Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

It's interesting to put together craig's various posts and look at the overall effect of the things he advocates.

At first, I thought this would be a long and arduous effort. Then I realized that it can be summed up quite succintly. Government knows best and if we only give them all our money, they will make all the "right" choices for us, and the world will be filled with love and peace.

In the 18th century, that was referred to as slavery.

[craigimass]

When you start off with false foundations, how can you end up at the truth?

CAFE standards, or more accurately fuel injection and the other science used to MEET THEM, is a large part of the reason why oil demand did not go through the roof. In fact, some estimate it set back "Peak Oil" (which probably just occurred) about 20 years.

Once again, you defend the completely indefensible. The MPG of our entire fleet DOUBLED within a relatively few years. Now, as a result of the same REGULATIONS, the pollution from a new car can be as little as 5% as much as those old gas guzzlers. For the math impaired, that means 1/20 as much pollution - sometimes even less.

But, PB wants us to think that 20x as many poisons in the air, along with the resulting loss of quality of life, would be a GOOD thing. Same with the fact that we would be using over DOUBLE the oil in the transportation sector.

This, my friends, is conservative logic. What you do - is you screw everything up, then you point and say "hey, everything is screwed up".

Here is one example. Instead of starting our big march toward alternative energy in the 70's as NIXON and CARTER promised, you elect Reagan who says we don't have to worry about that stuff. Gasoline is then sold for 69 cents a gallon, with the result being that people don't care about MPG or pollution. Luckily for us, there were at least some CAFE standards, although they have not improved in 20+ years.

Then, you allow loopholes so that giant Hummers and SUVs become more popular than cars - in fact, you give people tax credits for doing so. Of course, large cars and more of them creates incredible traffic and more use of oil. After that, you lower interest rates and lead people to believe that it is in their best interests to buy as big of a house as possible (SeeL McMansion) - said houses sucking up tremendous amounts of fuel.

In fact, you encourage consumption as much as possible. RVs, big powerboats, private jets - you name it, we'll encourage you to consume it.

Then, when it call comes crashing down....THEN, you notice that our importation of oil has NOT gone down. Brilliant Logic.

I think you nailed it, PB. A car that gets double or triple the MPG and causes a 95% reduction in pollution....must be a BAD THING for our economy.

[craigimass]

Luckily for the conservative movement, there are voices in the wilderness now who are clearly saying our energy use is a BIG problem.

Amazon.com: The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise: Joe Scarborough: Books

Old Morning Joe clearly says that our oil use is completely ridiculous.

It's hard to imagine that there are still folks out there who believe in pollution and higher energy use as good policy.

[wind_magic]

There is a not so well hidden strategy involved here-

It is true that by taxing the crap out of cigarettes it raised the price to the point that many people stopped smoking, it really has worked as a government policy. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it effective.

It is also true that by raising the price on gasoline less of it will be used, and that absolutely IS the plan, make no mistake about it! Even Craigimass alludes to it above when he says that lowering the price to 0.69$us/gallon increased gasoline consumption, the obvious intended implication is that raising it will do exactly the opposite. Raising prices WILL decrease gasoline usage.

But .. to what end ?

Lowering incidence of cancer is a good thing, even if I personally don't like the method, at least it does yield a real tangible benefit. Fewer people with cancer = more people, and more people = GOOD, because more people invent more things, do more work, have more ideas, we all benefit from more people (this is why I think Republicans are wrong on health care). Despite what some may think, we really haven't gotten any smarter over the past 1,000,000 years, smarts isn't why we have cell phones now, the reason we have cell phones is because a couple billion regular people are much more capable than a couple million.

But lowering the amount of gasoline and diesel usage does ... what, exactly ? What is the goal ? Fine, you lower gasoline usage, and that lowers the planets temperature by 2 degrees .. and ... ??????

Don't forget we USE gasoline and diesel for something, we aren't all just out there joy riding in convertibles. That's how food gets produced, with diesel powered tractors, that's how food ends up on grocery store shelves, that's how the next Bill Gates gets to his friends garage to build the next whatever, and how the space shuttle gets into orbit. Lowering the availability of cigarettes helps the world, lowering the availability of gasoline causes harm, we are less capable, we do less, we are less without gasoline.

