Pickens Plan

[Rdutch 0]

http://www.pickensplan.com

I just saw a commercial, it actually looks interesting. Doubtful it will happen. Im wondering whats your opinion of it?

The truth is we are sending billions of dollars to people that dont like us very much. As our national defense budget grows, were funding countries we could quite possible be at war with in the near future. Waiting for civilian companies to fund our push for alternative energy isnt working very well. Lets face is even as expensive as it is now, oil is cheap. The Us govt, should start devoting a larger part of the budget into making the U.S less dependent on foreign oil..

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

I just saw a commercial, it actually looks interesting. Doubtful it will happen. Im wondering whats your opinion of it?

It is already happening. Pickens is very smart and wealthy man. He is already buying leases for that purpose. It is very good for many many reasons.

Quote

Waiting for civilian companies to fund our push for alternative energy isnt working very well.

Capitalism is the answer. The gov. does not care to solve these problems. If you are waiting on them dont hold your breath! The gov. is the reason that we are in this mess! Period!!

Quote

The Us govt, should start devoting a larger part of the budget into making the U.S less dependent on foreign oil..

No they should stay away. The only thing they need to do is quit putting up all the road blocks in front of the people that are trying to fix the problem.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[jcd11235 0]

From The Plan:

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

I'm having trouble understanding how, if only 20% of America's electricity can come from wind, North Dakota can provide power for more than a quarter of the country. 20% < 25%+. Are they determining a quarter of the country by area? If so, that doesn't really provide much useful information.

I'm not saying that wind power is not a good thing, but it appears Pickens might be being a little bit misleading with his Plan.

I am personally of the belief that solar power shows more potential as a major energy source than wind power. Of course, some areas are better suited for power generation via wind than via sunlight. There isn't going to be any single magic bullet.

You're right, though. The US government should be devoting significantly more funding for alternative (renewable) energy sources' research and development.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[bigairnut 0]

Quote

The Us govt, should start devoting a larger part of the budget into making the U.S less dependent on foreign oil..

No they should stay away. The only thing they need to do is quit putting up all the road blocks in front of the people that are trying to fix the problem.

Yep, the quickest and most efficient way is for the people who take great risk to be able to reap great reward. Let's not forget that Pickens isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He explicitly stated in an interview just the other day that he fully intends to make money with this endeavor. No way the government can do better. They'll just waste more of our tax dollars.

[Rdutch 0]

Quote

***. He explicitly stated in an interview just the other day that he fully intends to make money with this endeavor. No way the government can do better. They'll just waste more of our tax dollars.

Hmmm, if he did say that, then he is jumping all over the place, theres an interview on the web site where he says his interests in this isnt money at all, he said "Money I dont need any more Ive got more than enough, and my estate is going to charity when I die".

I was thinking maybe the natural gas powered car idea isnt the best, if they did produce massive amounts of wind power, then the push should be for plug in hybrids.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Capitalism is the answer. The gov. does not care to solve these problems. If you are waiting on them dont hold your breath! The gov. is the reason that we are in this mess! Period!!

I don't recall the government telling mortgage lenders to make sub prime loans to people with no credit.

I don't recall the government telling automakers to concentrate their efforts on SUVs.

Leave it to capitalists? Those same wonderful capitalists that brought us Love Canal, Enron, Tyco and Worldcom, the mortgage/housing crisis, automakers making Escalades, Hummers and Navigators when customers want small cars. The govt. funded rescue packages for the S&L crisis, Indymac, Fannie and Freddie, Bear Stearns...

Funny how often government has to come to the rescue of capitalists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

I don't recall the government telling mortgage lenders to make sub prime loans to people with no credit.

Actually they made it easier to get people fin. for fha loans. But you are correct they didnt tell them

Quote

I don't recall the government telling automakers to concentrate their efforts on SUVs.

