gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

In article >, Jeffrey Turner wrote:

>>>>Americans reacted by buying lower fuel economy trucks.
>>>
>>>Really? In what numbers?
>>
>> The same as it was years ago when I first explained the rise of SUVs
>> after the great die off of large passenger cars in the 1980s.
>
> You mean I've gone years avoiding your ignorant nonsense until now?

You haven't a ****ing clue about autos, you just wnat to control.

>>>>inexpensive cars that got good mileage have been around since there have
>>>>been cars. That choice has always been there. The expensive, nice cars
>>>>with good milage are the new thing. Usually it was assumed that if a
>>>>person had money for a nice car he wouldn't care about how much fuel it
>>>>used. Of course that has to do with changes in buyer preferences, not CAFE.

>>>Not so much. Fleet averages are lower than they were thirty years ago.

>> Fleet averages are based on sales. It takes a lot of Foci (or would it
>> be focuses?) to offset 800,000+ F series trucks and countless SUVs. If
>> CAFE didn't come along, the large passenger car and station wagon would
>> have never given way to the passenger truck (SUV). Fleet averages would
>> be much better.

> The problem was leaving an out for SUVs and light trucks.

The control freak always thinks the problem wasn't enough control.

> Nah. There went a fact... No, over there... Wait, there it... Oops.

Not my fault you're clueless.

>>>Those things are manipulable in the service of the greater good. It's
>>>amazing how the religious right, which talks about absolute good, got
>>>mixed up with you-lot who just talk about private desires.

>> Here you go again, throwing baseless personal insults that are 100%
>> wrong.

> I'm sorry you're insulted by your own philosophy.

Where is your proof that I am part of the 'religious right'? You're
going to have a hard time finding it. Stop being a lying jackass.

> Maybe if you had facts you could make a real argument.

You're the one lacking the facts. CAFE attempted to control choice and
by doing so caused things to get worse instead of better. That's obvious
to anyone who isn't a control freak.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article >, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>AirRaid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9...dollarstp5.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>High gas prices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You people haven't a clue what high gas prices are !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You want to pay less ? Drive a car with better mileage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Idiot Reagan supporters backed gutting the CAFE standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>CAFE could only be a failure. CAFE was an attempt to tell US car buyers
>>>>>>>>>>>what they had to buy. This doesn't work out well, ever.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Of course it would have worked. The auto makers would have built
>>>>>>>>>>high-mileage cars and Americans wouldn't have had a choice but to buy
>>>>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Abortion is a needed choice but not the choice of what car you want to
>>>>>>>>>buy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If a woman has an abortion it has absolutely no effect on my life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you ready to define all the laws that way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's put it this way, a woman's decision to have an abortion doesn't
>>>>>>effect anyone but herself. I don't see any reason to regulate that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't AFFECT.
>>>>
>>>>I never could keep those straight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, isn't that true of her use of illegal drugs or
>>>>>her desire for an unauthorized medical procedure?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think the laws against "illegal" drugs do any good, drugs should
>>>>be decriminalized. Unauthorized medical procedures fall under the laws
>>>>against fraud.
>>>
>>>I mean unauthorized by the government, the patient wants them. They are
>>>exactly like abortion, actually, except there is no unborn human to make
>>>a decision about.
>>
>>You mean "medical" procedures that have not been shown to be effective,
>>like Laetrile (though that was a "medicine" and not a procedure). Those
>>come under fraud. If not, you need to be clearer.
>
> It's fraud if you lie about the efficacy. If you believe, how is it
> fraud?

If I lie to you and you believe me then it's fraud.

> What if the ill person wants Laetrile? You claim to be
> "pro-choice" but you won't let someone make a choice that is clearly
> only regarding themselves. Meanwhile you want to let them choose when it
> doesn't just involve them, abortion.

Laetrile was an expensive fraud. The family, and not just the terminal
person were the victims.

>>>>>In this case of
>>>>>abortion, you do point of fact have another being involved, the unborn
>>>>>baby. If we are talking about abortion very early in a pregnancy, you
>>>>>can claim it isn't really "viable" or whatever but you can't defend
>>>>>abortion at will until birth that way. When you try that, you end up
>>>>>defining whether the baby is a baby by its *location*, an absurdity.
>>>>
>>>>Only 1% of abortions are late term. But that's not the point.
>>>
>>>The issue here though isn't whether or not any abortions should be
>>>allowed but whether or not abortion should be a right until birth.
>>
>>Right now, it's not.
>
> But your argument is that a woman should be able to choose if she wants
> an abortion up til birth.

As a practical matter, sometime before birth is the limit.

>>>>If a
>>>>woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, she shouldn't
>>>>be forced to carry the baby.
>>>
>>>Why? If a man doesn't want to be stuck paying children support for 18+
>>>years, you are going to say that he shouldn't have had sex or that he
>>>should've used protection even though almost all the birth control is
>>>under the control of the woman.
>>
>>So you don't have a problem with abortion, you just want to be able to
>>avoid child support?
>
> Why do so many people come back with that whenever I bring this valid
> issue up? Why does the woman get "choice" but the man doesn't? Answer
> the question.

Someone has to have the final decision. Since it's the woman's
pregnancy she gets to decide.

>>>>Don't misunderestimate the maternal
>>>>instinct. We don't really need unwanted babies out there, and it's
>>>>none of our business until the baby is born.
>>>
>>>Why? That defines human life by location which is utterly idiotic. It
>>>also ignores "viability".
>>
>>Right now, the law is heavily dependent on viability.
>
> But you don't want it to be. You think that "partial birth" is something
> that should be protected as a right as if it's written in the bloody
> constitution.