So the argument then comes down to which is the greater evil - 1) having the planet warm up by 5 degrees and raise sea level 10 feet, and there are PLENTY OF PEOPLE who say that won't even happen, or 2) causing an absolutely known result of decreasing economic activity, innovation, and everything else that comes with artificially restricting the supply of something that is vital to U.S. commerce. YOU WILL cause harm by restricting the amount of gasoline that people can use, your only argument is and can be that the harm caused won't be nearly as bad as the harm we might be causing to the environment.

And here is the key to all this - since you WILL cause harm with the policy of artificially raising the price of gasoline, it becomes YOUR responsibility to prove to everyone beyond any reasonable doubt that your policy causes less harm to people than what would happen to them if they didn't do it. Not the other way around. And no B.S. scare tactics, no tricks, no secret little deals that have your intended consequences as a result ... if your policy is a sound policy, prove it, make us want to walk down that road - we're all sensible people, we aren't stupid, we'll walk down the road if we're convinced it is the right way to go.

[camaraderie]

Massboy conveniently picks the stuff he likes to highlight. So I will do the same...Scarborough also says according to the link:

• How the “candidate of change” has not only maintained but accelerated the reckless spending policies that led us to this historic economic collapse

• How Washington’s bailout culture will cripple America’s future if left unchecked

• How Barack Obama’s stimulus plan devolved into a socialist spending spree that would make FDR and LBJ shudder
*****
Finally, what Craig fails to understand is that the market will bring discipline. As the price goes up naturally from tighter supplies and increased demand (China/India) people will gravitate to the most efficient cars that CAN DO WHAT THEY NEED DONE. Also ....as the price of other alternatives becomes relatively more attractive then people will switch to electric or fuel cells etc.
In the meantime...we have huge deposits of gas and oil that can HELP us through the transition...give us capital...reduce foreign trade deficits and create jobs. These can be developed without damage to the environment.
Furthermore we can develope ALL the electric we ever will need with SAFE nuclear plants at prices that are competitive TODAY and which don't depend on undeveloped and unproven technology that requires huge subsidies.
THAT's the CONSERVATIVE answer to the energy crisis. One that WORKS.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

There is a not so well hidden strategy involved here-

It is true that by taxing the crap out of cigarettes it raised the price to the point that many people stopped smoking, it really has worked as a government policy. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it effective.
Raising prices WILL decrease gasoline usage.

But .. to what end ?

But lowering the amount of gasoline and diesel usage does ... what, exactly ? What is the goal ? Fine, you lower gasoline usage, and that lowers the planets temperature by 2 degrees .. and ... ??????

The transportation sector is the largest pollutant of our air. So that is a big part of your answer. Reducing fuel use through CAFE and other conservation vastly decreases the incidence of respiratory diseases and will also influence cancer and other maladies. In addition, don't forget that we are not the only living thing on the planet. Pollution from oil and gas degrade our air and water and land. Therefore, the less that you use, the better......

Actually, it is a win-win-win situation. There is really no down side. Our oil use fuels dictatorships throughout the world as well as degradation of our environment and quality of life (unless you like traffic jams and smog).

So, to be specific, cutting down on the use of these fuels through conservation and engineering (CAFE) results in:
1. Less cost to operate a vehicle
2. Less costs for health care
3. Higher quality of life
4. Less traffic (reasonable sized vehicles, etc.)
5. Less use of resources, from oil to steel and the resulting cleaner planet that comes from that.

No one is saying to go back to the caves or to scrap the aviation fleet. What is being said is that being "responsible stewards" of our resources and environment is a noble goal with benefits for everyone. IMHO, this outweighs the benefit of a 130 LB soccer mom driving around in a 5,000 Lb vehicle. And life, when it comes down to it, is a series of that type of choice.

Our National Security Policy has been largely built around access to Oil. This is 100% admitted by government. That in itself should give most folks a reason to conserve. It is my feeling that NOT ONE SOLDIER should have to die to protect cheap oil for me. Not one. I'd rather pay a higher price and combine my trips to the store.

As to the "real" stuff we do with our vehicles, two points.

Firstly, our driving habits are poor. People think nothing of driving to the mall just to get a Starbucks or some candy, etc.
Of course, that should be an option, but it should not be so cheap that it makes you think that perhaps you shouldn't go to the corner convenience store instead or combine your trips.

Secondly, 95% of the stuff we do in our vehicles can just as easily be done in a car that gets 30 MPG as one that gets 20.

Fact is, you are right. Pricing often determines use. That is rational economic behavior. However, we have never paid the "real price" of oil, that being the hidden prices of infrastructure, pollution, security and the many other factors that result from overuse of the resource. Instead we have passed those costs off to the future - debt, deficit or whatever you want to call it.

