when in fact they would be happiest with a vehicle which is precisely the right size to hold what they will put in it (since it will be easier to see out of, easier to park
There are plenty of automotive companies which produce just such a vehicle(s). You mentioned Toyota for example. Should we prevent those who wish to drive a high performance vehicle from doing so because we think it's not practical or they don't need that? I will say this one last time and very clearly: don't presume to know what's best for me. I decide what I like and don't like and what I buy and don't buy and nobody but me gets to decide whether or not I'm happy with those choices. I don't judge other people's personal decisions and purchases as it relates to their own happiness. Individual happiness is in the eye of the beholder and nobody else.
They're not liable for that when cars don't even have an ECU, and they're not liable when they do, either.
One thing that you can count on, at least here in the United States, is that there are always clever and enterprising attorneys willing to try out just about any new theory of liability. Limiting ones' personal exposure to the depredations of attorneys is a necessary life skill here in the United States. If you want someone to blame for the diagnostic code debacle or the biofuel patent troubles; blame the attorneys.
What I want is for you to admit that you parroted an ignorant party line about the drawbacks of various biofuels like butanol
Look as soon as something as cheap and as good as gasoline comes along, I will be among the first to switch if it's really better. Ethanol doesn't fit that bill because the energy density is too low and the cost is no less or only marginally less than conventional gasoline or diesel. The 90% gasoline 10% ethanol that most of us are stuck with right now at the pump is a real stinker because it costs as much or more than 100% gasoline while delivering less mpg. The only people happy with ethanol here in the US are corn farmers and their lobbyists. If butanol can run in my engine without damaging it and without expensive modifications AND the long run average price is equal or less than gasoline, then I'll give it a try. However, I'm not prepared to pay even one cent more because butanol pollutes less than gasoline (if that's even true) because it will always be spit in the ocean compared to filthy Chinese coal plants, cement manufacturers and other international gross polluters. You like to, "do what you can", even if it's irrelevant. I, on the other hand, draw the line at futile efforts just to make a moral point that, in the end, is equally irrelevant. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead".
The EPA needs the power to immediately shut down any facility which is emitting more than the legal limit. Without that power, all they can ever do is assess fines, and our political system guarantees that those fines will never be arduous, except for those who forgot to fund their PAC.
Which is to say that the EPA, which is staffed by unelected bureaucrats, must have the power to immediately shut down the economy. Do you not see that by concentrating such tremendous power in a single agency you will only increase the stakes of the game and make the inevitable regulatory capture all the more attractive from the standpoint of those whom the EPA regulates? At the very least, the EPA is staffed by bureaucrats who will still need jobs to feed their families and pay the mortgage even when they no longer work for the EPA. Why be an enemy of the powerful when you can instead become one of them? Many will fall and have fallen victim to precisely that sort of corruption and you want to give the government agencies more power? The United States Treasury is a powerful agency and look at the revolving door between top Treasury bureaucrats and the top Wall St firms; that's no accident.
It's true green sources aren't quite ready yet but it would make more sense to pour money into improving those.
How about we pour your money into them, hmm? I would rather invest my own money in domestic oil and natural gas production, which I'm already doing in my IRAs. Just remember that every time the government pours money into something it must first expropriate that money from you and I; either through higher taxes or saddling us and our children with crushing debts, which both debase the currency and ensure higher future taxation. Moreover, Politicians and bureaucrats are terrible investment managers. Case in point: Solyndra. If that had happened at any private hedge fund, the investors would be calling for, and receiving, the managers' heads; they would never work in finance again.
but the vehicles they're being sold in this country aren't designed predominantly to make people happy, but to make money for the big three.
While it's true that few people absolutely satisfied with every last detail of their vehicle, I would venture a guess that most people are mostly satisfied. Now granted, people may be compelled by individual circumstances to purchase a vehicle that is within their means rather than the one that they would prefer if cost was no limitation. However, it's a bit much to blame this on the auto manufacturers. We are all obliged to make choices between limited options by the marketplace. There aren't enough resources on the planet to completely satisfy the whims of every last car buyer; that's just the way it is and it would be that way even if there were only one vehicle manufacturer completely owned and operated by the government.
The continuing obscurity of the relevant OBD-II codes needed for service of modern vehicles and the need to reverse-engineer them that makes the third party tools quite expensive indeed is one great example.
True, but try and see it from the perspective of the manufacturers. If they are liable for the bumbling hands of every shade tree mechanic out there for warranty claims, the cost of repairs will be increased for everyone. The dealers may cost more, but at least they are trained to service your particular brand and model of vehicle. Compare that with many independent garages which are well known for botching repairs, particularly to higher end vehicles with complex control systems and numerous sensors, and being generally dishonest. Besides, everything is negotiable when it comes to vehicles. If you don't like the price the dealer or shop offers for repairs then try negotiating; you might be surprised by the results of a calm, rational and carefully stated objection to a high price.
Yes, they can't get butanol on a cost-effective basis even though there is a company that would like to produce it and sell it to them, because BP and DuPont assert that their process conflicts with their patent
You'll find no defender of the patent system in me. The system no longer serves the purpose for which it was created; that much is clear. It needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished and replaced with something else.
Everything you've said against these biofuels so far has been uninformed at best. If you want me to assume that you're just asserting your own opinion, it's going to have to be a little further separated from the Big Oil and Big Auto party line.
What I want is an end to all energy and fuel subsidies, indeed subsidies in general, and patent reform. Then perhaps, the free market can at last make the right decisions, without interference, between each alternative competing on it's own merits. I dislike it when scientists, technocrats and policy wonks tell me what I should be putting in my gas tank and then pass laws forcing me to accept whatever they, in their infinite wisdom, deem is best for me. People must be free to make their own choices, even bad ones, without undue interference from their "betters". That is what separates the United States from the European countries and other examples of paternalistic "enlightened" statism; it's what makes us Americans.
And if enough of us tell others to do it too, then we can build awareness, and hopefully go after the criminal abusers.
I rather think that most of the criminal abuses with regard to pollution and environmental degradation occur due to incomplete or unenforceable private property rights. The experience of the last 30+ years in the United States, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, demonstrates the difficulties inherit in achieving proper redress through government regulation and monitoring of gross polluters. Compare that to cases where the actions of one party clearly degrades the private
the Japanese building better cars than we do by default can lead to massive underemployment here without government interference.
That is how the market works. The price system acts as a signaling mechanism to allocate resources efficiently. Allocating resources inefficiently, even to protect jobs, ultimately makes everyone worse off. The economies of India, Latin America and Russia offer plenty of historical examples of the rather substantial downsides of trade barriers.
People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time.
How can you be sure that they don't need it? Do you know their circumstances and preferences better than they do?
Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions
What about safety and "family hauling" capabilities? I doubt that low emissions are a high priority for most buyers. They may choose a lower emission vehicle, all other things being equal, but they will not generally sacrifice desired features like multiple bench seats for the kids and more cargo space just to get lower emissions. You might consider low emissions to be useful, but not everyone shares your preferences.