The D & X is sometimes the best choice from a medical perspective.
That's between a woman and her doctor.

>>>>>>>>On
>>>>>>>>the other hand, the consequences for the planet, as well as U.S. foreign
>>>>>>>>policy, of uncontrolled fossil fuel consumption are serious enough to
>>>>>>>>warrant restrictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course some people want to deal with these issues in a market based
>>>>>>>manner, preserving personal freedom of choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meaning, if you've got enough money screw everybody else.
>>>>>
>>>>>Market based is about choice, including personal choice. If you want to
>>>>>drive around in a big pickup truck, you should pay more by paying more
>>>>>for your gasoline. We have the near perfect mechanism to regulate that,
>>>>>the price of gasoline. We can even increase and decrease taxes if we
>>>>>think that the market price isn't high enough for what we believe the
>>>>>various pressures should be. But telling people they cannot have
>>>>>something, in this case their truck, is the government defining in ways
>>>>>that are akin to what Communists tried in the Soviet Union with their
>>>>>Five Year Plans. I thought everyone understood that a managed economy
>>>>>was a failure.
>>>>
>>>>The U.S. has never tried very hard to adjust vehicle choice through gas
>>>>taxes because of the regressive nature of gasoline taxes. The fairest
>>>>way to reduce consumption is to get the auto makers to produce a lot
>>>>more high mileage cars.
>>>
>>>The fairest way is to force companies to do what you want with laws? Do
>>>you realize what you are saying? The planned economic model fails. It's
>>>not good. Let the market be unleashed!
>>
>>The market is a failure in dealing with pollution.
>
> Maybe that's not true and you've just set things up in a way that market
> features are used to facilitate effective pollution controls. Think
> about that.

Where has the market solved a pollution problem?

>>>>There are consequences for everybody if one
>>>>person buys a gas guzzler, so it is reasonable to regulate them. You
>>>>only have the freedom to swing your fists as long as they don't touch
>>>>anyone else.
>>>
>>>This is amazing: 1) No consequences for anyone important if there's an
>>>abortion. 2) End of the world for us all if someone drives around in an
>>>SUV.
>>>
>>>>>>>Other people want to take
>>>>>>>an authoritarian posture, having government define the sorts of vehicles
>>>>>>>that people can buy. Not only is the latter absurdly unrealistic, it's a
>>>>>>>poor way to deal with the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, markets are notoriously bad at dealing with externalities. Auto
>>>>>>makers could always try to serve customer wishes within the context of
>>>>>>a more fuel efficient fleet.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course they could. The issue here is whether or not the government
>>>>>should define the mpg requirements or whether or not they should be
>>>>>defined by the market in an indirect manner, through choice. The
>>>>>indirect manner I've been arguing for is the price of gasoline.
>>>>
>>>>Which hurts people who can't afford it, and has never been implemented
>>>>in a serious way by those who think like you do that the market should
>>>>be used.
>>>
>>>I know it hasn't been implemented in a serious way.
>>
>>So I'm skeptical of it happening.
>
> But you are gung ho for CAFE standards even though they haven't been
> ramped up, tried seriously, either?

They worked pretty well. Light trucks and vans should have been
included.

>>>>>>>>Or do you like funding the people who fund
>>>>>>>>terrorism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not sure what you mean. I think that the influx of oil money to the
>>>>>>>Middle East is overall of a moderating effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a decidedly minority opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? Can you even imagine what Saudi would be like if the oil
>>>>>revenues were cut? I've read in different sources that they are buying
>>>>>off the population with increased profits. So where have you read that
>>>>>cutting they off cold turkey would help? If that is the majority
>>>>>opinion, find a URL.
>>>>
>>>>The royals have to buy off the populace because the royals have money.
>>>>If even the royal family didn't have oil revenue then it wouldn't be a
>>>>problem.
>>>
>>>Who would they blame? I think they'd blame the West for cutting off its
>>>oil sop.
>>
>>Who would the Saudis blame if the world stopped buying oil? How many
>>angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> They'd blame the West, probably America. I don't know about the
> angels/pin thing. I could hazzard something on the Angels and the
> Pennant, however.

I don't think the Saudi people would turn violent if the market for oil
turned sour. Not that we're likely to find out any time soon.

>>>>Violence is only necessary to enforce wealth inequality, and
>>>>"buying off" the people is a standard method of preventing revolution in
>>>>the situation of great disparities in wealth.
>>>
>>>Don't you know that there's wealth inequality between the average dude
>>>on the street in the Middle East and the average person in the United
>>>States?
>>
>>No kidding. But there's the same or bigger difference between the
>>person in the street in sub-Saharan Africa and the U.S.
>
> Right, and they aren't as susceptible as the Arabs to the likes of bin
> Laden.

There have been more wars going on in Africa. When the U.S. gets more
deeply involved in the Nigeria/Angola/Equatorial Guinea area there will
be repercussions there for the U.S.