Of course they didnt that is what you call free market. If people dont buy them they will not make them. I still enjoy driving all of my big cars (6). And no i dont need your aproval to buy more

Quote

Leave it to capitalists? Those same wonderful capitalists that brought us Love Canal, Enron, Tyco and Worldcom, the mortgage/housing crisis, automakers making Escalades, Hummers and Navigators when customers want small cars. The govt. funded rescue packages for the S&L crisis, Indymac, Fannie and Freddie, Bear Stearns...

That is funny how you mention a couple of companys that have done bad. What about the other thousands that keep this economy afloat?????

Quote

Funny how often government has to come to the rescue of capitalists.

They only come to the rescue of the biggest companys out there, and i dont agree with it at all!
But i case you didt know profersor, most jobs in the US come from small buis. , and we are called capitalist to I figured you would have known that or are you just spinning as nomal???

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't recall the government telling automakers to concentrate their efforts on SUVs.

Of course they didnt that is what you call free market. If people dont buy them they will not make them. I still enjoy driving all of my big cars (6). And no i dont need your aproval to buy more

In other words, the free market, left to its own devices, will work to maximize profit for those with capital, but does nothing out of altruism, such as promote a healthy, sustainable environment.

Which, of course, is exactly why the government needs to regulate markets and promote research in alternative energy sources.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

They only come to the rescue of the biggest companys out there, and i dont agree with it at all!
But i case you didt know profersor, most jobs in the US come from small buis. , and we are called capitalist to I figured you would have known that or are you just spinning as nomal???

Well, you certainly make a good case for improving education in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Funny how often government has to come to the rescue of capitalists.

The way I see it: At the rate the government pisses away our money on wasteful programs, stupid wars & foreign occupation, it is a miracle that our economy is strong enough to sustain us as well as it has.

It seems to me that capitalism has "come to the rescue" of the government far more often than the other way around.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny how often government has to come to the rescue of capitalists.

The way I see it: At the rate the government pisses away our money on wasteful programs, stupid wars & foreign occupation, it is a miracle that our economy is strong enough to sustain us as well as it has.

It seems to me that capitalism has "come to the rescue" of the government far more often than the other way around.

Private businesses (as well as publicly traded corporations) make bad financial and management decisions just like government does. I don't think one can be claimed to be more efficient than the other. Neither has the market cornered on good (or bad) decisions.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Yes, businesses do make bad decisions sometimes. But at least there is financial pressure on businesses to be efficient & effective. Government has no such pressure.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, businesses do make bad decisions sometimes. But at least there is financial pressure on businesses to be efficient & effective. Government has no such pressure.

That's actually one of the important purposes of voting.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In other words, the free market, left to its own devices, will work to maximize profit for those with capital, but does nothing out of altruism, such as promote a healthy, sustainable environment.

Not exactly. For under that logic, one woul think that the most industrialized countries an freest countries would be the most polluted. And it doesn't turn out that way - wait a couple of weeks and struggle to see the pole vault on television through the Beijing smog.

Because in China, individual rights are practically non-existent. IT is all based on what is best for the population, and what is best is not chosen individually, but rather selected by the leadership. If the leadership believes industry is most important, then pollution will be damned. Example? China.

Here in the US an in the industrialized democratic nations, we have common law nuisance. For we have the right to be free of the interference of others in our quiet enjoyment. THe neighbor has a stinky compost heap that made my patio dinner unpalateable to she whom I wished to seduce? Well, then, I have the right to STOP that nuisance.

Increased political power over the individual left behind a pretty big mess when Communism failed in easern Europe. Because everything was controlled and subsidized.

Here is my viwpoint of why private industry is BETTER at controlling pollution than governments. Because despite it's characterization, pollution is not a vice. Pollution is a COST. Want to turn on that light? It's going to cost the environment. WHen the cost is more than the benefit, the activity is inefficient and must be changed or ceased.

Framing it as a vice does nothing but create defensiveness. What is the right amount of vice? Well, that's tough to rationalize ANY acceptable amount of vice.

So, frame it as an issue of cost. "What is an acceptable level of cost for me to keep the house warm in the winter??