On the butanol issue: Is there anything stopping a gas station from installing a butanol pump for those customers who want it? Look, the owners' manual states very clearly that my vehicle uses 87+ octane gasoline with no more than 10% alcohol additive. It also says that using unapproved fuels voids the warranty. I'd rather just use the recommended fuel and not waste time arguing with the manufacturer over warranty service because I filled the car up with butanol; it's just not worth the hassle to me.
Again, you are a naive idiot or an industry shill, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The automotive industry BOUGHT that legislation.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. You're just being a jerk. Look, it's no surprise that corporations lobby for legislation that benefits them and hinders their competitors. The fact that corporations and wealthy individuals engage in rent seeking is not an indictment of the free market. It is precisely the scope and power of the government which makes this sort of behavior attractive. There are rent seekers even in the absence of a free market; The Soviet Union had rent seekers looking to use the power of the state to unjustly enrich themselves and they were definitely not a free market system.
As for tax policy: again, we obviously disagree. Personally, I favor the Fair Tax, but I suspect that you hate it with a passion so there's really no point in discussing the matter further. The arguments and counter-arguments surrounding the Fair Tax are well known and books have been written on the subject. Anyone else reading this who wants to immerse themselves in the detailed arguments would be better served by getting them from the original sources.
As for the unemployment numbers, I was being generous. The numbers are indeed much higher than officially reported. Why do you accuse me of idiocy simply because I am generous in my argument? Higher unemployment, and higher still in California, only strengthens it.
Because our government doesn't actually believe in Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness,
The government doesn't guarantee that you will have these things in abundance, merely that you are free to pursue them; your mileage may vary.
Second, in the hands of a capable shooter my Kimber Pro-Carry II is probably a superior weapon to your Ruger, aside from reliability issues if you carry the wrong ammunition.
It's never been a problem for me. It fires both the.454 casull and.45 ACP reliably with as much accuracy as you would expect from a short barrel revolver. I normally load the.45 ACP, not the
You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments.
That's your opinion, but I stand by my arguments. We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I remain skeptical of government subsidies and I do not favor them as a good use of my tax dollars; I'd prefer that the government spend less and leave more of my hard-earned dollars in my pocket. I am somewhat more open to government funding of scientific research, but I will never be convinced, for example, that giving cheap loans to Tesla motors for production of electric vehicles is a good use of my tax dollars.
I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
your comment was on trickle-down, not off-shoring specifically. The profits are made in resource extraction and cheap manufacturing, but they don't generally remain in those countries. The profits are transferred into offshore subsidiaries for two reasons: first, if the money enters the US again then it is taxed again (after already paying any foreign taxes) and second many growth investment opportunities are no longer located inside the United States due to relatively high taxes (already mentioned) and excess regulatory burdens. So why repatriate revenues and profits when they are just going to be invested overseas again anyway? The corruption of certain governments, particularly in Africa, makes the resource and labor arbitrage more attractive. It's not the whole reason for off-shoring, but it does sweeten the deal for corporations operating in those countries.
I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.
Most of the people living in the developed world don't know how to live off the land and have never farmed. They like to shop at Whole Foods, but they aren't prepared to give up their private automobiles, careers and detached suburban homes to go and live off of it.
the free market failed to keep up in this country,
So let me get this straight. It's the fault of the free market that Japanese built better cars than we did? Sounds like the free market working perfectly to me. The Japanese companies, specifically Toyota but Honda and others too, decided without being mandated to do so by the Japanese government, that they were going to focus on building small, high quality automobiles and motorcycles that people in export markets actually wanted to buy; what a remarkable concept! They focused on quality and through hard work and innovative processes they were able to succeed at a price point that the big 3 American automakers couldn't match. Hmm, that wasn't because of the uncompetitive UAW workers and their inane work rules was it? No of course not, nothing to see there. Don't blame the incompetence of the American automakers on the free market and then cast the government as their saviors for bailing them out and making them "keep up". They should have been allowed to go bankrupt if they couldn't compete with the Japanese or the Europeans. That is what the free market does, it gets rid of poorly run and uncompetitive companies. That is not a failure of the free market, it's the free market doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing; creative destruction.
That has only limited repercussions for ongoing cost. It affects range and initial cost in batteries, which cost more than a fuel tank.
The initial cost is on the order of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars more for hybrid and electric vehicles. I wouldn't call that "limited" and neither would most other Americans. As for range, that's also very important. Gasoline and diesel automobiles have endurance measured in the 300-700 mile range. If alternative vehicles are to be mass market sellers, they have to meet or beat those ranges in real world driving conditions at comparable prices. People aren't stupid. They have crunched the numbers and come to the conclusion that hybrids and electric vehicles, outside of niche in-city driving scenarios, don't make sense economically. They don't pencil out on a pure financial basis when the numbers are crunched with a calculator or a spreadsheet. This has been demonstrated time and again by many others; you can Google many representative sample calculations for all of the fine details. People who do pay more up front for hybrids and electric vehicles do it because they like driving them and are willing to pay a premium for the personal satisfaction, what economists call "utility", of being "green".
Chevron owns the NiMH battery technology needed to make effective cheap EVs, but they want to sell you oil products because it's where they can make the most money.
I know that Chevron owns the battery business which they acquired with Texaco which purchased the original firm: Ovonics. If these batteries could totally destroy the oil business then why doesn't Chevron produce them and win over all ground vehicle business from their competitors in the oil business? Chevron is not even close to being the worlds largest oil company after all. Alternatively, the could sell the battery business, at a high price, to someone who did want to go head to head with the oil companies. For that matter, why didn't Ovanics, the original developer, become the largest and most successful energy company ever? Surely, they could have found investors if there was such a tremendous opportunity to massively disrupt the energy business? There have always been conspiracy theories about oil companies buying up technologies that would give us vastly superior energy options and they have always proven to be unfounded. Remember the 300 mile per gallon carburetor? Busted. Yeah, enough said.
to the practical production of Butanol, a direct 1:1 replacement for gasoline
Sigh, butanol is not a perfect substitute for gasoline. It has some
Not true. I'm pointing out the tendency of those who support subsidies to say, "advancement x will not happen unless we subsidize". We cannot subsidize everything because the economy must run everything on a finite pool of resources, at least in the short run. Indeed that is what economics is, the study of scarcity and the choices that it engenders. When the government subsidizes something, causing more resources to be allocated than would be otherwise, some other part of the economy is made to do with less than it would have otherwise; the classic guns and butter comparison. To engage in subsidies presumes that the government, and not the market, picks the best possible uses of our limited resources. The question of whether the government or the market should allocate resources was largely decided in favor of the market before the end of the 20th century. Some people don't like it, but if we look at what governments and people actually do and not just what they say that they will do; free markets have been and continue to be the first choice. So either were all stupid and insane for continuing to pick the market against our own best interests, as judged by the enlightened statists, OR perhaps the people of this world actually know a thing or two about how economics works in the real world.
If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped?
