If your goal is more solar power, which do you think is more efficient (i.e. costs the least in total resources for the output in power): A. One large purpose-built solar power plant managed by a power utility. B. The equivalent amount of power in rooftop solar installations on people's homes.
There is plenty of empirical evidence on this. Prices and efficiencies are pretty well known at this point, so don't take too much time deciding which is the better use of scarce resources...
If you picked option A, congratulations, you can do basic math, or at least look it up.
The reason this law is stupid is that it's one of the least effective ways of accomplishing it's stated goal. The reason it's virtue signaling is that despite it being apparent to even left-wing UC Berkeley professors that this is stupid, many in the legislature went ahead and voted for it anyway.
This has nothing to do with the current economic system. It has to do with the idiocy of forcing people for whom it makes no financial sense to buy an expensive product because the State legislatures really like the product and/or it's manufacturers.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.... The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote
As the letter makes clear, it was never binding on Iran, nor the U.S. The JCPOA was a "political agreement", based on the idea that if the President doesn't believe Iran has given up on nuclear weapons, he can re-apply sanctions at any time, which is what Trump just did. In that sense, Trump is just following the JCPOA. The law is that he either certifies Iran is meeting the conditions for lifting sanctions, or he doesn't. He didn't. There's nothing "broken" here.
I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross subsidy from other ratepayers. This would be a very expensive way to expand renewables and would not be a cost-effective practice that other states and countries could adopt to reduce their own greenhouse gas footprints.
tl;dr version: This law is stupid virtue signaling.
Except of course, in this case, 149 State, local and tribal governments literally were the ones who submitted proposals and 10 of their proposals were selected by the FAA.
So it was the below organizations which applied and "won", despite your getting the process completely backwards:
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, OK
City of San Diego, CA
Virginia Tech - Center for Innovative Technology, Herndon, VA
Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS
Lee County Mosquito Control District, Ft. Myers, FL
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, Memphis, TN
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck, ND
City of Reno, NV
University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK
In addition, there is no federal grant money involved. The program is for the FAA to work directly with the selected government program to create an MOA which outlines the exceptions to the normal rules the program they're running will get.
As mentioned, this is solved in two ways: 1. As you stated, just make an exception for the owner of the destination number to be able to opt-in. 2. As someone else already mentioned below, this would be enforced at the origin telecom company, so they know who owns it. What the destination telecom company does wouldn't matter to the scheme, as long as their customer getting the call is fine with it.
Here's a solution: In order to transmit a caller id # which is different than the originating number, you must own that caller id number you are transmitting, or else have a signed delegation from the owner which you provide the phone company with.
Otherwise, if ANI number doesn't equal caller ID number, ANI number is substituted for caller ID number so that it's visible to recipients. Later, once the kinks of that are worked out, start outright blocking the call if ownership doesn't provably match.
Voip or other phone companies which violate the rules lose the ability to interconnect with those who enforce them.
So you're claim is that all the unions people have heard of suck, while there is an invisible set of unions out there no one has heard of which don't have any of those very public problems?
Do you also have an invisible friend who agrees with you on your unsubstantiated political opinions? You can see why the rest of us may be less than convinced by a lack of evidence being the evidence, right?
So sure, give us your list of top 5 unions which "solve problems amicably" and don't have any featherbedding or disputes about work divisions and who don't protect workers who aren't doing their jobs.
Also, swamps don't have agency. They don't "force" people to do things like hang out with alligators. If you're swimming in a swamp, presumably that's the result of previous choices by you and/or others. The swamp didn't have anything to do with making those choices, so why would you be blaming the swamp for anything?
All this analogy demonstrates is that the writer doesn't understand analogies and possibly even doesn't know what the concept of responsibility means.
Except that without the Union, the asshole would get fired for not working and for being an asshole, while the old timer's work ethic could be rewarded by getting paid more instead of based on how many years he's been in the job.
When it was actually investigated, it turned out the IRS was actually more lenient to tea party groups than left-wing groups....the left wing groups just didn't whine about it.