This is the reason why I equate many environmentalists with religious zealots. Under the principles of morality, "altruism" falls into it. Like it or not, altruism is no different from what we see in the Bible. ANd I ain't religious. And I don't subscribe to the notion that everyboy should be altruistic as a moral guide. See my sig-line for the reason. I on't believe I am competent to describe who is a superior person.

But private inustry an private individuals are best at controlling each other. Environmental regulations did not stop SUV's from being produced in large numbers. High gas prices now make them cheap. People aren't buying the Prius today for the environment. They are buying it for efficiency.

When the people say, "The cost of coal-fired plants is too high" they will start buying alternative power sources. And Al Gore, bless him, will sell them the alternative power.

Which is cleaner? Your bathroom the bathroom at the city park?

Want to save some animals? Easy. Buy them.
Want to shut down that coal-fire power plant? Get some investors together and built an alternative plant.

Which is where Al Gore is doing the most good. He knows, and he understands, that his is a product that most believe is worth buying. But his product is more expensive - less environmental cost means more $$$. Thus, if the government can pass regs to make his product cheaper, or the other people's prouct more expensive, he becomes more competitive. But therein lies the issue - he doesn't really USE a whole lot of his product.

And for that reason, I find him abhorrent because he puts that cost to the environment with his personal energy usage.

I don't knock Gore for anything other than his honesty. He should have received a Nobel Prize - in economics.

Quote

the government needs to regulate markets and promote research in alternative energy sources.

Let me ask you this: If the government has to pay you to do something because noboy else will do it, what does that say about the intelligence of it? IT means that in the industry side of things, there's no money in it.

This, of course, is the definition of "waste." IF a private industry tries and fails, it is out of business. But governments don't do that. It doesn't fail. It just keeps on going.

The green industry is doing just fine right now. Let it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not exactly. For under that logic, one woul think that the most industrialized countries an freest countries would be the most polluted. And it doesn't turn out that way - wait a couple of weeks and struggle to see the pole vault on television through the Beijing smog.

Because in China, individual rights are practically non-existent. IT is all based on what is best for the population, and what is best is not chosen individually, but rather selected by the leadership. If the leadership believes industry is most important, then pollution will be damned. Example? China.

It's interesting that you should choose China as an example, since they have a mixed economy. As I understand it, it is generally socialized rurally and free market in urban areas. I don't think that's how it was intended to be, it just worked out that way. (Hopefully Frenchy can shed more light on it.) From where do you think China's pollution is coming, the cities or the urban farmers?

Quote

Here in the US an in the industrialized democratic nations, we have common law nuisance. For we have the right to be free of the interference of others in our quiet enjoyment. THe neighbor has a stinky compost heap that made my patio dinner unpalateable to she whom I wished to seduce? Well, then, I have the right to STOP that nuisance.

Hmmm … that seems like your individual right to enjoy your patio dinner trumps your neighbors right to produce her own compost in an environmentally responsible manner.

Quote

Increased political power over the individual left behind a pretty big mess when Communism failed in easern Europe. Because everything was controlled and subsidized.

Sure. Pure socialism is no better (or worse) than pure capitalism. Neither system is effective on its own, each requiring tempering by the other to work well.

Quote

Here is my viwpoint of why private industry is BETTER at controlling pollution than governments. Because despite it's characterization, pollution is not a vice. Pollution is a COST. Want to turn on that light? It's going to cost the environment.

Unfortunately, without substantial government regulation, that cost is not paid by the polluters, but rather the individuals in the area polluted. Private industry is not going to acknowledge the cost unless forced to. It's too easy to pump pollutants into the air or dump them into the rivers and be done with it. It's one less cost that would otherwise cut into the profit margin, the producer surplus.

Quote

WHen the cost is more than the benefit, the activity is inefficient and must be changed or ceased.

Exactly my point. Clean air and water is not an asset on the balance sheet. The cost of cleaning up pollution, however, is a very tangible credit (cost). So, without laws and regulation, businesses have little to no incentive to clean up after themselves.