Other sources of energy, namely liquid crude oil pumped straight out of the ground, were cheaper still and remain competitive due to the large existing investments in capital equipment, technology and expertise made over the course of a century and more of crude oil production. Natural gas is next in line, especially here in the United States, and will start coming on line for more intensive production as and when the economics of energy production dictate. We are even now rapidly approaching the point where commercial long haul trucking and trains may decide to switch from diesel to compressed natural gas. Boone Pickens has already discussed the economics of nat gas in transportation at length. If you are interested in the details I suggest that you Google pickens plan and natural gas.
Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive.
Modern fossil energy exploration and production has always been a capital intensive business and expensive is a relative term. The potential reserves of natural gas trapped in massive shale formations here in the continental USA is immense. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas here in the United States or at least we could be when production is ramped up. Natural gas exploration is a long term investment and should be treated as such in any analysis with costs amortized over thirty years or more. All things considered, natural gas remains an attractive long term investment here in the United States. If you need proof of that look at the interest expressed by Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chesapeake Energy among many others. Natural gas is a going concern that attracts investment even without government subsidies because it makes economic sense; it stands up by itself as a worthwhile investment in the private sector.
You'd have to level the playing field on both sides, because oil production is heavily subsidized as well.
Indeed, I agree completely. The subsidies must end. That has always been my position. You see? I'm consistent.
It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land.
Have you tried that? Your parents might have as hippies during the "back to the land" movement in the 1960s. You grandparents or great grandparents were probably involved in some form of subsistence agriculture if your family has roots going back to the 19th century here in the USA or Europe. There are still a few hippies liv
That may be, but it will happen when the technology, marketplace and consumer decides, without government interference, that the time is right. People don't like being forced or "nudged" into making economic decisions, which they know they wouldn't make if not for government subsidies or punitive taxation, before they're ready to make them for themselves. In democratic societies people of all stripes punish those in power at the polls for engaging in that kind of social engineering. If you're a government official then take heed. If you go around "nudging" people to make the "right" decisions, don't be surprised when they turn around and slug you at the polls for being a busybody. Nobody likes a busybody who pokes around in other peoples' business without so much as a, "by your leave".
If America is to compete with other country sponsored industries - i.e. China massively funding most of their new technologies, then it's not unreasonable.
Yes it is unreasonable. If there are truly worthwhile investments to be made in these technologies then the private sector will make them at the time when it's most appropriate. I reject the notion that the government must step in and subsidize technologies in order to make them successful. I also reject the notion that big spenders like China will somehow gain an advantage over US industries because of subsidies and direct investments in these R&D projects. When the time comes to step up and make and investment, when it makes sense to do it, unencumbered private sector businesses will be there to do it and they will compete at least as well as foreign industries which have been "incubated" by misdirection of public funds. People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in. The best that can be said is that sometimes, and even then not very often, government purchases in military hardware or the space program, which is arguably mostly about military goals too, might lead to new technologies sooner rather than somewhat later. However, whenever the government has tried to subsidize technologies that private citizens are supposed to go out and buy for themselves, like electric vehicles for example, the results have been disastrous. It's mostly a waste of taxpayer funds for technologies that could have been researched, developed and acquired more cheaply without government involvement in private industry.
Electricity is MUCH cheaper than gas
Except that it's not because current battery technologies do not store as much energy in as easily usable a form as liquid fuels. Plus, look at natural gas. The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs. Boone Pickens was right about that. Natural gas as a vehicle fuel makes sense and is far more sensible than battery powered electric vehicles at this time. The economics support nat gas for commercial ground vehicle transportation.
Green energy is the only way to go, for environmental reasons, as well as political, and economic.
1. It isn't economical. If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies. In case you haven't been paying attention; that hasn't happened. Almost all "green" energy projects would not exist right now if not for government subsidies; without government subsidies, they are economic losers.
2. The US government is drowning in a sea of red ink right now and subsidizing "green" energy is like throwing more good money after bad. How about all of those unemployed people that the federal government has trained for green jobs in the last two years that don't exist? Those people are still looking for non-existent green jobs more than a year after completing their training. In fact the surest way to render someone unemployable is to let potential employers know that they have completed an OSHA-approved federal jobs training program. They might as well put a big red sticker on the back saying, "warning: don't hire me. I've been trained by the federal government to be a trouble maker."
3. Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work, your children are out of work and everyone is struggling just to get by. If this sort of thing continues, and I'm fairly certain that it will until Obama is booted out of office in 2012, people will be ready to kick the greenies to the curb for a real chance at getting a real job that actually pays something and puts them back in the black
Tesla motors is yet another example of taxpayer money funneled to politically favored and well connected people to subsidize a product or service which primarily benefits the rich. The folks at Tesla will tell you that they received loans and not grants, but the fact remains that they received substantial investment from the taxpayers at sweetheart interest rates that do NOT fully compensate the taxpayers for the risks that they are taking with a startup automotive company like Tesla Motors. Elon Musk and others at Tesla claim to be libertarians and yet they are not above accepting government largesse, in the form of loans with overly generous terms, when it's offered. The entire green jobs and green energy smokescreen is a bullshit scam perpetrated upon hard working taxpayers to benefit wealthy people who like to consume luxury "green"products and lifestyles that the average American family, struggling with unemployment and paying the household bills, cannot afford to indulge in. Perhaps when Tesla follows Solyndra into bankruptcy, the American people will finally understand that "green" energy is a boondoggle.
First off, thank you for sharing your experiences; they were interesting to me.
As to whether or not the Canadian system is a good deal cost wise; it probably depends upon the income level of the Canadian whom you ask. The lower income citizens almost certainly receive a better deal than they would otherwise. The rich, as you pointed out, are rich enough not to care. However, the middle class is often the group that gets squeezed the most when it comes to taxation, at least that's true here in the United States and Canada also employs payroll and progressive income taxes like what we have down here. You're experiences were positive, but I wonder if every Canadian is quite as satisfied as you seem to be with their health care.
As for Americans not being able to afford healthcare, many of them *could* afford it but they choose to buy larger homes, multiple vehicles and generally live a bit beyond their means instead. The Great Recession is changing attitudes, albeit slowly, but those of us here in the United States who manage their finances responsibly don't have too much trouble finding and paying for decent care; it's available to those who are willing to pay and at prices much lower than what is typically charged in an ER setting. If it isn't an emergency, it sometimes pays to research procedures and prices ahead of time and then negotiate. Most doctors are willing to be reasonable and particularly if at least partial payment is offered up front.
The fact that the American health care system, as it exists today, needs to be reformed isn't really in dispute by either the right or the left in this country. What we have now, at least in terms of cost efficiency, is really the result of decades of bad legislation and policy decisions dating back to the wage and price controls of WWII. However, I remain unconvinced that National Single Payer healthcare, ala Canada and the UK, is the best way to go here in the United States.
Does this business not have any bank accounts? Surely they must have at least a few thousand lying around to pay the utilities and the people making the calls. Can't you get a court order or lien against their bank accounts and receive payment that way?