One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which would show more left-wing groups. The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years. Here's a story from the NY Times (your source) about the legal settlements:
The settlements were the conclusion of two legal battles that have dogged the I.R.S. since the initial lawsuits were filed after a 2013 treasury inspector general’s audit that found groups with “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names received more scrutiny over their applications for tax-exempt status. The revelations plunged the I.R.S. into a firestorm that ultimately led to the ouster of its acting commissioner and prompted accusations that the agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.
and
the I.R.S. “expresses its sincere apology” for the “heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays” the groups experienced when filing tax forms from 2009 to 2012.
In the agreement, the I.R.S. also admits to being wrong in demanding unnecessary information from the plaintiffs and screening groups based on name or policy affiliation.
The problem wasn't that someone looked carefully at their applications (like they did for some of the left-wing groups), the problem was that they required additional approvals and deliberately delayed their applications in order to keep them from being effective and harassed them with multiple unwarranted information requests, for example, their group members, donations, literature, etc...
I guess if you're a politician who doesn't have any real solutions to any real problems, your best bet is to make up fake problems and then create a big PR campaign to let everyone know how you're fighting for them by talking a lot about the fake problem you made up. It does help if you have willing accomplices in the media and large website companies.
I realize the fashion in the last 50-60 years has turned to doing both, but I see a difference in a government agency issuing rules implementing a law and one which is effectively making law. The difference is largely in how much authority and decision making Congress ends up granting them.
Consider a couple of simplistic examples for illustration purposes: 1. A law stating everyone involved in X must report annually their profits from X to agency Y, so agency Y puts out a rule that the way you do that is with this standardized form which you mail to that specific address. That's an implementing regulation. 2. A law stating X is important to know about, so agency Y can collect information on X. Then agency Y puts out a rule that everyone who engages in X must fill out form 123 annually asking for their profits, what type of X they did, what their plans are for X in the future and if they know anyone else who is doing X and what they know about their X-doing. That's a regulation where the agency has been given the decision-making power, while the law itself is vague.
So in example 1, a new executive isn't going to matter. Over time, they might change the address you send the form to, or make it prettier, but they aren't making decisions on what the law requires of someone. There's no room for frequently expanding/changing what Congress intended because it's the law governing, not the agency.
In example 2, depending on who is executing the law (a new President, agency head, minor bureaucrat writing the regulation, whoever involved), they are now deciding what the substance of the law is, so it can change, expand, morph based on their own views as long as they're following the established bureaucratic processes, which can limit that or slow it down, but don't really remove it. If nothing else, it usually changes over time to require more from people while giving the bureaucrats more power, because hey, they're in charge and what are the incentives? They're people, too, subject to the same influences as other people, but with very very checks on their behavior.
Yeah, a lot of the second is driven by the excuse that they'll just let the "Experts" handle it. It works out for politicians because they can blame the regulators for damaging policies to their constituents, call in favors around exceptions to them, the bureaucrats can do the same, slanting regulations to favor their friends and damage their enemies, etc... Congress can expand it's reach because instead of a finite budget of time for creating/modifying law which they need to think through and ensure is good or else they get the blame, they can just pass a vague law authorizing some money and a general purpose and leave it up to the regulators to make all the tough decisions around it.
Among other drawbacks of this system, we find ourselves in a world where the regulations you must comply with (not including the explanations, just the core code of federal regulations), means you'd need to read 493 pages of regulations a day to get through them in a year, at which point you'd have to start over to get the changes. If you want to also keep up with the federal register, that's another couple of hundred pages a day.
That seems like a pretty big burden, just to know what you're supposed to comply with. So people pay their own experts on each small portion of it to understand it for them. They hire lobbyists to influence the rule-making bodies to their benefit and the detriment of their competition. Their competition then has to do the same or else find themselves permanently disadvantaged. The bureaucrats learn they can wield power and influence, then get a job as an expert on the outside, paid for interpreting the mess they created and navigating the bureaucracy for their new friends by calling in favors from their old co-workers, who hope to do the same someday, and so on and so forth.
I prefer the system where the people we elect to pass laws actually have to pass them and we can hold them accountable for what they vote
I wasn't totally contradicting you, just clarifying that the system is based on laws passed by Congress for specific purposes, none of which were CO2 reduction.