Quote

Framing it as a vice does nothing but create defensiveness. What is the right amount of vice? Well, that's tough to rationalize ANY acceptable amount of vice.

Carbon credits don't frame it as a vice. They frame it as a limited resource and allow the market decide how to allocate it. In other words, it is a capitalist solution.

Quote

So, frame it as an issue of cost.

That's exactly what carbon credits do. That doesn't occur without government regulation.

Quote

This is the reason why I equate many environmentalists with religious zealots.

Which indicates a very low level of understanding of the topic.

Quote

Under the principles of morality, "altruism" falls into it. Like it or not, altruism is no different from what we see in the Bible. ANd I ain't religious.

Neither are many, perhaps most, altruistic people. In fact, if someone does good because it increases their own comfort level in whatever afterlife they believe in, that is not altruistic behavior. The behavior is no less good or beneficial, but it is not altruistic.

From an economic standpoint, capitalism is driven by selfishness. If people did not covet thy neighbor's goods (aka desire to keep up with the Joneses) a capitalist economy would collapse.

Of course without good behavior, altruistic or otherwise, society collapses. Thus, there is a place for government and government regulation.

Quote

But private inustry an private individuals are best at controlling each other.

But it does not always do so in a desirable manner, and often not even a manner beneficial to society.

Quote

Environmental regulations did not stop SUV's from being produced in large numbers.

More accurately, weak environmental regulations allowed SUV's to be produced in large numbers.

Quote

People aren't buying the Prius today for the environment.

Many do. The Prius was selling very well before gasoline hit $4.00 per gallon in the US.

Quote

They are buying it for efficiency.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two sets of people share many members.

Quote

When the people say, "The cost of coal-fired plants is too high" they will start buying alternative power sources.

Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, cost is measured by the masses in monetary terms. In reality, there are far more considerations than simply monetary cost. However, since the masses must understand the cost, it has to be converted into units they can understand. Thus, there is a need for government regulations and taxes.

Quote

Which is cleaner? Your bathroom the bathroom at the city park?

Which grass is best manicured, your lawn or the greens at the local public golf course?

Quote

Want to save some animals? Easy. Buy them.
Want to shut down that coal-fire power plant? Get some investors together and built an alternative plant.

Want to stop ambulance chasing lawyers? Easy. Shoot them.

Want to stop your neighbors from producing compost? Buy all of the homes in your neighborhood and raze them to the ground.

Quote

But his product is more expensive - less environmental cost means more $$$.

See my point above about the cost being converted into units the masses can understand. If some people can only think in terms of money, then costs have to be converted totally into monetary units.

Quote

Thus, if the government can pass regs to make his product cheaper, or the other people's prouct more expensive, he becomes more competitive.

Yes, he becomes more competitive because the true cost of his competitors' product is revealed (or alternatively, depending on the method of regulation, his product's cost is similarly discounted as his competitors' is).

Quote

And for that reason, I find him abhorrent because he puts that cost to the environment with his personal energy usage.

Yeah, he's such a bad person to be carbon neutral.

Quote

I don't knock Gore for anything other than his honesty.

Personally, I don't knock people for their honesty. Perhaps Liar, Liar wasn't so far from reality (aside from the wish coming true, of course) in terms of the legal community?

Quote

He should have received a Nobel Prize …

He did.

Quote

… in economics.

No, those prizes are best given to mathematicians like John F. Nash, Joseph E Stilitz, or Eric S. Maskin

Quote

Quote

the government needs to regulate markets and promote research in alternative energy sources.

Quote

Let me ask you this: If the government has to pay you to do something because noboy else will do it, what does that say about the intelligence of it? IT means that in the industry side of things, there's no money in it.

Since fining a company for not doing something is effectively the equivalent of paying them to do it, your logic would indicate that there is no intelligence in cleaning up the environment. I wholeheartedly disagree. That may be the libertarian viewpoint on environmental issues, but that doesn't make it correct.