People do not have to wait for life threatening care with single payer,
While it's true that everyone in such nations will receive some "care" the mileage may in fact vary considerably depending upon age, overall condition and political connections. Is an obese senior citizen going to receive the same standard and quality of care that a young and fit person with their whole life in front of them will? Probably not. As the British might say, the senior citizen doesn't have enough Quality Adjusted Life Years (aka QUALYS) remaining to justify the "expense" of the best available treatments. Medical care is not a fungible commodity; quality matters and quality costs money. This is why the wealthiest people in single payer countries frequently choose to receive treatment in the United States or at private European hospitals; the care is quite simply better than what is available to them in many single payer systems.
Canadians "buy" their health care through higher taxes, longer waits for life saving procedures and lower standards of care. As most economists will tell you, there are many ways to "pay" for a good or service. Just because you weren't handed an itemized bill doesn't mean that you didn't pay in other, sometime less obvious, ways. If you doubt this, ask yourself why wealthier Canadians come to the United States for heart surgeries, cancer treatments and other major surgeries when they could, at least in theory, receive the same care for "free" in Canada?
What exactly is meant by "reasonably reliable"? I think perhaps that it didn't actually work or it wasn't practical since he very quickly turned to liquid fuels instead. It would seem that the primary sources are somewhat vague on this point; either omitting it entirely or mentioning it only briefly. In any case, the coal dust experiments, while perhaps important in development of Diesel's engine designs, did not lead to a line of practical coal dust engines that are still in use today.
Martin Ford has already written a book on these very subjects that many of you might find interesting. Perhaps even worthy of a Slashvertisement as a "book review"?
The Lights in the Tunnel
This is a major problem with "free trade" agreements, not accounting for externalities.
This is correct. However, if those imposing the externalities don't trade with us, surely they will trade with others and the externalities will yet remain. These are the sorts of issues that could one day lead to wars over pristine lands and other remaining high quality natural resources.
"It is often reported that Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut oil. Diesel stated in his published papers, "at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 (Exposition Universelle) there was shown by the Otto Company a small diesel engine, which, at the request of the French Government ran on Arachide (earth-nut or pea-nut) oil (see biodiesel), and worked so smoothly that only a few people were aware of it. The engine was constructed for using mineral oil, and was then worked on vegetable oil without any alterations being made. The French Government at the time thought of testing the applicability to power production of the Arachide, or earth-nut, which grows in considerable quantities in their African colonies, and can easily be cultivated there." Diesel himself later conducted related tests and appeared supportive of the idea."
Besides, it's very difficult to construct an internal combustion engine that will run on flammable dust. I know that GM experimented with a turbine powered 1979 Cadillac Eldorado that ran on coal dust, at least after ignition. In Episode 63: Air Cylinder Rocket, Gunpowder Engine the Mythbusters attempted to run an internal combustion engine on gunpowder (a turbine wasn't tested), which is both a flammable powdery substance and more brisant than coal dust, and it was busted.
The diesel engine was clearly designed by diesel to run on flammable liquids; namely mineral oil.
No, things are changing as large numbers of people are coerced by government and economics to make do with much less waste
It's important not to conflate two very different issues here. Economics is the systematic study of scarcity, which would and does exist in nature regardless of whether or not governments exist. Government, on the other hand, is all about the organized use of force to regulate and manage society; scarcity or not. Nature does not coerce, it merely imposes reality; governments actively coerce and frequently in defiance of reality, at least for a time.
Giving up incandescent lightbulbs is saving money and prolonging our civilization's lifetime, but it needed to be forced.
And who gets to decide what is and is not enforced upon whom? You perhaps or maybe a cabal of those philosopher kings described by Plato in his Republic. It's a moot point really, because China, India and Mexico amongst others are still going to use incandescent light bulbs. Are you willing to pick up a rifle and put your butt on the line to make them stop? Moreover, are you willing to kill to enforce a cleaner environment if that's what it takes? There are limits to what can be forced before the other guy calls your bluff; that's the problem with force, occasionally you're obliged to actually use it. Are you prepared to do that?
But the rest of us with sense, and a sense of the realities of actual alternate futures, will not let you drag us down with your willful ignorance and greedy self destruction.
As I've already said, the powers that be aren't going to surrender without a fight and there will be blood if you choose to fight. I am neither greedy nor ignorant, but you are an idealist whereas I am a realist. Isn't it sensible to preserve what we have, especially when hair-shirt environmentalism is an exercise in futility? I suppose that I'll have to get my incandescent bulbs from Mexico in the future; these damned CFLs produce a terrible light that's wholly unsuitable for reading.
I will continue to side with the American way
Hah! If you mean cheap gas, red meat and professional sports, then I'm with you all the way man.
Do we really have to make do with less because of AGW or can we just make do with something different?
Unless you can describe an energy source which is anything like as cheap, available, usable and transportable in as wide a range of environmental circumstances as fossil fuels in general and oil in particular; the answer is almost certainly: NO. For example, a single barrel of oil contains as much energy as would be produced by a dozen men doing manual labor for a year and it can be pumped out of the ground for a dollar (or less) per barrel and consumed all less than a day. Without this cheap and abundant energy, which has no equally good substitutes right now, some people would very definitely be forced to make do with less; much like we lived before this age of oil and cheap hydrocarbon energy.
Starting around 200 years ago we transformed our economy to one based on fossil fuels. Why can't we make a similar transformation to renewable energy?
Because renewable energy sources are either not as dense or not as cheaply obtained as the oil that we have been pumping out of the earth for the past 200 years. Renewable energy will enable some wealthy segments of society to continue living as we do now, but without cheap liquid oil pumped out of the ground millions and billions of people will be effectively shut out of that lifestyle; and they will hate us for that. Indeed, oil and blood will become every more closely linked in the decades and centuries to come.
There are aspects of attention, respect, a formal setting, that all are essential for teaching success.
Most of which are now negated by rude and thoughtless undergraduates browsing the web all updating their Facebook pages all while messaging eachother continuously on their smartphones, laptops and iPads. Professors look up and see that everyone is paying attention to their devices and not the lecture that their parents have paid so dearly for them to hear. In fact, it was one of my undergraduate CS lecturers who said something one day that I never forget. We didn't have smartphones or iPads back then, but laptops and WiFi were common enough amongst CS students in those days. He stopped in the middle of lecture, when about half the class was distracted and not paying attention, and observed that, "Students are the only major consumer group that wants less for their money" before walking out of the lecture hall and leaving for the day. Needless to say, everyone paid much closer attention at subsequent lectures. That doesn't have quite the same effect in a virtual classroom.
I got a bachelor's degree in Physics from Cal Poly, SLO. I hated every minute of that experience, and hated the professors.
Hah! I knew that I was right to turn down their letter of acceptance all of those years ago. Well, too bad for you I suppose. However, if it's any consolation, you did make me feel better about pursuing my degree through the UC system instead.
Slashdot Mirror
when in fact they would be happiest with a vehicle which is precisely the right size to hold what they will put in it (since it will be easier to see out of, easier to park
There are plenty of automotive companies which produce just such a vehicle(s). You mentioned Toyota for example. Should we prevent those who wish to drive a high performance vehicle from doing so because we think it's not practical or they don't need that? I will say this one last time and very clearly: don't presume to know what's best for me. I decide what I like and don't like and what I buy and don't buy and nobody but me gets to decide whether or not I'm happy with those choices. I don't judge other people's personal decisions and purchases as it relates to their own happiness. Individual happiness is in the eye of the beholder and nobody else.
