the peer review was like on the paper quoted about negligible increase in consumption from wartime spending.

I find that terms such as free trade, capitalism, etc., are thrown around a bit too loosely. Most of the strongest proponents of free trade warned long ago that developing nations will overtake the U.S. Milton Friedman said that a foreign worker can learn the job of any American worker. Peter Schiff goes into great detail in his books to explain how the trade deficit is basically the annual amount of American wealth transferred overseas every year. The 'free marketers' you are referring to are likely neocons who spew all kinds of drivel to gain popular support of conservatives.

America already is in the service industry. A Chinese factory I do sales and marketing for purchased another factory that made a similar product, but a much newer technology that is used in common electronic devices (the old products were for automobiles). When I began selling these newer products I discovered that there are pretty much zero consumer electronics companies that use this component that even do their engineering in the U.S. This was a huge wake up call when I realized that most of the companies in the U.S. only do sales, marketing, and distribution - that's a very scary position for a nation to be in.

The cause of the employment problem is that we have too many federal regulations on employment and not enough legal immigrants[pdf]. Forcing employers to pay their workers at higher rates than employers in other countries just makes the employer uncompetitive in the marketplace, thus sending the production overseas, and in many cases the rest of the company goes with it. Charging a high tax rate to pay for entitlements such as Social Security and high income taxes makes the employees even more expensive. On top of that, there are federal requirements on unemployment insurance and worker's compensation insurance, plus a tax code labyrinth of epic proportions. The reality is that when we put these requirements onto the employers, we lose the employers, thus in an effort to guarantee worker safety, the worker loses the job.

America will likely continue its transition into a 3rd world nation with very serious inflation and very high unemployment rates unless something changes dramatically, but it is not the fault of the corporations. Blaming a corporation makes as much sense as blaming a building. The issue is not with the corporations, but rather with the control that Washington D.C. exercises over our economy. If we eliminate the central control, then we would recover from this death roll and return to prosperity.

Also, I should point out that the statement "corporations have essentially dismantled US tech and manufacturing, which, for most of America's history, have been the backbone of this country" makes no sense because that backbone was corporations, so you are claiming that they are the backbone of our success and the cause of our failure, which makes no sense and is not true.

The rail authority assumes that between 88 million and 117 million people will ride the trains each year. To put that in perspective, consider that the entire annual ridership of the Amtrak system, which includes 21,000 miles of routes and more than 500 destinations in 46 states, is less than 29 million. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express service, which runs from Washington, D.C., to New York City to Boston, serves a larger and denser market than the planned California system and only commands a ridership of a little more than 3 million passengers a year.

http://reason.org/news/show/california-voters-were-railroa

Okay, okay, that's the Reason Foundation talking, and we know they're a bunch of libertarian loonies. But what about someone more sympathetic?

Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail Foundation found the project lacking, with its representative telling senators, "We can't believe any of the numbers presented in the business plan."

http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2484870.html

I would draw comparisons between this and the Simpson's Monorail episode, but at least the Monorail got built before they realized it was a gigantic waste of money. The bullet-train would simply be a financial quagmire for this fiscally irresponsible state.

Worth noting:

"Report details why high-speed rail won't meet ridership predictions, deliver on promised travel times, or meet emission reduction targets."

There's always the initial, hysterical article about how Obama is doing something oh-so-terrible (e.g. killing net neutrality).

Perhaps the part that would have killed net neutrality was removed because so many complained.

Remember all those complains about the stimulus package being full of pork?

The stimulus package is pork.

Falcon

The fuel tax is not high enough to pay for the roads.

Even if taxes per gallon of fuel haven't risen significantly, it doesn't mean the tax is particularly low, $0.05/gallon is no small amount,

It is too low if it does not pay for the roads. You use the road you pay for it.

The number of cars, and amount of gasoline consumed has dramatically increased over the years, so tax revenues would naturally rise.

First, though the number of vehicles has increased the number of miles driven has decreased. And even if fuel tax revenue has increased it hasn't increased as much as building and maintaining those roads go up faster.

There would be some needs for increased maintenance of federal roads, but such costs don't necessarily increase proportionally with the number of gallons of gas consumed.

There would be some needs for increased maintenance of federal roads, but such costs don't necessarily increase proportionally with the number of gallons of gas consumed.

But the costs go up with mileage. As I've said elsewhere when someone renews their license plate tags their odometer is read to see how many miles they drive and they are taxed on that.

Toll roads haven't been used in the past, and yet states and cities have still gotten the road work they need done somehow.

Toll roads have most certainly been used. I was on toll roads back in the 1970s. Here's an article from the "New York Times" dated 25 Aug 1918: " ABANDON OLD TOLL ROADS.; Lancaster Turnpike Purchase Frees Pennsylvania of Last Section."

Fuel taxes are not that low, and the tax revenue is enormous, so of course the tax payers are already paying for their road maintenance...

As I said above if they are not high enough to pay for the roads then they are too low. Even the free market institute Reason says "federal gas tax revenues are failing". They want to totally replace the fuel tax with a mileage charge, which I say above should be used.

Falcon

I can knock a few holes in this specious argument without even breaking a sweat...

1. The editorial does not specify which Hummer model of the five currently listed on the Hummer website (The H1 Alpha? The H2? The H2 SUT? The H3? The H3^X?) is the basis for the comparison to the Prius (one model only). So how is it possible to validate its claims for the idealized "Hummer" that's mentioned if the specific model is not stated?

2. The analysis also assumes gas prices will remain static for five years to recoup the higher cost of the hybrid for lower fuel expenses. Gas prices do not remain static. The folks with hybrids were doing quite well after Katrina while all the SUV drivers were complaining about $80 tanks of gas. Are you willing to bet we won't have another Katrina or yet another war in the Middle East in the next five years?