A. I've never made a claim regarding an Obama executive order in this discussion. You may be confusing my statement around "executive actions", which was meant to cover actions by the executive branch of the government.
B. Yes, there is a rule making/changing process the executive is supposed to follow. Haven't argued otherwise, just that for the vast majority of executive branch actions, a new executive and department heads can simply reverse them via the same process they were implemented by.
I object in general to rule by man (vs. law) and to the administrative state we've slid into which is a variant of that. This is mostly Congress' fault over the years, as they've abdicated their responsibilities while attempting to control more and more of people's lives via laws and regulatory bodies.
Hodel: Well, somebody has to arrange the matches, Young people can't decide these things themselves. Chava: She might bring someone wonderful---- Hodel: Someone interesting---- Chava: And well off---- Hodel: And important---
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make me a match, Find me a find, catch me a catch Matchmaker, Matchmaker Look through your book, And make me a perfect match
Chava: Matchmaker, Matchmaker, I'll bring the veil, You bring the groom, Slender and pale. Bring me a ring for I'm longing to be, The envy of all I see.
Hodel: For Papa, Make him a scholar.
Chava: For mama, Make him rich as a king.
Chava and Hodel: For me, well, I wouldn't holler If he were as handsome as anything.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make me a match, Find me a find, Catch me a catch, Night after night in the dark I'm alone So find me match, Of my own.
Tzeitel: Since when are you in a match, Chava? I thought you had your eye on your books.
(Hodel chuckles)
Tzeitel con't: And you have your eye on the Rabbi's son.
Hodel: Well, why not? We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son. Why shouldn't I want the best?
Tzeitel: Because you're a girl from a poor family. So whatever Yenta brings, you'll take, right? Of course right!
(throws scarf over her head, imitating Yenta)
Hodel, oh Hodel, Have I made a match for you! He's handsome, he's young! Alright, he's 62. But he's a nice man, a good catch, true? True.
I promise you'll be happy, And even if you're not, There's more to life than that--- Don't ask me what.
Chava, I found him. Won't you be a lucky bride! He's handsome, he's tall, That is from side to side. But he's a nice man, a good catch, right? Right.
You heard he has a temper. He'll beat you every night, But only when he's sober, So you'll alright.
Did you think you'd get a prince? Well I do the best I can. With no dowry, no money, no family background Be glad you got a man!
Chava: Matchmaker, Matchmaker, You know that I'm Still very young. Please, take your time.
Hodel: Up to this minute, I misunderstood, That I could get stuck for good.
Chava and Hodel: Dear Yenta, See that he's gentle Remember, You were also a bride. It's not that I'm sentimental
Chava and Hodel and Tzeitel: It's just that I'm terrified!
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Plan me no plans I'm in no rush Maybe I've learned Playing with matches A girl can get burned So, Bring me no ring Groom me no groom Find me no find Catch me no catch Unless he's a matchless match.
(Lameness Filter is Lame - Longer lines than in the original courtesy of the not enough characters per line filter.)
Sorry, but not quite correct. The CAFE standards were first enacted by Congress in 1975 in order to save fuel, basically because oil cost so much at the time. Then they were amended in the clean air act of 1990 to also try and reduce particulate matter in the air, setting up two tiers of standards, designed to be phased in over time. At that point the President was allowed to grant States waivers to the federal standards.
From Wikipedia, "In 2009, President Obama announced a new national fuel economy and emissions policy that incorporated California's contested plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions on its own, apart from federal government regulations."
The Obama EPA basically took advantage of the CAFE process and ability to grant a waiver to CA to push the standards higher with the idea of limiting CO2, rather than the original law's purposes of fuel economy (saving gas) and reducing air particulate pollution. Now with a new Administration, that administrative rule making can be reversed.
Yeah, the NY Times and the Washington Post have been the left-wing papers in those towns for a long time, while the NY Post and the Washington Times are the more right-wing papers.
Or are you measuring them against your own imaginary standard of your own super left-wing views, instead of against other newspapers?
How about the reason that many of their customers want to buy something besides a volt or a prius style vehicle?