They're not liable for that when cars don't even have an ECU, and they're not liable when they do, either.
One thing that you can count on, at least here in the United States, is that there are always clever and enterprising attorneys willing to try out just about any new theory of liability. Limiting ones' personal exposure to the depredations of attorneys is a necessary life skill here in the United States. If you want someone to blame for the diagnostic code debacle or the biofuel patent troubles; blame the attorneys.
What I want is for you to admit that you parroted an ignorant party line about the drawbacks of various biofuels like butanol
Look as soon as something as cheap and as good as gasoline comes along, I will be among the first to switch if it's really better. Ethanol doesn't fit that bill because the energy density is too low and the cost is no less or only marginally less than conventional gasoline or diesel. The 90% gasoline 10% ethanol that most of us are stuck with right now at the pump is a real stinker because it costs as much or more than 100% gasoline while delivering less mpg. The only people happy with ethanol here in the US are corn farmers and their lobbyists. If butanol can run in my engine without damaging it and without expensive modifications AND the long run average price is equal or less than gasoline, then I'll give it a try. However, I'm not prepared to pay even one cent more because butanol pollutes less than gasoline (if that's even true) because it will always be spit in the ocean compared to filthy Chinese coal plants, cement manufacturers and other international gross polluters. You like to, "do what you can", even if it's irrelevant. I, on the other hand, draw the line at futile efforts just to make a moral point that, in the end, is equally irrelevant. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead".
The EPA needs the power to immediately shut down any facility which is emitting more than the legal limit. Without that power, all they can ever do is assess fines, and our political system guarantees that those fines will never be arduous, except for those who forgot to fund their PAC.
Which is to say that the EPA, which is staffed by unelected bureaucrats, must have the power to immediately shut down the economy. Do you not see that by concentrating such tremendous power in a single agency you will only increase the stakes of the game and make the inevitable regulatory capture all the more attractive from the standpoint of those whom the EPA regulates? At the very least, the EPA is staffed by bureaucrats who will still need jobs to feed their families and pay the mortgage even when they no longer work for the EPA. Why be an enemy of the powerful when you can instead become one of them? Many will fall and have fallen victim to precisely that sort of corruption and you want to give the government agencies more power? The United States Treasury is a powerful agency and look at the revolving door between top Treasury bureaucrats and the top Wall St firms; that's no accident.
you're
To use a quote from Star Trek, "whoever said that the human race was logical?"
It's true green sources aren't quite ready yet but it would make more sense to pour money into improving those.
How about we pour your money into them, hmm? I would rather invest my own money in domestic oil and natural gas production, which I'm already doing in my IRAs. Just remember that every time the government pours money into something it must first expropriate that money from you and I; either through higher taxes or saddling us and our children with crushing debts, which both debase the currency and ensure higher future taxation. Moreover, Politicians and bureaucrats are terrible investment managers. Case in point: Solyndra. If that had happened at any private hedge fund, the investors would be calling for, and receiving, the managers' heads; they would never work in finance again.
but the vehicles they're being sold in this country aren't designed predominantly to make people happy, but to make money for the big three.
While it's true that few people absolutely satisfied with every last detail of their vehicle, I would venture a guess that most people are mostly satisfied. Now granted, people may be compelled by individual circumstances to purchase a vehicle that is within their means rather than the one that they would prefer if cost was no limitation. However, it's a bit much to blame this on the auto manufacturers. We are all obliged to make choices between limited options by the marketplace. There aren't enough resources on the planet to completely satisfy the whims of every last car buyer; that's just the way it is and it would be that way even if there were only one vehicle manufacturer completely owned and operated by the government.
The continuing obscurity of the relevant OBD-II codes needed for service of modern vehicles and the need to reverse-engineer them that makes the third party tools quite expensive indeed is one great example.
True, but try and see it from the perspective of the manufacturers. If they are liable for the bumbling hands of every shade tree mechanic out there for warranty claims, the cost of repairs will be increased for everyone. The dealers may cost more, but at least they are trained to service your particular brand and model of vehicle. Compare that with many independent garages which are well known for botching repairs, particularly to higher end vehicles with complex control systems and numerous sensors, and being generally dishonest. Besides, everything is negotiable when it comes to vehicles. If you don't like the price the dealer or shop offers for repairs then try negotiating; you might be surprised by the results of a calm, rational and carefully stated objection to a high price.
Yes, they can't get butanol on a cost-effective basis even though there is a company that would like to produce it and sell it to them, because BP and DuPont assert that their process conflicts with their patent
You'll find no defender of the patent system in me. The system no longer serves the purpose for which it was created; that much is clear. It needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished and replaced with something else.
Everything you've said against these biofuels so far has been uninformed at best. If you want me to assume that you're just asserting your own opinion, it's going to have to be a little further separated from the Big Oil and Big Auto party line.
What I want is an end to all energy and fuel subsidies, indeed subsidies in general, and patent reform. Then perhaps, the free market can at last make the right decisions, without interference, between each alternative competing on it's own merits. I dislike it when scientists, technocrats and policy wonks tell me what I should be putting in my gas tank and then pass laws forcing me to accept whatever they, in their infinite wisdom, deem is best for me. People must be free to make their own choices, even bad ones, without undue interference from their "betters". That is what separates the United States from the European countries and other examples of paternalistic "enlightened" statism; it's what makes us Americans.
And if enough of us tell others to do it too, then we can build awareness, and hopefully go after the criminal abusers.
I rather think that most of the criminal abuses with regard to pollution and environmental degradation occur due to incomplete or unenforceable private property rights. The experience of the last 30+ years in the United States, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, demonstrates the difficulties inherit in achieving proper redress through government regulation and monitoring of gross polluters. Compare that to cases where the actions of one party clearly degrades the private
the Japanese building better cars than we do by default can lead to massive underemployment here without government interference.
That is how the market works. The price system acts as a signaling mechanism to allocate resources efficiently. Allocating resources inefficiently, even to protect jobs, ultimately makes everyone worse off. The economies of India, Latin America and Russia offer plenty of historical examples of the rather substantial downsides of trade barriers.
People buy vehicles which cost tens of thousands more than the vehicle they actually need all the time.
How can you be sure that they don't need it? Do you know their circumstances and preferences better than they do?
Instead of something useful, like efficiency or low emissions
What about safety and "family hauling" capabilities? I doubt that low emissions are a high priority for most buyers. They may choose a lower emission vehicle, all other things being equal, but they will not generally sacrifice desired features like multiple bench seats for the kids and more cargo space just to get lower emissions. You might consider low emissions to be useful, but not everyone shares your preferences.
On the butanol issue: Is there anything stopping a gas station from installing a butanol pump for those customers who want it? Look, the owners' manual states very clearly that my vehicle uses 87+ octane gasoline with no more than 10% alcohol additive. It also says that using unapproved fuels voids the warranty. I'd rather just use the recommended fuel and not waste time arguing with the manufacturer over warranty service because I filled the car up with butanol; it's just not worth the hassle to me.