Again, I see absolutely little down side - in terms of long term policy and benefit - to higher CAFE standards. It would be like my local power plant asking me if I minded the fact that they just cut down pollution 95% (which they actually did when it comes to mercury). No down side....well, it might cost me another 1 or 2% in electric, but that is cheaper in the long run than poisoning my children.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Finally, what Craig fails to understand is that the market will bring discipline.
THAT's the CONSERVATIVE answer to the energy crisis. One that WORKS.

Ok, so you then consider the current crisis perfect "working".

One could say that. But the problem with your unregulated market discipline is that it works too late. It takes many years to design new cars and retool factories. Yet, as we saw last year, it only takes 3 months for the price of oil to double or triple. The two can never meet.

There is such a thing as the real world. Just as you expect someone having a child to PLAN for the next 20+ year afterward, we have to PLAN for macro issues in our economy. I have seen this quite a few times with energy - we set a policy, it actually works...then we pull the rug out from under the entire industrial base.

Cars are NOT spinach. I am with you 100% on the market dictating the cost of spinach week to week. But when it comes to health care, energy and other macro issues which require years or decade of planning, I AM FOR HAVING A PLAN.

And that is what makes a progressive different from a conservative. We believe in learning the lessons of the past and planning in such a way as to benefit all of us in the future.

[wind_magic]

Here is a post I wrote, I don't even know when, a long time ago, over on the market crash thread and it is still basically how I feel about the entire topic of oil and its use in transportation.

The reason we have so much trouble finding alternatives to oil is that oil is such an abundant and easy to use fuel, inexpensive, very available, it is just hard to beat, that is why it costs so little to purchase at the pump, and why we are so enamored with it.

Originally Posted by wind_magic

To the people who hate oil ...

Why do you want to reduce the use of oil ?

I mean, really.

Let me put it to you another way - imagine, for a moment, that instead of oil it was just called dirt, and it came out of the ground. Dirt, everyday common dirt. You just got a shovel, dug it up, put it in the car, and drove around with it.

Well - stop imagining, because oil isn't much more than dirt. It's more convenient than dirt because it's a liquid and you can pump it, but it's harder to find than dirt. It's just as natural as dirt, and is kind of a special dirt that is found in certain parts of the world.

What could possibly be easier and less expensive than simply drilling a well into the ground and pumping out fuel ? I mean you barely have to do anything to oil for it to be useful, put it through a process to separate out the different lengths of hydrocarbons, that's about it, break some of them so that you can get more of certain kinds out of the process than what would naturally fall out from a more simple refinery.

Oil is like the perfect fuel - it's easy to find, easy to transport, easy to get out of the ground, loaded with energy for it's weight, etc. So far nothing comes close to matching it.

Why would you want us to use less of it ? I mean, to what end, to save it for a rainy day ? Are you worried that we'll use it all and there won't be any left ? What is so inherently wrong with using the stuff ? If we didn't use it for fuel and producing petroleum based products it would just be another kind of dirt in the ground, like any other kind of dirt.

The only reason oil is important to us is that we have a use for it. Tomorrow maybe we'll find out that we can drive a million miles on a teaspoon of sugar, but for now oil is a very useful product that the earth affords us. What's the big deal ? I mean I'm happy we have oil - if we didn't a lot of people would probably starve to death, the stuff drives tractors, brings food to the grocery store, heats homes, what's the big deal ?

It's just dirt, a black sludgy mud. Who cares. If we didn't burn the stuff what good would it be, what possible gain is there in not using it for what it's good for ?

What is it, exactly, that you are opposed to ?

EDIT ...

You know, all of this kind of discussion reminds me of that joke from the movie "Pursuit of Happyness" where the kid tells that someone falls in the water and two boats come by and the person says "God will save me" and then he goes up to heaven and asks God why he didn't save him and God says "I sent you two boats, stupid". It's like wishing the Universe would provide us with free fuel and the Universe did that very thing, gave us the perfect fuel, all you have to do is pump the stuff out of the ground and use it, and all we do is freaking bitch and moan about it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I mean how lazy can we get ? How much easier can it be ? But No, we have to make everything difficult, pumping oil out of the ground isn't good enough, we have to complain about the fact that burning it actually BURNS IT, and creates carbon dioxide! No, not carbon monoxide, not freaking arsenic, or lead dioxide, or cynide gas, or something actually dangerous .. but carbon dioxide! The stuff that big giant green plants BREATH!! One of the safest most inert gases in existence!