But sure, let's force all restaurants to close and all grocery stores to only sell vegetables and low-fat meats because the feds have decided that's what's best for people to eat and who cares about what people's own preferences are!
When you govern by issuing waivers to the law instead of actually using compromise and diplomacy to pass laws, then at some point you have to expect a new Presidential Administration might be elected and revoke those waivers and reverse previous executive actions.
When analyzed, the Stern proposal for limiting CO2 resulted in an estimated net loss of $14 Trillion if you assume all of his guesses at damage from climate change are correct. Gore's proposed carbon rules net'd out to a loss of $21 Trillion. That's how much the world economy would suffer under their prominent policy proposals if you take all of their assertions about damage from global warning as true (which is unlikely) and just compare their proposed measures to the level of economic growth over time when doing nothing about global warming at all. See Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus’ Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax.
We can rob from future generations by reducing economic growth now and having them miss out on the compounding affect of that growth for decades, or we can allow our future generations, who will be much wealthier than us from the normal growth between now and then and know better what the actual effects turn out to be, deal with anything needed. Think about it as spending our capital on something now, rather than using compound interest to our advantage, but with growth instead of interest.
Imagine if people in 1968 had decided to sacrifice everything in order to fund researching and putting into place a GPS system. Much of the basic technology was there within decades. They could have done it over time, at the cost of some giant percentage of the economy. Now, with today's wealth and technology, it's no big deal, lots of countries can fund a GPS system out of their basic space or military budgets. So too with mitigating the long term effects of climate change, if any.
The creation of this measure had nothing to do with improving the environment we live in. It was all about making current primary energy sources more expensive. It has nothing to do with "clean air", because CO2 isn't "dirty air". You have plenty of CO2 in your lungs right now, because you produce it yourself and then use your lungs to remove it from your bloodstream before expelling it into the atmosphere.
The war against CO2 turns on how much economic growth, how many jobs, people want to destroy in order to pursue their own ends. Economic analysis of anti-global warming programs invariably demonstrates that even if the baseline assumptions of global warming alarmists are true, the best course is to not slow down the world economy now, but instead to use the increased wealth as a result in the future to mitigate whatever negative effects are imagined as a result of not limiting CO2 emissions.
So by ignoring the economic portion of the science, it's clear the proponents of regulations like these are effectively virtue-signaling their commitment to being against CO2, but actually making things worse for real people in the long run. Not that that's anything new in Washington, D.C. What is new is an Administration which has the guts to ignore the chattering classes and do the right thing, which is getting rid of these ignorant regulations which ignore the science of CO2 emissions.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly. If they actually were, there would have been be no need for exclusive and monopoly franchise agreements with local governments, the first mover would just win automatically. There are places where there is _actually_ competition, so obviously not a "natural" monopoly, just a legally created one.
Internet access was never under Title II until a couple of years ago, so if anything it thrived because of no NN/FCC Title II rules. I was there. I used dial-up BBSs at 300 baud. I started a dial-up ISP (A business I sold during the transition to digital). There were no Title II FCC regulations specific to us. You don't know what you're talking about. Sure, anyone could buy phone lines. Anyone today can buy fiber optic cable and _except where the government prevents them_, can run it to houses.
P.S. Your personal insults aren't convincing anyone, they just get tiresome and expose your lack of ability to argue "complex" issues.
1. If the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation. Having the FCC regulate things just leads over time to regulatory capture of the FCC by the entrenched ISPs at the expense of newer or more innovative ones. See as an example every Federal regulatory body ever which existed for more than a year or two and the well-documented phenomenon of regulatory capture. 2. If the real issue is State and local level monopolies given to companies (and that is a major issue in some locations), then the proper solution is to work at the State level and local levels to remove monopolies which have been granted and instead allow competition. I'm all for that.
I'm against government regulators at any level screwing up the Internet, including via #1 and via #2 above. The FCC bringing Internet access under Title II is an example of "Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses".