>>>>>>>>>>>CAFE is something supported ultimately by people who want government to make
>>>>>>>>>>>decisions for them. There has always been a choice to buy cars with
>>>>>>>>>>>better fuel economy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You don't have a choice if those cars aren't being made or are very
>>>>>>>>>>expensive. If all cars were required to get good mileage then there
>>>>>>>>>>would be inexpensive cars that got good mileage. Just because you're
>>>>>>>>>>lazy and selfish doesn't mean the gov't shouldn't require better gas
>>>>>>>>>>mileage standards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>People should be free to buy whatever vehicles they want. You views are
>>>>>>>>>clearly authoritarian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My views are clearly responsible. Your views are, strangely, along the
>>>>>>>>lines of "if it feels good, do it" - not in the bedroom, where it has no
>>>>>>>>effect on anyone else, but in the public sphere where consequences are
>>>>>>>>dire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think people should have freedom of choice when buying vehicles. I
>>>>>>>think this because people should generally be free and because people
>>>>>>>have legitimately different needs that they most understand what are.
>>>>>>>Someone who lives in the country and has to regularly deal with unplowed
>>>>>>>snow-covered roadway would need, say, an SUV. Someone who lives in the
>>>>>>>city might choose something else. It's all about choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or might choose an SUV, as impractical as that is. But that's what the
>>>>>>advertising people and the car salesmen want.
>>>>>
>>>>>They make more money on SUVs and trucks for some damn reason. But why
>>>>>should they choose the EV over the SUV? You want to make a law that
>>>>>forces people to apply for the right to buy an SUV. Do you even
>>>>>understand what you are saying? Think about the bureaucracy. OTOH, I
>>>>>just want the price of gasoline high enough, I'd prefer it with taxes
>>>>>and not just more cash exported to OPEC et al, to make people want to
>>>>>choose the EV over the SUV when it would make more sense. And I want to
>>>>>see the regulatory environment set up to encourage people to right size
>>>>>their driving by being able to inexpensively afford the second vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>They should choose an EV because of its lower environmental impact. And
>>>>it doesn't require troops to secure oil reserves.
>>>
>>>Where does the energy come from? You need to support nuclear power if
>>>you are serious about reducing oil imports. And an EV won't do
>>>everything you need, not until/unless we build those EV car trains I've
>>>been going on about. THAT would change the mix a bit, sure, but right
>>>now you need your usual car and you need your EV.
>>
>>We need wind, solar, tidal and lots and lots of conservation and
>>efficiency. I'm not sure nuclear is necessary, and it's a short-term
>>"fix" even if it is.
>
> Nuclear is a long term solution because it brings in real power that can
> be counted on. Conservation is not an answer at all. At best it can be
> used to mitigate in the short term, but better not use it now and not
> have it later when you didn't build up the nukes in time. I warned you.

Nuclear fuel won't last forever.

>>>>>>>There are things that could be done to provide impetus to better decide
>>>>>>>what is needed. I've previously discussed right-sized vehicles, which
>>>>>>>basically means choosing the car or truck that fits the specific job you
>>>>>>>are doing at the time. This likely means not buying the lowest gas
>>>>>>>mileage common denominator vehicles as is often done today but instead
>>>>>>>having two or several. This could be incentivized by letting people pay
>>>>>>>for insurance at costs defined by the most expensive to insure vehicle,
>>>>>>>or letting them piggy back an EV's insurance on another vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And where is the money for everyone to have several cars going to come
>>>>>>from? And who is preventing the insurance companies from writing such
>>>>>>policies?
>>>>>
>>>>>The already write broad form which is on the driver but I think that you
>>>>>can't get your several cars covered for damage without writing up
>>>>>policies that explicitly define and pay for each vehicle. I don't know
>>>>>that what I'm talking about is prevented due to regulations or the
>>>>>industry. All I'm saying at this point is that I think the changes in
>>>>>options are a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>It might be nice, but it's a minor part of the problem. Just buying a
>>>>car for every occasion really isn't practical for most people, and if
>>>>people tried it would drive up the cost of cars further.
>>>
>>>Not really. You know how many cars there are out there? You know many
>>>cars that work more or less fine get crushed each day?
>>
>>I think there are nearly as many cars as Americans. Maybe more. The
>>number of cars in decent running condition that are destroyed yearly has
>>to be a small, small fraction.
>
> What is "decent"?

Those that don't need frequent infusions of oil, or the like.

>>What does that have to do with the cost
>>of insurance, and the lack of marginal insurance for a second or
>>subsequent car?
>
> You claimed that the cost of the second car was prohibitive. It
> certainly isn't.

How many good cars are being destroyed?

>>>>>>>>>It is exactly high fuel costs that pressure
>>>>>>>>>people into more efficiency without taking away choice, and that's
>>>>>>>>>exactly what you complain about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That was another option that Reagan didn't take a quarter-century ago.
>>>>>>>>But in this country, with its horrible if not absent systems of mass
>>>>>>>>transportation, high fuel prices hurt the people who are least able to
>>>>>>>>afford them the most.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't think that high insurance costs hurt those same people? And by
>>>>>>>forcing them to drive one car, optimized for nothing so it's going to be
>>>>>>>the lowest common denominator, you make the cost of gas more difficult
>>>>>>>to deal with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>High insurance costs? Nice tangent. And buying two cars, so cheap!
>>>>>
>>>>>If you pay $50 a month for insurance, that's a full tank of gasoline. If
>>>>>you pay $85 for insuring two cars, that's a disincentive to have two
>>>>>cars. Given how quickly cars lose value, it's really trivial to have two
>>>>>by just owning both a few years older. That's probably not a general
>>>>>answer though because someone has to buy the new cars. Which is why we
>>>>>need to incentivize buying two.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The people who most need fuel efficient vehicles
>>>>>>>>are the people who buy used, and therefor have the least effect on the
>>>>>>>>products of the auto manufacturers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've talked about this before, that the people who buy used, even only a
>>>>>>>couple of years, aren't the people that the automakers are building for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. But they're most in need of the high mileage cars we would
>>>>>>have had if Reagan hadn't eviscerated the CAFE standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>High mileage cars exist. Why don't you go out and buy one?
>>>>
>>>>I can't afford a new car right now.
>>>
>>>You could go by an older Civic or something like that and get high
>>>mileage for pretty cheap. You don't have to drive around in a 12 mpg
>>>SUV.
>>
>>Yes. Personally, I don't need one. But there aren't that many that
>>everyone who would do better to have one could even if they had the
>>cash to buy one.
>
> A Civic or an SUV?