3. The authors of the study assumed the Hummer would last 300k miles and the Prius only 100k. Uh, how about we do an apples to apples comparison here? On what basis was this number chosen, apart from the fact that the fudge factor of 3 allows the Hummer to win this straw man argument? And does the typical Hummer driver even drive his Hummer for 300k miles? How about you pick one set of criteria and apply it for both cars.

4. None of the many arguments offered in this editorial addresses the issue that, despite the premium one must pay for a Prius over a non-hybrid car, they still cost less to purchase than a Hummer (whichever model you pick).

This was bad analysis when it was published on July 19, 2006 (NINE MONTHS AGO!) by the auto industry shills at the Reason Foundation (see http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719 .shtml), and it's still bad analysis after being regurgitated on the op-ed page of a college newspaper.

The link in the parent has think tank written all over it. Looking around the site you can find other insightful articles on why raising the minimum wage is bad and how laws that require manufactures to use recycled plastic are bad.

I would imagine their is a slight possibility that the author of the article had a perspective prior to writing it. Yet even considering the point of the article, it is amazingly short sighted. Perhaps people who buy hybrids are doing it to encourage the technology. Consider where we will be in 20 years if this technology is pursued compared to where we will be in 20 years if we stick with the standard of today.

This study also accounts for the resources to develop the hybrid. Somehow it's supposed to be shocking that it takes more resources to push ahead technology as opposed to putting out a product that basically hasn't changed too much over the last 50 years.

The link in the parent has think tank written all over it. Looking around the site you can find other insightful articles on why raising the minimum wage is bad and how laws that require manufactures to use recycled plastic are bad.

I would imagine their is a slight possibility that the author of the article had a perspective prior to writing it. Yet even considering the point of the article, it is amazingly short sighted. Perhaps people who buy hybrids are doing it to encourage the technology. Consider where we will be in 20 years if this technology is pursued compared to where we will be in 20 years if we stick with the standard of today.

This study also accounts for the resources to develop the hybrid. Somehow it's supposed to be shocking that it takes more resources to push ahead technology as opposed to putting out a product that basically hasn't changed too much over the last 50 years.

And yet, we're still using about as much fuel as before the price hikes.

The use of fuel is not significantly affected by its price except over the long term. We might see fuel use drop over a ten or fifteen year period, but in that time, the amount of economic harm that high fuel prices has caused will drive our economy into the ground. The secondary effects are huge. My average price for shipping stuff to people has gone through the roof over the last few years. Where before I could afford to buy something for $10 over the Internet and get it shipped for $3.50, these days, I feel like I have to accumulate an order of at least $30 worth of stuff before it is worth the shipping price, as the minimum shipping cost varies from $6.50 to as much as $10, depending on shipper.

Now bear in mind that these costs don't just affect the cost of finished goods delivery. They affect the cost of shipping parts to the companies that produce the finished goods. They affect the cost of shipping raw materials to the companies that manufacture parts. And so on. This means that everything costs significantly more. For every extra dollar you pay at the pump, you're probably paying $20 in other areas as an indirect result.

And mildly higher gasoline has not had a dramatic effect on production of true gas guzzlers. They're still cranking out as many tractor trailers and diesel-electric locomotives as before. Cars don't make up the bulk of gasoline use. Fully 31% is used by non-transportation uses alone---natural gas, heating oil, industrial use, and electrical generation. Another 12% is used by freight trucks, 7% by aircraft. A mere 40% is used by passenger vehicles.

If SUVs make up only 15% of all automobiles sold, even if they use twice as much fuel as another vehicle (and given that they are usually driven shorter distances on average, that's a stretch), they'd be less than 30% of the automotive fuel use. That would mean that if you could get rid of them entirely, you would only cut our fuel use by 12%, but they'd be replaced by something, so you'd really only reduce it by 6%. And those are very generous estimates. A more realistic guess is more like 1-2% decrease.

Worse, recent studies show that the amount of energy used to manufacture hybrid vehicles is so high that they actually are worse for the environment than SUVs.

Ah, the ironing is delicious.

Actually, one study claims your Hummer uses less energy per mile over its entire lifetime than a little hybrid.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719 .shtml

They look at the entire energy cost of the vehicle from production to disposable. Hybrids are much more complex and therefore create more pollution to manufacture, and battery disposal is a big problem at end of life. Who knew?

"Reason" magazine has a good article on "How Schools Cheat" in the June 2005 issue. It goes into detail as to how schools are failing in part because of "No Child Left Behind". Unfortuately I didn't find the article online, but it lists various methods by which schools use to say the schools are doing better than they really are. Personally I also blame parents, not all mind you but many, they don't spend the tyme helping their children and being active with schools.

I think you've chosen the wrong voice of to listen to.

Objectivist Center and the Reason Foundation. The Reason Foundation publishes the libertarian magazine Reason and as Doom Ihl' Varia said in a previous post, the OC is concerned with promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Both are entities which support laissez-faire capitalism.

I am surprised they joined in on this. Not because the project is in line with their ideas, but because they should (according to their beliefs) be promoting the removal of the state from regulatory functions such as these.

History has shown us that ALL regulations have thwarted innovation. Look at when the government granted AT&T a monopoly on phone service. Look at regulation of cable television, airline industry, electricity. When deregulation came innovation(and lower prices) took off. The government only acts in their own self interest to keep themselves in power. Never be suckered into believing that they "regulate" in order for the good of the citizenry. If you'd like to read more about regulation take a look at the articles at The Cato Institute, Reason magazine, and The Regulation Homepage. And yes I agree with you that the question is incredibly loaded.
Stuart Eichert

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org