[sailaway21]

MoronicinMass fails to appreciate that simply raising the miles per gallon that cars get results in increased miles being driven. The same thing happens when energy-saving light bulbs are mandated while energy costs remain static. Yeah, they've already studied that one, years ago in Iowa, I believe.

Half the town got energy efficient bulbs and the other half used the old incandescent. Energy use for the town actually went up! It makes sense if you have the least understanding of economics, which I know is a stretch for our Mass. resident.

If you have a car that get's 20 mpg and it's a thousand miles to grandma's house, it's going to cost you around two hundred bucks to drive there and back with gas at $2/gallon, for just fuel alone. If you're on a tight budget, that's a trip you don't make.

If your car get's 40 mpg, the trip cost is halved to $100 and may well happen.

Remember, the debate is not about the desirability of fuel efficient cars, it's about energy usage and pollution.

So, If you want to reduce energy consumption, with a static energy cost per unit, in this case gasoline, the best thing you can do is ensure that cars remain gas guzzlers. In the above illustration, the poor mileage car used no gas and had no emissions because the trip did not take place.

In the more efficient car the trip took place and US energy consumption and pollution increased as a result. Economists describe this in therms of marginal utility. For those in Massachusetts, here's the Wiki def of the term:
In economics, the marginal utility of a good or of a service is the utility of the specific use to which an agent would put a given increase in that good or service, or of the specific use that would be abandoned in response to a given decrease. In other words, marginal utility is the utility of the marginal use — which, on the assumption of economic rationality, would be the least urgent use of the good or service, from the best feasible combination of actions in which its use is included.[1][2] Under the mainstream assumptions, the marginal utility of a good or service is the posited quantified change in utility obtained by increasing or by decreasing use of that good or service.

And that is why CAFE and other government mandated efficiencies do not work absent market incentives. There is a virulent strain of moronics about, at epidemic proportions in some eastern states, that think legislating efficiency can solve our problems. Of course these hypocritical asses, see Al Gore's house, always think that other people's behavior, not their own, needs to be changed.

And CAFE gets you a mix of products from the manufacturer that, under it's new guidelines, will make a large seven passenger van either unavailable or so expensive you cannot afford one, regardless of your pressing need to transport seven passengers to the Save the Unborn Gay Whales convention!

While I am anti-tax in principle and practice, if you want more fuel efficient cars and trucks, raise the tax on gas and diesel. Of course, that means you'll be raising airline ticket prices, postal prices, UPS and FedEx prices, food prices, and the cost for any service you use that depends upon fossil fuels but....it will get you higher mileage cars and it will reduce fuel consumption.

So. while I'm more than willing to criticize the stupidity being spouted from Massachusetts based on it's delineated goals alone, I have chosen not to do so. Instead, I'll content myself with this explanation of why the anti-capitalist method of achieving those goals ensures that the goals will never be met.

Now there are some of us whom think that people like MindlessinMass are not all that dumb. I'm not one of them, but they're out there. And when confronted with the simple economics lesson above, and the certain knowledge that even an IQ of room temperature can understand it, they reach the conclusion that any policy that in known to be doomed to failure by it's own authors must have an ulterior motive. What motive might that be?

Well. It's all about control, the state with it's designated bureaucratic experts, controlling your life and how you live it. It's how they do it in France and most of the rest of Europe. The state "expert" comes in and describes the "problem" in scientific terms, and that's the end of any debate. See, if you control the definition of the problem, you control the definition of all actions to follow, the solution becoming irrelevant. And that results in an "us and them" society. Al Gore jets about while you drive a two cylinder Yugo with a roof rack.

So while those people think that there is an ulterior motive behind all of this that results in an enlargement of the state, and state power, with a concomitant increase in the need for bureaucratic experts and that everyone on that side of the issue knows it, I have my doubts. I think a lot of supporters of such ideas are just dupes, fellow travelers for the Marxist cause, and just plain stupid. I have ample evidence for this, merely a post or two away.

[sck5]

sailaway

one thing to remember - you cant drive a more efficient car if they dont have one for sale.

and maybe more efficient cars would result in more miles driven but the real question is whether more efficient cars result in more gasoline consumed. I am happy to have people drive all over hells half acre if that is what makes them happy. What is important for national security and the environment is to try to use less gas.