Again, you are a naive idiot or an industry shill, in spite of your protestations to the contrary. The automotive industry BOUGHT that legislation.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. You're just being a jerk. Look, it's no surprise that corporations lobby for legislation that benefits them and hinders their competitors. The fact that corporations and wealthy individuals engage in rent seeking is not an indictment of the free market. It is precisely the scope and power of the government which makes this sort of behavior attractive. There are rent seekers even in the absence of a free market; The Soviet Union had rent seekers looking to use the power of the state to unjustly enrich themselves and they were definitely not a free market system.
As for tax policy: again, we obviously disagree. Personally, I favor the Fair Tax, but I suspect that you hate it with a passion so there's really no point in discussing the matter further. The arguments and counter-arguments surrounding the Fair Tax are well known and books have been written on the subject. Anyone else reading this who wants to immerse themselves in the detailed arguments would be better served by getting them from the original sources.
As for the unemployment numbers, I was being generous. The numbers are indeed much higher than officially reported. Why do you accuse me of idiocy simply because I am generous in my argument? Higher unemployment, and higher still in California, only strengthens it.
Because our government doesn't actually believe in Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness,
The government doesn't guarantee that you will have these things in abundance, merely that you are free to pursue them; your mileage may vary.
Second, in the hands of a capable shooter my Kimber Pro-Carry II is probably a superior weapon to your Ruger, aside from reliability issues if you carry the wrong ammunition.
It's never been a problem for me. It fires both the .454 casull and .45 ACP reliably with as much accuracy as you would expect from a short barrel revolver. I normally load the .45 ACP, not the
You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments.
That's your opinion, but I stand by my arguments. We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I remain skeptical of government subsidies and I do not favor them as a good use of my tax dollars; I'd prefer that the government spend less and leave more of my hard-earned dollars in my pocket. I am somewhat more open to government funding of scientific research, but I will never be convinced, for example, that giving cheap loans to Tesla motors for production of electric vehicles is a good use of my tax dollars.
I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
your comment was on trickle-down, not off-shoring specifically. The profits are made in resource extraction and cheap manufacturing, but they don't generally remain in those countries. The profits are transferred into offshore subsidiaries for two reasons: first, if the money enters the US again then it is taxed again (after already paying any foreign taxes) and second many growth investment opportunities are no longer located inside the United States due to relatively high taxes (already mentioned) and excess regulatory burdens. So why repatriate revenues and profits when they are just going to be invested overseas again anyway? The corruption of certain governments, particularly in Africa, makes the resource and labor arbitrage more attractive. It's not the whole reason for off-shoring, but it does sweeten the deal for corporations operating in those countries.
I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.
Most of the people living in the developed world don't know how to live off the land and have never farmed. They like to shop at Whole Foods, but they aren't prepared to give up their private automobiles, careers and detached suburban homes to go and live off of it.
the free market failed to keep up in this country,
So let me get this straight. It's the fault of the free market that Japanese built better cars than we did? Sounds like the free market working perfectly to me. The Japanese companies, specifically Toyota but Honda and others too, decided without being mandated to do so by the Japanese government, that they were going to focus on building small, high quality automobiles and motorcycles that people in export markets actually wanted to buy ; what a remarkable concept! They focused on quality and through hard work and innovative processes they were able to succeed at a price point that the big 3 American automakers couldn't match. Hmm, that wasn't because of the uncompetitive UAW workers and their inane work rules was it? No of course not, nothing to see there. Don't blame the incompetence of the American automakers on the free market and then cast the government as their saviors for bailing them out and making them "keep up". They should have been allowed to go bankrupt if they couldn't compete with the Japanese or the Europeans. That is what the free market does, it gets rid of poorly run and uncompetitive companies. That is not a failure of the free market, it's the free market doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing; creative destruction.
That has only limited repercussions for ongoing cost. It affects range and initial cost in batteries, which cost more than a fuel tank.
The initial cost is on the order of TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars more for hybrid and electric vehicles. I wouldn't call that "limited" and neither would most other Americans. As for range, that's also very important. Gasoline and diesel automobiles have endurance measured in the 300-700 mile range. If alternative vehicles are to be mass market sellers, they have to meet or beat those ranges in real world driving conditions at comparable prices. People aren't stupid. They have crunched the numbers and come to the conclusion that hybrids and electric vehicles, outside of niche in-city driving scenarios, don't make sense economically. They don't pencil out on a pure financial basis when the numbers are crunched with a calculator or a spreadsheet. This has been demonstrated time and again by many others; you can Google many representative sample calculations for all of the fine details. People who do pay more up front for hybrids and electric vehicles do it because they like driving them and are willing to pay a premium for the personal satisfaction, what economists call "utility", of being "green".
Chevron owns the NiMH battery technology needed to make effective cheap EVs, but they want to sell you oil products because it's where they can make the most money.
I know that Chevron owns the battery business which they acquired with Texaco which purchased the original firm: Ovonics. If these batteries could totally destroy the oil business then why doesn't Chevron produce them and win over all ground vehicle business from their competitors in the oil business? Chevron is not even close to being the worlds largest oil company after all. Alternatively, the could sell the battery business, at a high price, to someone who did want to go head to head with the oil companies. For that matter, why didn't Ovanics, the original developer, become the largest and most successful energy company ever? Surely, they could have found investors if there was such a tremendous opportunity to massively disrupt the energy business? There have always been conspiracy theories about oil companies buying up technologies that would give us vastly superior energy options and they have always proven to be unfounded. Remember the 300 mile per gallon carburetor? Busted. Yeah, enough said.
to the practical production of Butanol, a direct 1:1 replacement for gasoline
Sigh, butanol is not a perfect substitute for gasoline. It has some
This argument is a logical fallacy.
Not true. I'm pointing out the tendency of those who support subsidies to say, "advancement x will not happen unless we subsidize". We cannot subsidize everything because the economy must run everything on a finite pool of resources, at least in the short run. Indeed that is what economics is, the study of scarcity and the choices that it engenders. When the government subsidizes something, causing more resources to be allocated than would be otherwise, some other part of the economy is made to do with less than it would have otherwise; the classic guns and butter comparison. To engage in subsidies presumes that the government, and not the market, picks the best possible uses of our limited resources. The question of whether the government or the market should allocate resources was largely decided in favor of the market before the end of the 20th century. Some people don't like it, but if we look at what governments and people actually do and not just what they say that they will do; free markets have been and continue to be the first choice. So either were all stupid and insane for continuing to pick the market against our own best interests, as judged by the enlightened statists, OR perhaps the people of this world actually know a thing or two about how economics works in the real world.
If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped?
Other sources of energy, namely liquid crude oil pumped straight out of the ground, were cheaper still and remain competitive due to the large existing investments in capital equipment, technology and expertise made over the course of a century and more of crude oil production. Natural gas is next in line, especially here in the United States, and will start coming on line for more intensive production as and when the economics of energy production dictate. We are even now rapidly approaching the point where commercial long haul trucking and trains may decide to switch from diesel to compressed natural gas. Boone Pickens has already discussed the economics of nat gas in transportation at length. If you are interested in the details I suggest that you Google pickens plan and natural gas.
Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive.
Modern fossil energy exploration and production has always been a capital intensive business and expensive is a relative term. The potential reserves of natural gas trapped in massive shale formations here in the continental USA is immense. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas here in the United States or at least we could be when production is ramped up. Natural gas exploration is a long term investment and should be treated as such in any analysis with costs amortized over thirty years or more. All things considered, natural gas remains an attractive long term investment here in the United States. If you need proof of that look at the interest expressed by Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chesapeake Energy among many others. Natural gas is a going concern that attracts investment even without government subsidies because it makes economic sense; it stands up by itself as a worthwhile investment in the private sector.
You'd have to level the playing field on both sides, because oil production is heavily subsidized as well.
Indeed, I agree completely. The subsidies must end. That has always been my position. You see? I'm consistent.
It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land.
Have you tried that? Your parents might have as hippies during the "back to the land" movement in the 1960s. You grandparents or great grandparents were probably involved in some form of subsistence agriculture if your family has roots going back to the 19th century here in the USA or Europe. There are still a few hippies liv
In the end, though, electricity is the answer.
That may be, but it will happen when the technology, marketplace and consumer decides, without government interference, that the time is right. People don't like being forced or "nudged" into making economic decisions, which they know they wouldn't make if not for government subsidies or punitive taxation, before they're ready to make them for themselves. In democratic societies people of all stripes punish those in power at the polls for engaging in that kind of social engineering. If you're a government official then take heed. If you go around "nudging" people to make the "right" decisions, don't be surprised when they turn around and slug you at the polls for being a busybody. Nobody likes a busybody who pokes around in other peoples' business without so much as a, "by your leave".
If America is to compete with other country sponsored industries - i.e. China massively funding most of their new technologies, then it's not unreasonable.
Yes it is unreasonable. If there are truly worthwhile investments to be made in these technologies then the private sector will make them at the time when it's most appropriate. I reject the notion that the government must step in and subsidize technologies in order to make them successful. I also reject the notion that big spenders like China will somehow gain an advantage over US industries because of subsidies and direct investments in these R&D projects. When the time comes to step up and make and investment, when it makes sense to do it, unencumbered private sector businesses will be there to do it and they will compete at least as well as foreign industries which have been "incubated" by misdirection of public funds. People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in. The best that can be said is that sometimes, and even then not very often, government purchases in military hardware or the space program, which is arguably mostly about military goals too, might lead to new technologies sooner rather than somewhat later. However, whenever the government has tried to subsidize technologies that private citizens are supposed to go out and buy for themselves, like electric vehicles for example, the results have been disastrous. It's mostly a waste of taxpayer funds for technologies that could have been researched, developed and acquired more cheaply without government involvement in private industry.
Electricity is MUCH cheaper than gas
Except that it's not because current battery technologies do not store as much energy in as easily usable a form as liquid fuels. Plus, look at natural gas. The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs. Boone Pickens was right about that. Natural gas as a vehicle fuel makes sense and is far more sensible than battery powered electric vehicles at this time. The economics support nat gas for commercial ground vehicle transportation.
Green energy is the only way to go, for environmental reasons, as well as political, and economic.
1. It isn't economical. If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies. In case you haven't been paying attention; that hasn't happened . Almost all "green" energy projects would not exist right now if not for government subsidies; without government subsidies, they are economic losers.
2. The US government is drowning in a sea of red ink right now and subsidizing "green" energy is like throwing more good money after bad. How about all of those unemployed people that the federal government has trained for green jobs in the last two years that don't exist? Those people are still looking for non-existent green jobs more than a year after completing their training. In fact the surest way to render someone unemployable is to let potential employers know that they have completed an OSHA-approved federal jobs training program. They might as well put a big red sticker on the back saying, "warning: don't hire me. I've been trained by the federal government to be a trouble maker."
3. Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work, your children are out of work and everyone is struggling just to get by. If this sort of thing continues, and I'm fairly certain that it will until Obama is booted out of office in 2012, people will be ready to kick the greenies to the curb for a real chance at getting a real job that actually pays something and puts them back in the black
Tesla motors is yet another example of taxpayer money funneled to politically favored and well connected people to subsidize a product or service which primarily benefits the rich. The folks at Tesla will tell you that they received loans and not grants, but the fact remains that they received substantial investment from the taxpayers at sweetheart interest rates that do NOT fully compensate the taxpayers for the risks that they are taking with a startup automotive company like Tesla Motors. Elon Musk and others at Tesla claim to be libertarians and yet they are not above accepting government largesse, in the form of loans with overly generous terms, when it's offered. The entire green jobs and green energy smokescreen is a bullshit scam perpetrated upon hard working taxpayers to benefit wealthy people who like to consume luxury "green"products and lifestyles that the average American family, struggling with unemployment and paying the household bills, cannot afford to indulge in. Perhaps when Tesla follows Solyndra into bankruptcy, the American people will finally understand that "green" energy is a boondoggle.
First off, thank you for sharing your experiences; they were interesting to me.
As to whether or not the Canadian system is a good deal cost wise; it probably depends upon the income level of the Canadian whom you ask. The lower income citizens almost certainly receive a better deal than they would otherwise. The rich, as you pointed out, are rich enough not to care. However, the middle class is often the group that gets squeezed the most when it comes to taxation, at least that's true here in the United States and Canada also employs payroll and progressive income taxes like what we have down here. You're experiences were positive, but I wonder if every Canadian is quite as satisfied as you seem to be with their health care.
As for Americans not being able to afford healthcare, many of them *could* afford it but they choose to buy larger homes, multiple vehicles and generally live a bit beyond their means instead. The Great Recession is changing attitudes, albeit slowly, but those of us here in the United States who manage their finances responsibly don't have too much trouble finding and paying for decent care; it's available to those who are willing to pay and at prices much lower than what is typically charged in an ER setting. If it isn't an emergency, it sometimes pays to research procedures and prices ahead of time and then negotiate. Most doctors are willing to be reasonable and particularly if at least partial payment is offered up front.
The fact that the American health care system, as it exists today, needs to be reformed isn't really in dispute by either the right or the left in this country. What we have now, at least in terms of cost efficiency, is really the result of decades of bad legislation and policy decisions dating back to the wage and price controls of WWII. However, I remain unconvinced that National Single Payer healthcare, ala Canada and the UK, is the best way to go here in the United States.
I cannot go after their assets
Does this business not have any bank accounts? Surely they must have at least a few thousand lying around to pay the utilities and the people making the calls. Can't you get a court order or lien against their bank accounts and receive payment that way?
People do not have to wait for life threatening care with single payer,
While it's true that everyone in such nations will receive some "care" the mileage may in fact vary considerably depending upon age, overall condition and political connections. Is an obese senior citizen going to receive the same standard and quality of care that a young and fit person with their whole life in front of them will? Probably not. As the British might say, the senior citizen doesn't have enough Quality Adjusted Life Years (aka QUALYS) remaining to justify the "expense" of the best available treatments. Medical care is not a fungible commodity; quality matters and quality costs money. This is why the wealthiest people in single payer countries frequently choose to receive treatment in the United States or at private European hospitals; the care is quite simply better than what is available to them in many single payer systems.