Since this has literally never happened either in the U.S. before the FCC's NN rules, nor anywhere else in the world which doesn't have NN rules, I'm pretty sure we're safe, but if it does, I'll just, you know, stop contracting with that company if they aren't providing the service I want at the price I'm willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
If your goal is more solar power, which do you think is more efficient (i.e. costs the least in total resources for the output in power):
A. One large purpose-built solar power plant managed by a power utility.
B. The equivalent amount of power in rooftop solar installations on people's homes.
There is plenty of empirical evidence on this. Prices and efficiencies are pretty well known at this point, so don't take too much time deciding which is the better use of scarce resources...
If you picked option A, congratulations, you can do basic math, or at least look it up.
The reason this law is stupid is that it's one of the least effective ways of accomplishing it's stated goal. The reason it's virtue signaling is that despite it being apparent to even left-wing UC Berkeley professors that this is stupid, many in the legislature went ahead and voted for it anyway.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence....
This has nothing to do with the current economic system. It has to do with the idiocy of forcing people for whom it makes no financial sense to buy an expensive product because the State legislatures really like the product and/or it's manufacturers.
Yep. Even the summary for this article is wrong. According to the Obama State Department, the agreement wasn't "a historic accord signed in 2015":
As the letter makes clear, it was never binding on Iran, nor the U.S. The JCPOA was a "political agreement", based on the idea that if the President doesn't believe Iran has given up on nuclear weapons, he can re-apply sanctions at any time, which is what Trump just did. In that sense, Trump is just following the JCPOA. The law is that he either certifies Iran is meeting the conditions for lifting sanctions, or he doesn't. He didn't. There's nothing "broken" here.
From a couple of noted economists, such as the radically right-wing (not!) UC Berkeley energy economist Severein Borenstein (More links at the destination):
tl;dr version: This law is stupid virtue signaling.
Except of course, in this case, 149 State, local and tribal governments literally were the ones who submitted proposals and 10 of their proposals were selected by the FAA.
So it was the below organizations which applied and "won", despite your getting the process completely backwards:
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, OK
City of San Diego, CA
Virginia Tech - Center for Innovative Technology, Herndon, VA
Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS
Lee County Mosquito Control District, Ft. Myers, FL
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, Memphis, TN
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck, ND
City of Reno, NV
University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK
In addition, there is no federal grant money involved. The program is for the FAA to work directly with the selected government program to create an MOA which outlines the exceptions to the normal rules the program they're running will get.
As mentioned, this is solved in two ways:
1. As you stated, just make an exception for the owner of the destination number to be able to opt-in.
2. As someone else already mentioned below, this would be enforced at the origin telecom company, so they know who owns it. What the destination telecom company does wouldn't matter to the scheme, as long as their customer getting the call is fine with it.
Here's a solution:
In order to transmit a caller id # which is different than the originating number, you must own that caller id number you are transmitting, or else have a signed delegation from the owner which you provide the phone company with.
Otherwise, if ANI number doesn't equal caller ID number, ANI number is substituted for caller ID number so that it's visible to recipients. Later, once the kinks of that are worked out, start outright blocking the call if ownership doesn't provably match.
Voip or other phone companies which violate the rules lose the ability to interconnect with those who enforce them.
So you're claim is that all the unions people have heard of suck, while there is an invisible set of unions out there no one has heard of which don't have any of those very public problems?
Do you also have an invisible friend who agrees with you on your unsubstantiated political opinions? You can see why the rest of us may be less than convinced by a lack of evidence being the evidence, right?
So sure, give us your list of top 5 unions which "solve problems amicably" and don't have any featherbedding or disputes about work divisions and who don't protect workers who aren't doing their jobs.
Also, swamps don't have agency. They don't "force" people to do things like hang out with alligators. If you're swimming in a swamp, presumably that's the result of previous choices by you and/or others. The swamp didn't have anything to do with making those choices, so why would you be blaming the swamp for anything?
All this analogy demonstrates is that the writer doesn't understand analogies and possibly even doesn't know what the concept of responsibility means.
Except that without the Union, the asshole would get fired for not working and for being an asshole, while the old timer's work ethic could be rewarded by getting paid more instead of based on how many years he's been in the job.
Incentives matter.