Quote

This, of course, is the definition of "waste."

In this case, it is nothing more than holding industry responsible for there pollution. The pollution is the waste. It's funny how when your neighbor reuses waste in an environmentally friendly manner, it's a nuisance to you. However, when industry is held responsible for their own waste, you get all upset about it.

Quote

IF a private industry tries and fails, it is out of business. But governments don't do that. It doesn't fail. It just keeps on going.

Ahhh. There's nothing like some (incorrect) irrelevant claims to point out how bad government is.

Quote

The green industry is doing just fine right now. Let it.

It's only a few decades behind where it should be. The GWB Whitehouse's refusal to acknowledge the reality of global warming for so long has not helped any. Of course, I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the President's ties to the oil industry.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

THis is a goo discussion (and the "D" on my keyboard is sticking, so bear with me).

I don't have much time now, but I DO think it's a problem when people or companies ump waste into the rivers, air, ground, etc.

Take a look at Erin Brockovich. Much like the compost heap that bothers the neighbors, PG&E was being a nuisance to the neighbors. And they paid for it. And it's cheaper for them to be good neighbors than to be bad neighbors.

That's how the system can work. Do what you want so long as you are not foisting harm upon others. SUre, you may be trying to be environmentally responsible with your CO2 and/or CH4 producing compost heap. And it produces a stink that I don't like. Want to compost? Fine. Do it downwind of people you can bother or take steps to contain it so as not to harm or bother others.

Don't find "solutions" of government banning composting, or charging people for composting.


As an aside, I find this to be a pretty good example of why good for one thing may be bad for another thing, environmentally speaking. For example, looked at one way, bioegradeables are good things. Looked at another way, they are not good things.

Paper biodegrades. If done anaerobically, it creates methane. If aerobically, CO2. Both greenhouse gases. When bioegradeables en up in landfills, they degrae into methane and leachates. I worked on a case where bioegradeables in landfills causedd signifcant harm to the residents we represented who lived near a landfill in the LA Area.

Compare a Styrofoam cup, that doesn't degrade. The styrofoam cup keeps everything right there. No loeachate. IT oesn't escape. It stays right there.

Look at the production of styrofoam cups versus paper cups. The paper cup uses 36 times as much electricity to produce as the styrofoam cup and produces 580 times as much waste water, according to chemist Martin Hocking (this was a 1991 study. Technology may have ineed changed by now).

Which is where everythign must have costs and benefits. IT's a balancing act. THink of living in a desert and which is scarcer - space to dispose of disposable diapers or water to wash reusable ones?

That's why I view is as a cost. And one size doesn't fit all.

It's a great discussion, though. You and I simply see things from a different perspective. You are reaching the wrong answer, but your logic seems good.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Which is where everythign must have costs and benefits. IT's a balancing act. THink of living in a desert and which is scarcer - space to dispose of disposable diapers or water to wash reusable ones?

That's why I view is as a cost. And one size doesn't fit all.

I agree that its about costs benefit. However, costs are not always presented accurately.

Does the price of gas at the pump reflect the cost of conducting war in oil producing countries to maintain access to the crude? Does the price of coal produced electricity reflect the cost of cleaning up all (at least to the extent that the Earth's natural methods to maintain habitable CO2 levels, etc. are not overwhelmed) of the pollutants and greenhouse gasses?

In neither instance is the true cost conveyed to the consumer. It really doesn't matter much if the cost is passed on to consumers or taxpayers, since they are largely the same group of people w/r/t energy use. However, consumers should be aware of the true cost of energy from different sources so they can make their choices appropriately.

There is no incentive for corporations and businesses to pay costs they can avoid, which would be largely (but not entirely) passed on to consumers with higher prices, making their product less profitable and less competitive in the marketplace. Government regulations provide incentives to pay those costs, or, less idealy, allow subsidization of competing goods in a manner that allows its cost to be equally misrepresented.