Canadians "buy" their health care through higher taxes, longer waits for life saving procedures and lower standards of care. As most economists will tell you, there are many ways to "pay" for a good or service. Just because you weren't handed an itemized bill doesn't mean that you didn't pay in other, sometime less obvious, ways. If you doubt this, ask yourself why wealthier Canadians come to the United States for heart surgeries, cancer treatments and other major surgeries when they could, at least in theory, receive the same care for "free" in Canada?
Just because a local government can require you to buy electricity or water doesn't mean that the federal government can do the same.
Unfortunately, that's just too fine a distinction for some people.
Bugatti Veyron - Super Sport - fastest street legal production car in the world.
431.072 km/h (267.856 mph) (average)
0–100 km/h (0–62.1 mph) in 2.46 seconds
1,200 metric horsepower (883 kW; 1,184 bhp)
€1,912,500 (GB£1,665,000/US$2,700,000) + local taxes
100% pure internal combustion, accept no substitutes...
What exactly is meant by "reasonably reliable"? I think perhaps that it didn't actually work or it wasn't practical since he very quickly turned to liquid fuels instead. It would seem that the primary sources are somewhat vague on this point; either omitting it entirely or mentioning it only briefly. In any case, the coal dust experiments, while perhaps important in development of Diesel's engine designs, did not lead to a line of practical coal dust engines that are still in use today.
Martin Ford has already written a book on these very subjects that many of you might find interesting. Perhaps even worthy of a Slashvertisement as a "book review"? The Lights in the Tunnel
This is a major problem with "free trade" agreements, not accounting for externalities.
This is correct. However, if those imposing the externalities don't trade with us, surely they will trade with others and the externalities will yet remain. These are the sorts of issues that could one day lead to wars over pristine lands and other remaining high quality natural resources.
Diesel designed his engine around coal dust.
That's incorrect. From the wikipedia article:
"It is often reported that Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut oil. Diesel stated in his published papers, "at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 (Exposition Universelle) there was shown by the Otto Company a small diesel engine, which, at the request of the French Government ran on Arachide (earth-nut or pea-nut) oil (see biodiesel), and worked so smoothly that only a few people were aware of it. The engine was constructed for using mineral oil, and was then worked on vegetable oil without any alterations being made. The French Government at the time thought of testing the applicability to power production of the Arachide, or earth-nut, which grows in considerable quantities in their African colonies, and can easily be cultivated there." Diesel himself later conducted related tests and appeared supportive of the idea."
Besides, it's very difficult to construct an internal combustion engine that will run on flammable dust. I know that GM experimented with a turbine powered 1979 Cadillac Eldorado that ran on coal dust, at least after ignition. In Episode 63: Air Cylinder Rocket, Gunpowder Engine the Mythbusters attempted to run an internal combustion engine on gunpowder (a turbine wasn't tested), which is both a flammable powdery substance and more brisant than coal dust, and it was busted.
The diesel engine was clearly designed by diesel to run on flammable liquids; namely mineral oil.
No, things are changing as large numbers of people are coerced by government and economics to make do with much less waste
It's important not to conflate two very different issues here. Economics is the systematic study of scarcity, which would and does exist in nature regardless of whether or not governments exist. Government, on the other hand, is all about the organized use of force to regulate and manage society; scarcity or not. Nature does not coerce, it merely imposes reality; governments actively coerce and frequently in defiance of reality, at least for a time.
Giving up incandescent lightbulbs is saving money and prolonging our civilization's lifetime, but it needed to be forced.
And who gets to decide what is and is not enforced upon whom? You perhaps or maybe a cabal of those philosopher kings described by Plato in his Republic. It's a moot point really, because China, India and Mexico amongst others are still going to use incandescent light bulbs. Are you willing to pick up a rifle and put your butt on the line to make them stop? Moreover, are you willing to kill to enforce a cleaner environment if that's what it takes? There are limits to what can be forced before the other guy calls your bluff; that's the problem with force, occasionally you're obliged to actually use it. Are you prepared to do that?
But the rest of us with sense, and a sense of the realities of actual alternate futures, will not let you drag us down with your willful ignorance and greedy self destruction.
As I've already said, the powers that be aren't going to surrender without a fight and there will be blood if you choose to fight. I am neither greedy nor ignorant, but you are an idealist whereas I am a realist. Isn't it sensible to preserve what we have, especially when hair-shirt environmentalism is an exercise in futility? I suppose that I'll have to get my incandescent bulbs from Mexico in the future; these damned CFLs produce a terrible light that's wholly unsuitable for reading.
I will continue to side with the American way
Hah! If you mean cheap gas, red meat and professional sports, then I'm with you all the way man.
Do we really have to make do with less because of AGW or can we just make do with something different?
Unless you can describe an energy source which is anything like as cheap, available, usable and transportable in as wide a range of environmental circumstances as fossil fuels in general and oil in particular; the answer is almost certainly: NO . For example, a single barrel of oil contains as much energy as would be produced by a dozen men doing manual labor for a year and it can be pumped out of the ground for a dollar (or less) per barrel and consumed all less than a day. Without this cheap and abundant energy, which has no equally good substitutes right now, some people would very definitely be forced to make do with less; much like we lived before this age of oil and cheap hydrocarbon energy.
Starting around 200 years ago we transformed our economy to one based on fossil fuels. Why can't we make a similar transformation to renewable energy?
Because renewable energy sources are either not as dense or not as cheaply obtained as the oil that we have been pumping out of the earth for the past 200 years. Renewable energy will enable some wealthy segments of society to continue living as we do now, but without cheap liquid oil pumped out of the ground millions and billions of people will be effectively shut out of that lifestyle; and they will hate us for that. Indeed, oil and blood will become every more closely linked in the decades and centuries to come.
There are aspects of attention, respect, a formal setting, that all are essential for teaching success.
Most of which are now negated by rude and thoughtless undergraduates browsing the web all updating their Facebook pages all while messaging eachother continuously on their smartphones, laptops and iPads. Professors look up and see that everyone is paying attention to their devices and not the lecture that their parents have paid so dearly for them to hear. In fact, it was one of my undergraduate CS lecturers who said something one day that I never forget. We didn't have smartphones or iPads back then, but laptops and WiFi were common enough amongst CS students in those days. He stopped in the middle of lecture, when about half the class was distracted and not paying attention, and observed that, "Students are the only major consumer group that wants less for their money" before walking out of the lecture hall and leaving for the day. Needless to say, everyone paid much closer attention at subsequent lectures. That doesn't have quite the same effect in a virtual classroom.
I got a bachelor's degree in Physics from Cal Poly, SLO. I hated every minute of that experience, and hated the professors.
Hah! I knew that I was right to turn down their letter of acceptance all of those years ago. Well, too bad for you I suppose. However, if it's any consolation, you did make me feel better about pursuing my degree through the UC system instead.