Me? An old Buick, it doesn't do too bad - and I don't drive a lot.

>>>>>>>>Sure, this could all be compensated
>>>>>>>>for through the tax system, but that defies experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think there are used cars out there that get good mileage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not many. Certainly not enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who prevents those cars that are available in Europe from being sold in
>>>>>the US?
>>>>
>>>>There are regulatory hurdles. Not to mention the cost of importing them.
>>>
>>>I know that, that's the point.
>>
>>But if the auto makers were required to put out high mileage fleets,
>>we'd have cars (almost) as good as Europe.
>
> They put out cars that people want. People like SUVs for some reason.

They _sell_ SUVs hard. But no one has to pay the real costs.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AirRaid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9...dollarstp5.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> High gas prices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You people haven't a clue what high gas prices are !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to pay less ? Drive a car with better mileage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot Reagan supporters backed gutting the CAFE standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CAFE could only be a failure. CAFE was an attempt to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> US car buyers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they had to buy. This doesn't work out well, ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it would have worked. The auto makers would have
>>>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>>>> high-mileage cars and Americans wouldn't have had a choice
>>>>>>>>>>>> but to buy
>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Abortion is a needed choice but not the choice of what car
>>>>>>>>>>> you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> buy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a woman has an abortion it has absolutely no effect on my
>>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you ready to define all the laws that way?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's put it this way, a woman's decision to have an abortion
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> effect anyone but herself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's debatable, but what you mean is, her decision to terminate a
>>>>>>> human life inside her doesn't affect *you*. But then, a decision
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>> woman living across town or across the continent from you to
>>>>>>> punish her
>>>>>>> child by cutting of his ear *also* doesn't really affect you, yet
>>>>>>> presumably you want the state to intervene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have laws against cutting a person's ear off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Logical fallacy: begging the question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think laws against cutting a person's ears off are a good thing and
>>>> should be enforced.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're still begging the question. You seem to revel in committing
>>> logical fallacies.
>>
>>
>> My ears could be cut off, if such was legal. I couldn't be aborted.
>> I'm not sure what your point is.
>
> My point is, you're begging the question. What's it to you or anyone
> else if some woman living far away from you with no connection to you
> cuts off her kid's ear? WHY is it illegal, sophomoric asswipe?

Because everyone in society is protected by the law against cutting
someone's ears off.

>>>>>>>> I don't see any reason to regulate that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your contorted defense of hedonism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hedonism?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I've got anything against hedonism, but most people
>>>>>> don't put surgery in that category.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't the surgery that's the issue. Nice try. It's
>>>>> consequence-free
>>>>> ****ing - hedonism - that's the issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah. You just can't bear the thought that some woman somewhere is
>>>> ****ing for fun and you're not involved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Has nothing to do with it, of course.
>>
>>
>> So, what IS your point?
>>
>>>> Why do you think that's any of
>>>> your business?
>>>
>>>
>>> The ****ing isn't. How she handles the possible consequence of
>>> pregnancy is.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because if the handling is to abort a human life, sophomoric asswipe,
> then it begins to resemble cutting off a kid's ear. It begins to be
> *not* just about her.

A fetus isn't a person. Is there any chance you'll be aborted? No,
it's entirely a vain hope on my part.

>>>> Yet if you want to pollute the atmosphere, causing acid
>>>> rain, lung disease and global warming, that's your private affair?
>>>> What
>>>> a piece of work.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, dummy. I've already told you how to handle those. Of course,
>>> the optimal amount of any of those forms of pollution is, of course,
>>> not zero, but you, being an irrational fanatic, will try to argue
>>> that it is.
>>
>>
>> Since we're not even in the ballpark of zero, that's not really an
>> option right now anyway.
>
> Nor should it be.

I see you still have trouble dealing with reality.

>> You haven't explained whose property rights
>> are violated and how they can enforce them in the real world.
>
> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts just did a pretty good job of
> explaining it to the Supreme Court. Read their filings.

The State is enforcing private property rights? Isn't that heretical or
something?