Government regulation allows the marketplace to operate based on realities rather than perceptions. If two (or more goods) are perceived as essentially equal products, such as electricity from different sources, then they should affect the consumer in the same manner. If one is less environmentally friendly than another, that is cost that is hidden from the consumer at time of purchase.

Hidden costs are a bad thing in a free market. In order for free markets to work well, beneficially to all parties, both consumers and producers must have equal access to the information about the good being sold. Unfortunately, more often than not, this doesn't happen. In the case of energy derived from fossil fuels, government regulation can help alleviate that problem.

Quote

You are reaching the wrong answer, but your logic seems good.

Being a Maths guy, I have to say that I find that statement rather illogical, unless you're pointing out an arithmetic error somewhere. It is a good discussion, though.
BTW, I really don't advocate shooting all the lawyers to get rid of ambulance chasers.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Does the price of gas at the pump reflect the cost of conducting war in oil producing countries to maintain access to the crude?

To some extent, so long as there is knowledge about it. HEnce, gas prices rose in 1990-1991.

Quote

Does the price of coal produced electricity reflect the cost of cleaning up all (at least to the extent that the Earth's natural methods to maintain habitable CO2 levels, etc. are not overwhelmed) of the pollutants and greenhouse gasses?

That's a little harder, because the costs are so spread out. In this sense, the nuisance is there, but again, as with any commons, it is spread out. This is why I don't advocate no government, just limited.

Quote

In neither instance is the true cost conveyed to the consumer.

Sure it is. The consumer utilizes it, and faces the cost. He who uses no power may get a cost passed on to him. He who emits through a tailpipe passes a cost onto himself, whether he is cognizant of it or not. The gas companies don't pollute. The consumers do.

Quote

It really doesn't matter much if the cost is passed on to consumers or taxpayers, since they are largely the same group of people w/r/t energy use. However, consumers should be aware of the true cost of energy from different sources so they can make their choices appropriately

Yes. It is, after all, the consumers who are the end users. They do the polluting and they suffer. They pass it on to others and themselves. The guy riding the bicycle, however, has a legitimate bitch.

Quote

There is no incentive for corporations and businesses to pay costs they can avoid, which would be largely (but not entirely) passed on to consumers with higher prices, making their product less profitable and less competitive in the marketplace.

Indeed! THe consumer is the reason the polluting product is produced! No consumer, no product an no pollution. The consumer SHOULD be paying that cost. The term "consumer" is highly appropriate.

Quote

Government regulations provide incentives to pay those costs, or, less idealy, allow subsidization of competing goods in a manner that allows its cost to be equally misrepresented.

Right. And those costs are passed on where they belong because the consumers have asked to pay more. The best way to get someone to pay is to convince them that someone else is.

Quote

Government regulation allows the marketplace to operate based on realities rather than perceptions.

Shit. People think I'm a good lawyer. This'll screw me.

Quote

If two (or more goods) are perceived as essentially equal products, such as electricity from different sources, then they should affect the consumer in the same manner. If one is less environmentally friendly than another, that is cost that is hidden from the consumer at time of purchase.

Not really, because consumers pass the cost onto themselves. So those pissing in the swimming pool are pissing on themselves. The poor saps who aren't pissing? Well, they've got a legitimate bitch.

Quote

Hidden costs are a bad thing in a free market.

Yes. Agreed. But they never stay hidden for long, unless a government helps it happen.

Quote

In order for free markets to work well, beneficially to all parties, both consumers and producers must have equal access to the information about the good being sold.

Oh, NO NO NO NO NO! I can't have my clients being as knowledgeable about the law as I am. Because that puts me out of business. And, in fact, I hire people BECAUSE they know more than I do. I don't have the time to learn all the tax laws, so my accountant and tax lawyer do it. That's what society is about - helping each other.

For a price...

Quote

In the case of energy derived from fossil fuels, government regulation can help alleviate that problem.

Then why are we wasting time educating people. Let folks spend their time and money to alleviate the problem and make a buck if successful. Like Al Gore. And let not the government take sides.