One major problem with your assertions is that neither of the links you posted to support it, actually support it. Neither says the IRS was more lenient to right than left, all they say is that the IRS also had some keywords they used which would show more left-wing groups.
The bias wasn't that they didn't look at left-wing groups, it was that a typical left-wing process might take a couple of months at worst while when looking at a tea party group, it would take years.
Here's a story from the NY Times (your source) about the legal settlements:
and
The problem wasn't that someone looked carefully at their applications (like they did for some of the left-wing groups), the problem was that they required additional approvals and deliberately delayed their applications in order to keep them from being effective and harassed them with multiple unwarranted information requests, for example, their group members, donations, literature, etc...
Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I guess if you're a politician who doesn't have any real solutions to any real problems, your best bet is to make up fake problems and then create a big PR campaign to let everyone know how you're fighting for them by talking a lot about the fake problem you made up. It does help if you have willing accomplices in the media and large website companies.
I realize the fashion in the last 50-60 years has turned to doing both, but I see a difference in a government agency issuing rules implementing a law and one which is effectively making law. The difference is largely in how much authority and decision making Congress ends up granting them.
Consider a couple of simplistic examples for illustration purposes:
1. A law stating everyone involved in X must report annually their profits from X to agency Y, so agency Y puts out a rule that the way you do that is with this standardized form which you mail to that specific address. That's an implementing regulation.
2. A law stating X is important to know about, so agency Y can collect information on X. Then agency Y puts out a rule that everyone who engages in X must fill out form 123 annually asking for their profits, what type of X they did, what their plans are for X in the future and if they know anyone else who is doing X and what they know about their X-doing. That's a regulation where the agency has been given the decision-making power, while the law itself is vague.
So in example 1, a new executive isn't going to matter. Over time, they might change the address you send the form to, or make it prettier, but they aren't making decisions on what the law requires of someone. There's no room for frequently expanding/changing what Congress intended because it's the law governing, not the agency.
In example 2, depending on who is executing the law (a new President, agency head, minor bureaucrat writing the regulation, whoever involved), they are now deciding what the substance of the law is, so it can change, expand, morph based on their own views as long as they're following the established bureaucratic processes, which can limit that or slow it down, but don't really remove it. If nothing else, it usually changes over time to require more from people while giving the bureaucrats more power, because hey, they're in charge and what are the incentives? They're people, too, subject to the same influences as other people, but with very very checks on their behavior.
Yeah, a lot of the second is driven by the excuse that they'll just let the "Experts" handle it. It works out for politicians because they can blame the regulators for damaging policies to their constituents, call in favors around exceptions to them, the bureaucrats can do the same, slanting regulations to favor their friends and damage their enemies, etc... Congress can expand it's reach because instead of a finite budget of time for creating/modifying law which they need to think through and ensure is good or else they get the blame, they can just pass a vague law authorizing some money and a general purpose and leave it up to the regulators to make all the tough decisions around it.
Among other drawbacks of this system, we find ourselves in a world where the regulations you must comply with (not including the explanations, just the core code of federal regulations), means you'd need to read 493 pages of regulations a day to get through them in a year, at which point you'd have to start over to get the changes. If you want to also keep up with the federal register, that's another couple of hundred pages a day.
That seems like a pretty big burden, just to know what you're supposed to comply with. So people pay their own experts on each small portion of it to understand it for them. They hire lobbyists to influence the rule-making bodies to their benefit and the detriment of their competition. Their competition then has to do the same or else find themselves permanently disadvantaged. The bureaucrats learn they can wield power and influence, then get a job as an expert on the outside, paid for interpreting the mess they created and navigating the bureaucracy for their new friends by calling in favors from their old co-workers, who hope to do the same someday, and so on and so forth.
I prefer the system where the people we elect to pass laws actually have to pass them and we can hold them accountable for what they vote
I wasn't totally contradicting you, just clarifying that the system is based on laws passed by Congress for specific purposes, none of which were CO2 reduction.
A. I've never made a claim regarding an Obama executive order in this discussion. You may be confusing my statement around "executive actions", which was meant to cover actions by the executive branch of the government.