>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>> the other hand, the consequences for the planet, as well as
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. foreign
>>>>>>>>>> policy, of uncontrolled fossil fuel consumption are serious
>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>> warrant restrictions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course some people want to deal with these issues in a
>>>>>>>>> market based
>>>>>>>>> manner, preserving personal freedom of choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaning, if you've got enough money screw everybody else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, not meaning that at all. Meaning, change the cost
>>>>>>> structu make
>>>>>>> people pay the full cost of their activities; make people
>>>>>>> internalize
>>>>>>> the costs that at present are external to their calculation. It
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, it's generally opposed by people who want the "market" to
>>>>>> set
>>>>>> all prices and allocate all goods.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. Market-oriented economists strongly support it.
>>>>> It's the idea behind "carbon credits" and a variety of other
>>>>> pollution credit schemes. Free-market advocates strongly support it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carbon credits don't even come close to covering the full cost of CO2
>>>> pollution remission.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Remission"? Anyway, your unsupported assertion, if true, merely
>>> means the scheme to internalize what are now externalities isn't
>>> strict enough. It doesn't invalidate the principle. The principle
>>> is sound.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
> Yes, it is. You just don't like it, because you like government by fiat.
>
>> There would be interminable debates and law suits over
>> what the proper cost is.
>
> False. Well-functioning pollution credit schemes are working right now
> without any such debate or "law suits" [sic].

Cap and trade may work for smokestacks, it is another thing entirely to
apply to automobiles.

>>>>>> In other words, you're basically
>>>>>> asserting in the abstract that "it works."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there are functioning schemes today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of "schemes" all right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and many of them work extremely well. That just infuriates you,
>>> doesn't it? You prefer the command economy of totalitarianism.
>>
>>
>> Since you've shown no evidence,
>
> There are pollution credit trading schemes all over the US and Europe.
> You know this, too; you just like playing dumb, one of your notable
> talents.
>
>>>>>>>>> Other people want to take
>>>>>>>>> an authoritarian posture, having government define the sorts of
>>>>>>>>> vehicles
>>>>>>>>> that people can buy. Not only is the latter absurdly
>>>>>>>>> unrealistic, it's a
>>>>>>>>> poor way to deal with the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, markets are notoriously bad at dealing with externalities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they're not, but a fundamentally anti-market person like you
>>>>>>> likes
>>>>>>> to think so. What they're bad at dealing with are poorly or
>>>>>>> inadequately defined property rights. It isn't a market problem
>>>>>>> at all;
>>>>>>> it's a property rights problem, i.e., a law problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ooh, a loony Libertarian who has never studied economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I studied more economics than you could imagine.
>>>>
>>>> Ayn Rand doesn't count.
>>>
>>> UCLA.
>>>
>>>> Care to tell us how you assign property rights
>>>> to the air? Who has a right to sue and on what grounds? But, like I
>>>> said, the market really doesn't deal with pollution.
>>>
>>> But you are wrong - it deals very well with it. Pollution credits
>>> trade on active markets. They work. And that just kills you,
>>> arrogant Clintonista that you are.
>>
>> Where does it work?
>
> The US and Europe, sophomore. The Southern California Air Quality
> Management Board operates one called REgional CLean Air Incentives
> Market, or RECLAIM. It works. That just kills you, doesn't it, sophomore?

It works because it's all on factories. It won't work for cars.

> The trend is away from simple ban orders, and toward market solutions,
> and that just kills you. It's hilarious.

Your pollution kills more than your humor.

>>>>>>>> Auto makers could always try to serve customer wishes within the
>>>>>>>> context of a more fuel efficient fleet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define property rights such that consumers have an incentive to
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> economize on their use of fuel, and that fleet will exist without
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> governmental compulsion.
>>
>> <*crickets*>
>
> You really are insubstantial.

You haven't any idea how to reduce automobile pollution.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AirRaid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9...dollarstp5.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> High gas prices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You people haven't a clue what high gas prices are !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to pay less ? Drive a car with better mileage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot Reagan supporters backed gutting the CAFE standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CAFE could only be a failure. CAFE was an attempt to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US car buyers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they had to buy. This doesn't work out well, ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it would have worked. The auto makers would have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-mileage cars and Americans wouldn't have had a choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but to buy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Abortion is a needed choice but not the choice of what car
>>>>>>>>>>>> you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> buy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If a woman has an abortion it has absolutely no effect on my
>>>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you ready to define all the laws that way?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's put it this way, a woman's decision to have an abortion
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>> effect anyone but herself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's debatable, but what you mean is, her decision to terminate a
>>>>>>>> human life inside her doesn't affect *you*. But then, a
>>>>>>>> decision of a
>>>>>>>> woman living across town or across the continent from you to
>>>>>>>> punish her
>>>>>>>> child by cutting of his ear *also* doesn't really affect you, yet
>>>>>>>> presumably you want the state to intervene.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have laws against cutting a person's ear off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logical fallacy: begging the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think laws against cutting a person's ears off are a good thing and
>>>>> should be enforced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're still begging the question. You seem to revel in committing
>>>> logical fallacies.
>>>
>>>
>>> My ears could be cut off, if such was legal. I couldn't be aborted.
>>> I'm not sure what your point is.
>>
>> My point is, you're begging the question. What's it to you or anyone
>> else if some woman living far away from you with no connection to you
>> cuts off her kid's ear? WHY is it illegal, sophomoric asswipe?
>
> Because everyone in society is protected by the law against cutting
> someone's ears off.

Still begging the question, jeffy. Fetuses would be
protected by laws outlawing abortion, too.


>>>>>>>>> I don't see any reason to regulate that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your contorted defense of hedonism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hedonism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that I've got anything against hedonism, but most people
>>>>>>> don't put surgery in that category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't the surgery that's the issue. Nice try. It's
>>>>>> consequence-free
>>>>>> ****ing - hedonism - that's the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. You just can't bear the thought that some woman somewhere is
>>>>> ****ing for fun and you're not involved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has nothing to do with it, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, what IS your point?
>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that's any of
>>>>> your business?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ****ing isn't. How she handles the possible consequence of
>>>> pregnancy is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because if the handling is to abort a human life, sophomoric asswipe,
>> then it begins to resemble cutting off a kid's ear. It begins to be
>> *not* just about her.
>
> A fetus isn't a person.