Quote

I have to say that I find that statement rather illogical,

Why? If I go due south 120 miles as the crow flies, I'll be in Santa Barbara. Do the same thing and you'll be elsewhere. We follow the same procedure, but since have have different starting points, and different assumptions, we'll end up with different answers.

Quote

BTW, I really don't advocate shooting all the lawyers to get rid of ambulance chasers

No. Why shoot them all to get rid of ambulance chasers when you can regulate them all to get the ambulance chasers.

Nah. I'd shoot us all.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Does the price of gas at the pump reflect the cost of conducting war in oil producing countries to maintain access to the crude?

To some extent, so long as there is knowledge about it. HEnce, gas prices rose in 1990-1991.

Are you claiming that there were additional taxes applied to gas sales in 1990-1991 to pay for the Gulf War? If not, then no, the price at the pump did not reflect the additional cost due to military action. Our gas prices now also do not reflect that additional cost.

Quote

Quote

In neither instance is the true cost conveyed to the consumer.

Sure it is. The consumer utilizes it, and faces the cost. He who uses no power may get a cost passed on to him. He who emits through a tailpipe passes a cost onto himself, whether he is cognizant of it or not. The gas companies don't pollute. The consumers do.

Okay, conveyed was the wrong word. The consumer is generally not aware of the extra costs at the time of purchase. He is not cognizant of it.

Quote

Yes. It is, after all, the consumers who are the end users. They do the polluting and they suffer. They pass it on to others and themselves. The guy riding the bicycle, however, has a legitimate bitch.

Most of the cost will be passed on to the consumer regardless of how it is paid. There's nothing wrong with that, since, as you said, they are doing the consuming. However, they should be made aware of hidden costs.

Quote

Indeed! THe consumer is the reason the polluting product is produced! No consumer, no product an no pollution. The consumer SHOULD be paying that cost. The term "consumer" is highly appropriate.

Yes, but the cost should not be hidden. The consumer should be aware of the cost at time of purchase.

Quote

Quote

Hidden costs are a bad thing in a free market.

Yes. Agreed. But they never stay hidden for long, unless a government helps it happen.

Not true. Sometimes those hidden costs are soon revealed, and sometimes they are not. An example: How many people are aware when they but their second, third, etc. Windows PC, that viruses and adware, spyware, etc. are largely a Windows issue, and not a computer issue? Yet, people continue to buy Windows based PC's because they are "cheaper," despite not really being so. (In the interest of fairness: 1.) how many Mac Pro purchasers are aware that there is a limited number of graphics cards supported by both the gaming industry and Apple? Even with it's massive amount of processing power, the lifespan of a Mac Pro as a gaming machine could be very limited. AND 2.) How many people who have been talked into using Linux have been made aware that professional Linux tech support is not cheap, and help forums are not only often slow, but hit or miss regarding the accuracy of offered solutions?)

Quote

Quote

In order for free markets to work well, beneficially to all parties, both consumers and producers must have equal access to the information about the good being sold.

Oh, NO NO NO NO NO! I can't have my clients being as knowledgeable about the law as I am. Because that puts me out of business. And, in fact, I hire people BECAUSE they know more than I do. I don't have the time to learn all the tax laws, so my accountant and tax lawyer do it. That's what society is about - helping each other.

I probably should have writen, "… information about thecost of good being sold." That said, you sell a service, not a good.

Quote

Then why are we wasting time educating people. Let folks spend their time and money to alleviate the problem and make a buck if successful. Like Al Gore. And let not the government take sides.

I'll answer your question with a question. How do we monetize the cost of anthropogenic global warming? The government damn well needs to be taking sides.

Quote

Quote

I have to say that I find that statement rather illogical,

Why? If I go due south 120 miles as the crow flies, I'll be in Santa Barbara. Do the same thing and you'll be elsewhere. We follow the same procedure, but since have have different starting points, and different assumptions, we'll end up with different answers.