B. Yes, there is a rule making/changing process the executive is supposed to follow. Haven't argued otherwise, just that for the vast majority of executive branch actions, a new executive and department heads can simply reverse them via the same process they were implemented by.
I object in general to rule by man (vs. law) and to the administrative state we've slid into which is a variant of that. This is mostly Congress' fault over the years, as they've abdicated their responsibilities while attempting to control more and more of people's lives via laws and regulatory bodies.
Hodel: Well, somebody has to arrange the matches, Young people can't decide these things themselves.
Chava: She might bring someone wonderful----
Hodel: Someone interesting----
Chava: And well off----
Hodel: And important---
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make me a match, Find me a find, catch me a catch
Matchmaker, Matchmaker
Look through your book, And make me a perfect match
Chava: Matchmaker, Matchmaker, I'll bring the veil, You bring the groom, Slender and pale.
Bring me a ring for I'm longing to be, The envy of all I see.
Hodel: For Papa, Make him a scholar.
Chava: For mama, Make him rich as a king.
Chava and Hodel: For me, well, I wouldn't holler
If he were as handsome as anything.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make me a match, Find me a find, Catch me a catch, Night after night in the dark I'm alone
So find me match, Of my own.
Tzeitel: Since when are you in a match, Chava? I thought you had your eye on your books.
(Hodel chuckles)
Tzeitel con't: And you have your eye on the Rabbi's son.
Hodel: Well, why not?
We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son.
Why shouldn't I want the best?
Tzeitel: Because you're a girl from a poor family.
So whatever Yenta brings, you'll take, right?
Of course right!
(throws scarf over her head, imitating Yenta)
Hodel, oh Hodel, Have I made a match for you!
He's handsome, he's young!
Alright, he's 62.
But he's a nice man, a good catch, true?
True.
I promise you'll be happy, And even if you're not, There's more to life than that---
Don't ask me what.
Chava, I found him.
Won't you be a lucky bride!
He's handsome, he's tall, That is from side to side.
But he's a nice man, a good catch, right?
Right.
You heard he has a temper.
He'll beat you every night, But only when he's sober, So you'll alright.
Did you think you'd get a prince?
Well I do the best I can.
With no dowry, no money, no family background
Be glad you got a man!
Chava: Matchmaker, Matchmaker, You know that I'm Still very young. Please, take your time.
Hodel: Up to this minute, I misunderstood, That I could get stuck for good.
Chava and Hodel: Dear Yenta, See that he's gentle
Remember, You were also a bride.
It's not that
I'm sentimental
Chava and Hodel and Tzeitel: It's just that I'm terrified!
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Plan me no plans
I'm in no rush
Maybe I've learned
Playing with matches
A girl can get burned
So, Bring me no ring
Groom me no groom
Find me no find
Catch me no catch
Unless he's a matchless match.
(Lameness Filter is Lame - Longer lines than in the original courtesy of the not enough characters per line filter.)
Sorry, but not quite correct. The CAFE standards were first enacted by Congress in 1975 in order to save fuel, basically because oil cost so much at the time. Then they were amended in the clean air act of 1990 to also try and reduce particulate matter in the air, setting up two tiers of standards, designed to be phased in over time. At that point the President was allowed to grant States waivers to the federal standards.
From Wikipedia, "In 2009, President Obama announced a new national fuel economy and emissions policy that incorporated California's contested plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions on its own, apart from federal government regulations."
The Obama EPA basically took advantage of the CAFE process and ability to grant a waiver to CA to push the standards higher with the idea of limiting CO2, rather than the original law's purposes of fuel economy (saving gas) and reducing air particulate pollution. Now with a new Administration, that administrative rule making can be reversed.
Yeah, the NY Times and the Washington Post have been the left-wing papers in those towns for a long time, while the NY Post and the Washington Times are the more right-wing papers.
Or are you measuring them against your own imaginary standard of your own super left-wing views, instead of against other newspapers?
How about the reason that many of their customers want to buy something besides a volt or a prius style vehicle?
But sure, let's force all restaurants to close and all grocery stores to only sell vegetables and low-fat meats because the feds have decided that's what's best for people to eat and who cares about what people's own preferences are!