Only by an arbitrary legal claim. It is a human being;
it isn't a rock or cell phone. Society can take an
interest in protecting it for exactly the same reason
it takes an interest in protecting children, or even in
protecting grotesque mutants like you.


> Is there any chance you'll be aborted?

You mean killed or in some way harmed? Yes, there is.


>>>>> Yet if you want to pollute the atmosphere, causing acid
>>>>> rain, lung disease and global warming, that's your private affair?
>>>>> What
>>>>> a piece of work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, dummy. I've already told you how to handle those. Of course,
>>>> the optimal amount of any of those forms of pollution is, of course,
>>>> not zero, but you, being an irrational fanatic, will try to argue
>>>> that it is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since we're not even in the ballpark of zero, that's not really an
>>> option right now anyway.
>>
>> Nor should it be.
>
> I see you still

No. You don't see.


>>> You haven't explained whose property rights
>>> are violated and how they can enforce them in the real world.
>>
>> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts just did a pretty good job of
>> explaining it to the Supreme Court. Read their filings.
>
> The State is enforcing private property rights? Isn't that heretical or
> something?

No. It's the state's primary function, in fact.


>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>> the other hand, the consequences for the planet, as well as
>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. foreign
>>>>>>>>>>> policy, of uncontrolled fossil fuel consumption are serious
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> warrant restrictions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course some people want to deal with these issues in a
>>>>>>>>>> market based
>>>>>>>>>> manner, preserving personal freedom of choice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning, if you've got enough money screw everybody else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, not meaning that at all. Meaning, change the cost
>>>>>>>> structu make
>>>>>>>> people pay the full cost of their activities; make people
>>>>>>>> internalize
>>>>>>>> the costs that at present are external to their calculation. It
>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet, it's generally opposed by people who want the "market"
>>>>>>> to set
>>>>>>> all prices and allocate all goods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. Market-oriented economists strongly support it.
>>>>>> It's the idea behind "carbon credits" and a variety of other
>>>>>> pollution credit schemes. Free-market advocates strongly support it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carbon credits don't even come close to covering the full cost of CO2
>>>>> pollution remission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Remission"? Anyway, your unsupported assertion, if true, merely
>>>> means the scheme to internalize what are now externalities isn't
>>>> strict enough. It doesn't invalidate the principle. The principle
>>>> is sound.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is. You just don't like it, because you like government by fiat.
>>
>>> There would be interminable debates and law suits over
>>> what the proper cost is.
>>
>> False. Well-functioning pollution credit schemes are working right
>> now without any such debate or "law suits" [sic].
>
> Cap and trade may work for smokestacks, it is another thing entirely to
> apply to automobiles.

Then you estimate the external social cost from driving
an additional mile, and you put a tax on the variable
input of fuel to try to make the driver internalize it.
Of course, government needs to have the discipline to
spend the money on those who are actually harmed by the
driving of an additional mile, rather than their usual
bleeding-heart giveaway to "deserving" HAMs, and with
petty tyrants like you in the way, that's probably not
going to happen.

The fact remains, jeffy, that the costs can be
internalized, without simply banning vehicles or
driving, and that just kills you. You're a wannabe
tyrant, jeffy, and giving orders is what you want to do.


>>>>>>> In other words, you're basically
>>>>>>> asserting in the abstract that "it works."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there are functioning schemes today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of "schemes" all right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and many of them work extremely well. That just infuriates
>>>> you, doesn't it? You prefer the command economy of totalitarianism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you've shown no evidence,
>>
>> There are pollution credit trading schemes all over the US and
>> Europe. You know this, too; you just like playing dumb, one of your
>> notable talents.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Other people want to take
>>>>>>>>>> an authoritarian posture, having government define the sorts
>>>>>>>>>> of vehicles
>>>>>>>>>> that people can buy. Not only is the latter absurdly
>>>>>>>>>> unrealistic, it's a
>>>>>>>>>> poor way to deal with the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, markets are notoriously bad at dealing with externalities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they're not, but a fundamentally anti-market person like you
>>>>>>>> likes
>>>>>>>> to think so. What they're bad at dealing with are poorly or
>>>>>>>> inadequately defined property rights. It isn't a market problem
>>>>>>>> at all;
>>>>>>>> it's a property rights problem, i.e., a law problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ooh, a loony Libertarian who has never studied economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I studied more economics than you could imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayn Rand doesn't count.
>>>>
>>>> UCLA.
>>>>
>>>>> Care to tell us how you assign property rights
>>>>> to the air? Who has a right to sue and on what grounds? But, like I
>>>>> said, the market really doesn't deal with pollution.
>>>>
>>>> But you are wrong - it deals very well with it. Pollution credits
>>>> trade on active markets. They work. And that just kills you,
>>>> arrogant Clintonista that you are.
>>>
>>> Where does it work?
>>
>> The US and Europe, sophomore. The Southern California Air Quality
>> Management Board operates one called REgional CLean Air Incentives
>> Market, or RECLAIM. It works. That just kills you, doesn't it,
>> sophomore?
>
> It works because it's all on factories. It won't work for cars.