Right, but neither of us reaches an incorrect conclusion. On the other hand, if I start in Detroit, Michigan, and drive 120 miles south and find myself in Fairbanks, Alaska, then something is wrong.

Quote

Quote

BTW, I really don't advocate shooting all the lawyers to get rid of ambulance chasers

No. Why shoot them all to get rid of ambulance chasers when you can regulate them all to get the ambulance chasers.

Nah. I'd shoot us all.

Would you prefer we call Amazon or JohnRich?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't recall the government telling mortgage lenders to make sub prime loans to people with no credit.

Actually they made it easier to get people fin. for fha loans. But you are correct they didnt tell them

Quote

I don't recall the government telling automakers to concentrate their efforts on SUVs.

Of course they didnt that is what you call free market. If people dont buy them they will not make them. I still enjoy driving all of my big cars (6). And no i dont need your aproval to buy more

Quote

Leave it to capitalists? Those same wonderful capitalists that brought us Love Canal, Enron, Tyco and Worldcom, the mortgage/housing crisis, automakers making Escalades, Hummers and Navigators when customers want small cars. The govt. funded rescue packages for the S&L crisis, Indymac, Fannie and Freddie, Bear Stearns...

That is funny how you mention a couple of companys that have done bad. What about the other thousands that keep this economy afloat?????

Quote

Funny how often government has to come to the rescue of capitalists.

They only come to the rescue of the biggest companys out there, and i dont agree with it at all!
But i case you didt know profersor, most jobs in the US come from small buis. , and we are called capitalist to I figured you would have known that or are you just spinning as nomal???

Is there a reason you will not reply Kallend when you are wrong??????? You seem to forget about Fannie and Freddie???? So who runs them??? And what exactly do they do again. And who are they backed by?? I bet they could care less how risky they are.. I love it how when you are faced with facts that prove you wrong you will only coment on my spelling. I am glad when you are not telling the truth you spell everything corectly So can you tell me what Fannie and Freddie is costing us now becuase of there great morgage loans they aproved??? I promise it is more than those mean capitalist are costing us.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Hello Kallend you care to comment????

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Hello Kallend you care to comment????

I find it hard to comment on incomprehensible semi-literate rants, sorry.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

... most jobs in the US come from small buis. , and we are called capitalist to

I absolutely agree with the criticality of the entrepreneurial spirit.

I’m a little struck by the assertion, however. Is it really true that small businesses are responsible for the most overall jobs, or do they create the most *new* jobs annually? (And what percentage of small businesses fail each year, i.e., what percentage of annual job loss are they associated with?) For what portion of the overall economy are small business responsible versus growth in the economy? What percent of the GDP? What’s the definition of a small business, i.e., 10, 100, or 500 people?

----

If anyone's interested in (what I thought was) a fantastic read on different styles of capitalism (e.g., US vs Europe vs India vs Russia) & the importance of fostering innovaton, I highly recommend Bob Litan, et al.'s new book Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, which is available to download free in total from Yale Press wiki. Litan currently spends most of his time at AEI.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Hello Kallend you care to comment????

I find it hard to comment on incomprehensible semi-literate rants, sorry.

You should work on your reading comprehension. I think everybody got the point except you and the ignorant liberals that cant answer the question and still win the argument

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

I’m a little struck by the assertion, however. Is it really true that small businesses are responsible for the most overall jobs, or do they create the most *new* jobs annually?

Small buis do create and have the most jobs in the US.

Quote

And what percentage of small businesses fail each year, i.e., what percentage of annual job loss are they associated with?)

I do not know the exact answer but they say the magic # of years for a small buis. is 5 years. It is the magic # of years to make it past to be sucessfull.

Quote

For what portion of the overall economy are small business responsible versus growth in the economy? What percent of the GDP?

I think 70- 80 %. I have never paid alot of atension to these facts cuase i knew them to be true and did not need to question.

Quote

What’s the definition of a small business, i.e., 10, 100, or 500 people?

100 or less employies is the # i believe.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!