When you govern by issuing waivers to the law instead of actually using compromise and diplomacy to pass laws, then at some point you have to expect a new Presidential Administration might be elected and revoke those waivers and reverse previous executive actions.
When analyzed, the Stern proposal for limiting CO2 resulted in an estimated net loss of $14 Trillion if you assume all of his guesses at damage from climate change are correct. Gore's proposed carbon rules net'd out to a loss of $21 Trillion. That's how much the world economy would suffer under their prominent policy proposals if you take all of their assertions about damage from global warning as true (which is unlikely) and just compare their proposed measures to the level of economic growth over time when doing nothing about global warming at all. See Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus’ Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax.
We can rob from future generations by reducing economic growth now and having them miss out on the compounding affect of that growth for decades, or we can allow our future generations, who will be much wealthier than us from the normal growth between now and then and know better what the actual effects turn out to be, deal with anything needed. Think about it as spending our capital on something now, rather than using compound interest to our advantage, but with growth instead of interest.
Imagine if people in 1968 had decided to sacrifice everything in order to fund researching and putting into place a GPS system. Much of the basic technology was there within decades. They could have done it over time, at the cost of some giant percentage of the economy. Now, with today's wealth and technology, it's no big deal, lots of countries can fund a GPS system out of their basic space or military budgets. So too with mitigating the long term effects of climate change, if any.
The creation of this measure had nothing to do with improving the environment we live in. It was all about making current primary energy sources more expensive. It has nothing to do with "clean air", because CO2 isn't "dirty air". You have plenty of CO2 in your lungs right now, because you produce it yourself and then use your lungs to remove it from your bloodstream before expelling it into the atmosphere.
The war against CO2 turns on how much economic growth, how many jobs, people want to destroy in order to pursue their own ends. Economic analysis of anti-global warming programs invariably demonstrates that even if the baseline assumptions of global warming alarmists are true, the best course is to not slow down the world economy now, but instead to use the increased wealth as a result in the future to mitigate whatever negative effects are imagined as a result of not limiting CO2 emissions.
So by ignoring the economic portion of the science, it's clear the proponents of regulations like these are effectively virtue-signaling their commitment to being against CO2, but actually making things worse for real people in the long run. Not that that's anything new in Washington, D.C. What is new is an Administration which has the guts to ignore the chattering classes and do the right thing, which is getting rid of these ignorant regulations which ignore the science of CO2 emissions.
You're empirically and factually wrong.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly. If they actually were, there would have been be no need for exclusive and monopoly franchise agreements with local governments, the first mover would just win automatically. There are places where there is _actually_ competition, so obviously not a "natural" monopoly, just a legally created one.
Internet access was never under Title II until a couple of years ago, so if anything it thrived because of no NN/FCC Title II rules. I was there. I used dial-up BBSs at 300 baud. I started a dial-up ISP (A business I sold during the transition to digital). There were no Title II FCC regulations specific to us. You don't know what you're talking about. Sure, anyone could buy phone lines. Anyone today can buy fiber optic cable and _except where the government prevents them_, can run it to houses.
P.S. Your personal insults aren't convincing anyone, they just get tiresome and expose your lack of ability to argue "complex" issues.
1. If the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation. Having the FCC regulate things just leads over time to regulatory capture of the FCC by the entrenched ISPs at the expense of newer or more innovative ones. See as an example every Federal regulatory body ever which existed for more than a year or two and the well-documented phenomenon of regulatory capture.
2. If the real issue is State and local level monopolies given to companies (and that is a major issue in some locations), then the proper solution is to work at the State level and local levels to remove monopolies which have been granted and instead allow competition. I'm all for that.
I'm against government regulators at any level screwing up the Internet, including via #1 and via #2 above. The FCC bringing Internet access under Title II is an example of "Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses".
No, pretty sure you call me a shill because you can't muster any actual arguments. Traditionally on the left, that leads to name calling.
Since this has literally never happened either in the U.S. before the FCC's NN rules, nor anywhere else in the world which doesn't have NN rules, I'm pretty sure we're safe, but if it does, I'll just, you know, stop contracting with that company if they aren't providing the service I want at the price I'm willing to pay.