Tax the variable input, but just enough to offset the
actual environmental harm caused; not enough to allow
petty tyrants like you to pick winners and losers in life.


>> The trend is away from simple ban orders, and toward market solutions,
>> and that just kills you. It's hilarious.
>
> Your pollution kills more than your humor.

The fact remains, jeffy, that the trend is toward
market solutions, and away from the dictatorial bans
that are precious to you. Your misery is others'
liberty and freedom to choose, and it's good.


>>>>>>>>> Auto makers could always try to serve customer wishes within
>>>>>>>>> the context of a more fuel efficient fleet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define property rights such that consumers have an incentive to
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> economize on their use of fuel, and that fleet will exist
>>>>>>>> without any
>>>>>>>> governmental compulsion.
>>>
>>> <*crickets*>
>>
>> You really are insubstantial.
>
> You haven't any idea how to reduce automobile pollution.

Of course I do, jeffy.

The real issue here is that jeffy turner, who denies
being a Clintonista, in fact shares the exact same view
that Hillary has, of being possessed of superior vision
of What Is Good For Us. Thomas Sowell famously
described this view in his book The Vision of the
Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social
Policy. Hillary infamously expressed the view in her
address to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in
2004: "We're going to take things away from you on
behalf of the common good." If Hillary wins the
democrap nomination, we'll be seeing a lot of that
quote, but you sure as hell won't be hearing much of it
from her rivals for the democrap nomination, because
they hold the same belief of themselves as The Anointed.

jeffy turner falsely believes that he and people who
think as he does do in fact have some special vision of
What Is Good For Us, and that this vision entitles him
and his claque to dictate to the rest of us. The
history of the US is generally to reject that kind of
claim, and that just kills jeffy.

More of Hillary's arrogant view of herself as being
possessed of special vision: "We are at a stage in
history in which remolding society is one of the great
challenges facing all of us in the West...we lack
meaning in our individual lives and meaning
collectively; we lack a sense that our lives are part
of some greater effort, that we are connected to one
another."

jeffy turner the Clintonista shares in this arrogance.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys
>>>>>>>>> employment and hurts poor people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LMAO !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would be better than being unenmployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could *you* live on it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The choice isn't between $3.00 an hour (or whatever wage the person
>>>>> can
>>>>> get) and some artificially pegged higher wage; the choice is between
>>>>> $3.00 an hour and ZERO dollars an hour. If the work a person does
>>>>> only
>>>>> brings in $3.00 an hour in revenue, the employer isn't going to pay
>>>>> $7.50 an hour, thereby losing $4.50 an hour (actually, much more after
>>>>> payroll taxes) for every hour the doofus works; the doofus will be
>>>>> fired.
>>>>>
>>>>> Advocates of minimum wage laws just don't get it: they destroy
>>>>> employment. If you really don't think they do, then why don't you
>>>>> advocate a $50 an hour minimum wage?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It destroys sub-poverty employment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It destroys employment, period. It keeps people who might earn some
>>> income from earning any income at all.
>>
>>
>> Of course you've got figures to back that up? I didn't think so.
>>
>> Let's see, the minimum wage went from $1.00 to $1.15 on September 3,
>> 1961. Unemployment rate,
>
>
> Bad try, sophomore. You can't look at the overall unemployment rate,
> sophomore - you have to look at the unemployment rate among people
> subject to the minimum wage. The unemployment rate among people subject
> to teh minimum wage goes up.
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

That stuff may baffle the rubes, but I'm wise. Funny how the boss's
son-in-law never gets paid only what his work is worth. But to say that
the minimum wage increases unemployment is short-sighted at best. As
more money enters the local economy, there's more demand and more jobs
will be created.

As for their ONE set of data, for 1990/91, there was an overall economic
downturn during which unemployment rose from 5.4% in April, 1990 to 6.7%
in April, 1991 and eventually 7.7% in July, 1992. Not that that was
caused by the raising of the minimum wage. Unemployment had been in the
5.2 to 5.4% range since April, 1989 - and except for one month at 5.0
and two at 5.6%, since April, 1988.

>>>> And keeps other wages from being
>>>> ratcheted down.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it puts downward pressure on wages of those who are working at or
>>> only slightly above the minimum by increasing the number of people
>>> out of work.
>>
>>
>> You really should study reality,
>
> I have. You should study some economics, *and* reality. You should
> stop trying to float irrelevant figures.

Irrelevant? Like cherry-picking data from the middle of a general
economic downturn?

>>> You really ought to study some labor economics before running your
>>> ignorant yap.
>>
>>
>> I don't feel like studying your religion. Reality is different.
>
> Thanks for admitting you prefer ignorance.

Ignorance of ignorance is no vice.

>>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It exists to help labor unions. It reduces the competition faced
>>>>> by unionized employees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You want to be an exploited worker? But even states with "right to
>>>> [exploitation]" laws have minimum wages.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are incoherent. Right to work - there is no such thing as
>>> "exploitation", in the emotionally laden sense you mean - doesn't get
>>> rid of labor unions.
>>
>>
>> A little more [snip foam]
>
> Evasion noted.

So where are your numbers comparing union membership in "right to
exploitation" and non-"rte" states?

