That's true. The government's role should be to make the market work efficiently, which means eliminating market failures such as monopolies and negative externalities.
But the federal government doesn't seem to be eager to internalize negative externalities by charging polluters the cost of air pollution, about $1,000 per person annually. Instead, the current administration has been doing the opposite by dismantling protections!
While it lasted, the government's investments in clean energy research were a good way to repay its negligence in making sure the market cleaned up after itself. Ending the research will only accelerate the environmental debt that our children and grandchildren will inherit from us.
If you could just order a car directly from Ford, what's to stop you from visiting a dealership, taking a test-drive, wasting the sales clerk's time, then leaving and buying your car on ford.com?
It's only a problem when the manufacturer competes with its own dealerships. So why is it better to allow dealerships and prohibit direct sales than the opposite?
most of the logistics centers seem to forego rail spurs, but there is a reason.
Yes, the reason is the massive subsidies that trucks enjoy. Why pay for a spur out of your own wallet when the government will build you a road out of theirs? Simple economics!
Much like a new driver's license, or even a new car, it still identifies you
Not exactly. It identifies the owner, who may or may not be the driver.
Now if the rental agencies and taxis promised not to release customer information without a court order, this could end well for them.
And if you really don't want to be tracked, you can take mass transit or ride a bike. E-bikes are quite practical in many cases.
There was a time when most people could go to the store and buy a gallon of milk without carrying any government ID on them, but since then we've zoned the small corner stores out of our neighborhoods. Now most people drive to the grocery store, and that means carrying a driver license. Like a boiling frog, the surveillance state really crept up on us!
Yes, I think it would be better to charge a higher disposal fee for devices that are more likely to be discarded than those that are more likely to be repaired and reused. Such a disposal fee would correct the negative externality and allow the market to more efficiently determine whether replaceable or non-replaceable batteries are better.
It would also be good to create some new battery standards to give manufacturers a wider range of standardized battery profiles to choose from. Right now all of the standard lithium-ion battery profiles are cylindrical and don't provide information like state-of-charge, current temperature, or maximum power.
You may need more of x resources to get a given amount (by weight) of meat than you would with plants, but you get all that back out at the end.
"Fat" chance! That pig eats corn or soy, which takes a lot of water (and energy to process that water), plus fertilizer (more energy plus runoff), weed killer (ditto), and mechanical harvesting, processing, and transport. Making a pig creates a lot of pollution!
And much of that corn and soy gets pooped out instead of going into the meat, so instead of eating the pig, it's MUCH more efficient to eat the corn or soy directly. Are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy?
He/she may or may not believe it but it's obviously intended to ruffle the feathers of left leaning readers.
That doesn't necessarily make it trolling. Here's the definition:
The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.
That's funny because the FCC wants to big-government-regulate away the rights of states to write their own Net Neutrality protections!
Just as the Title II Order promised to "exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent" with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today.
You are making a bad joke at the expanse of those folk living there... But the reality is that *inflation adjusted* rent and house price are insane.
Other than the folk living there, who keeps voting against the housing developments that would increase housing supply and lower home prices and rents in the area?
You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.
Sometimes people need a little push to make them wake up and start thinking for themselves. Trump has a certain charisma that makes people blindly follow him like sheep. (And then they accuse the Democrats of being sheep, oh the irony!)
Slashdot Mirror
An essay has no answer. How do teachers grade essays?
That's true. The government's role should be to make the market work efficiently, which means eliminating market failures such as monopolies and negative externalities.
But the federal government doesn't seem to be eager to internalize negative externalities by charging polluters the cost of air pollution, about $1,000 per person annually. Instead, the current administration has been doing the opposite by dismantling protections!
While it lasted, the government's investments in clean energy research were a good way to repay its negligence in making sure the market cleaned up after itself. Ending the research will only accelerate the environmental debt that our children and grandchildren will inherit from us.
It's only a problem when the manufacturer competes with its own dealerships. So why is it better to allow dealerships and prohibit direct sales than the opposite?
Your omission of any mention of demand management in your answer tells me why you think the 100% solar/renewable approach is infeasible.
What are the limitations of demand management coupled with megabatteries that make a 100% solar/renewable approach not feasible?
It would also tell our enemies when the best time to push the button would be!
Isn't the purpose of belonging to a political party to let someone else do the thinking for you?
Why don't you provide a link that contradicts mine?
Yes they are.
Nice straw man fallacy!
Good point. If trucks were no longer subsidized, cities would have more, smaller bakeries to save money on shipping bread around.
I can tell you have never ridden on a bullet train. I hope you get the chance someday, it's awesome!
Yes, the reason is the massive subsidies that trucks enjoy. Why pay for a spur out of your own wallet when the government will build you a road out of theirs? Simple economics!
I meant disposal fees paid at the time of sale.
Not exactly. It identifies the owner, who may or may not be the driver.
Now if the rental agencies and taxis promised not to release customer information without a court order, this could end well for them.
And if you really don't want to be tracked, you can take mass transit or ride a bike. E-bikes are quite practical in many cases.
There was a time when most people could go to the store and buy a gallon of milk without carrying any government ID on them, but since then we've zoned the small corner stores out of our neighborhoods. Now most people drive to the grocery store, and that means carrying a driver license. Like a boiling frog, the surveillance state really crept up on us!
My kingdom for a mod point!
Yes, I think it would be better to charge a higher disposal fee for devices that are more likely to be discarded than those that are more likely to be repaired and reused. Such a disposal fee would correct the negative externality and allow the market to more efficiently determine whether replaceable or non-replaceable batteries are better.
It would also be good to create some new battery standards to give manufacturers a wider range of standardized battery profiles to choose from. Right now all of the standard lithium-ion battery profiles are cylindrical and don't provide information like state-of-charge, current temperature, or maximum power.
"Fat" chance! That pig eats corn or soy, which takes a lot of water (and energy to process that water), plus fertilizer (more energy plus runoff), weed killer (ditto), and mechanical harvesting, processing, and transport. Making a pig creates a lot of pollution!
And much of that corn and soy gets pooped out instead of going into the meat, so instead of eating the pig, it's MUCH more efficient to eat the corn or soy directly. Are you familiar with the law of conservation of energy?
Are there any exceptions? For example, should unjust laws also be obeyed without leveraging technicalities?
That doesn't necessarily make it trolling. Here's the definition:
You don't think the op believes what they wrote?
That's funny because the FCC wants to big-government-regulate away the rights of states to write their own Net Neutrality protections!
Other than the folk living there, who keeps voting against the housing developments that would increase housing supply and lower home prices and rents in the area?
Mileage fees, tolls, etc. User fees, like I said.
Then should we make the roads pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and other user fees instead of less than half?
Sometimes people need a little push to make them wake up and start thinking for themselves. Trump has a certain charisma that makes people blindly follow him like sheep. (And then they accuse the Democrats of being sheep, oh the irony!)