>>> Low-wage/low-skill labor is a substitute for higher-wage/higher-skill
>>> unionized labor. Relative prices are what matter, as anyone who has
>>> studied economics - not you - knows. By raising the price of
>>> low-wage/unskilled labor relative to unionized labor, it makes the
>>> unionized labor look more attractive. If a business can hire one
>>> $22/hour union thug, or four $5/hour non-unionized high school
>>> dropouts who are as productive as the union thug, the employer will
>>> hire the four dropouts and save $2.00 per hour. But if the minimum
>>> wage laws require him to pay $7.50 for the dropouts when their labor
>>> only is worth $5.00, he'll fire all four of the dropouts and hire the
>>> union thug.
>>
>>
>> Amazing. And if he could hire 8-year-olds?
>
> Continued evasion noted.

100 jobs paying $22 an hour will create demand that will drive all sorts
of economic development. 400 jobs paying $5 an hour won't do much.
Maybe if you had gotten an education instead of an indoctrination you'd
know that. A course in economic history wouldn't hurt. Start with a
study of the laissez faire 1920s.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due
>>>>> to some misguided altruism at other's expense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The explanation is organized labor.
>>
>>
>> Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity
>
>
> No.

Well, at least you're terse in your ignorance.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Americans reacted by buying lower fuel economy trucks.
>>>>
>>>>Really? In what numbers?
>>>
>>>The same as it was years ago when I first explained the rise of SUVs
>>>after the great die off of large passenger cars in the 1980s.
>>
>>You mean I've gone years avoiding your ignorant nonsense until now?
>
> You haven't a ****ing clue about autos, you just wnat to control.

Speaking of control, how are the oil wars going?

>>>>>inexpensive cars that got good mileage have been around since there have
>>>>>been cars. That choice has always been there. The expensive, nice cars
>>>>>with good milage are the new thing. Usually it was assumed that if a
>>>>>person had money for a nice car he wouldn't care about how much fuel it
>>>>>used. Of course that has to do with changes in buyer preferences, not CAFE.
>>>>
>>>>Not so much. Fleet averages are lower than they were thirty years ago.
>>>
>>>Fleet averages are based on sales. It takes a lot of Foci (or would it
>>>be focuses?) to offset 800,000+ F series trucks and countless SUVs. If
>>>CAFE didn't come along, the large passenger car and station wagon would
>>>have never given way to the passenger truck (SUV). Fleet averages would
>>>be much better.
>>
>>The problem was leaving an out for SUVs and light trucks.
>
> The control freak always thinks the problem wasn't enough control.

Still got those bladder problems, eh?

>>Nah. There went a fact... No, over there... Wait, there it... Oops.
>
> Not my fault you're clueless.

If you only had a fact.

>>>>Those things are manipulable in the service of the greater good. It's
>>>>amazing how the religious right, which talks about absolute good, got
>>>>mixed up with you-lot who just talk about private desires.
>>>
>>>Here you go again, throwing baseless personal insults that are 100%
>>>wrong.
>>
>>I'm sorry you're insulted by your own philosophy.
>
> Where is your proof that I am part of the 'religious right'? You're
> going to have a hard time finding it. Stop being a lying jackass.

Ah, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I was just commenting
on how you're in an odd couple political alliance with them.

>>Maybe if you had facts you could make a real argument.
>
> You're the one lacking the facts. CAFE attempted to control choice and
> by doing so caused things to get worse instead of better. That's obvious
> to anyone who isn't a control freak.

Oedipal issues, eh? I guess we shouldn't have any laws because they are
just an attempt to control people.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

In article >, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>>>>The same as it was years ago when I first explained the rise of SUVs
>>>>after the great die off of large passenger cars in the 1980s.
>>>
>>>You mean I've gone years avoiding your ignorant nonsense until now?
>>
>> You haven't a ****ing clue about autos, you just wnat to control.
>

> Speaking of control, how are the oil wars going?

Damn you're a clueless asshat. I am against the oil wars. But for the oil
companies that are who the US military actually serves, they seem to be
going well.

>>>The problem was leaving an out for SUVs and light trucks.
>>
>> The control freak always thinks the problem wasn't enough control.
>
> Still got those bladder problems, eh?

See, no facts, just insult.

>>>Nah. There went a fact... No, over there... Wait, there it... Oops.

>> Not my fault you're clueless.
>
> If you only had a fact.

Fact: CAFE just about exterminated the large passenger car in the 1980s.
People responded by buying 'work' vehicles like the Bronco and Blazer as
well as pickup trucks. The big three took notice. Anyone who was paying
attention in the late 80s saw the shift.

Tightening your fist and eliminating even more choices from the market
would only send people to the next bigger vehicle class. After you've
banned everything they start refitting the old ones from junkyards. Your
control freakism can't work and will never work.

>>>>>Those things are manipulable in the service of the greater good. It's
>>>>>amazing how the religious right, which talks about absolute good, got
>>>>>mixed up with you-lot who just talk about private desires.
>>>>
>>>>Here you go again, throwing baseless personal insults that are 100%
>>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry you're insulted by your own philosophy.
>>
>> Where is your proof that I am part of the 'religious right'? You're
>> going to have a hard time finding it. Stop being a lying jackass.

> Ah, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I was just commenting
> on how you're in an odd couple political alliance with them.

I'm not, moron.

>>>Maybe if you had facts you could make a real argument.

>> You're the one lacking the facts. CAFE attempted to control choice and
>> by doing so caused things to get worse instead of better. That's obvious
>> to anyone who isn't a control freak.
>
> Oedipal issues, eh? I guess we shouldn't have any laws because they are
> just an attempt to control people.

Strawman.

Grow a clue.