Time for International Boycott of Gas.

[Star Cannon]

I am convinced the ridiculous prices in both Europe and America are the result of profiteering.

I live in Ohio. I don't need to be more specific. People here need gas to go to work, to transport goods, to generate heat, electricity, and to manufactor goods.

If this trend keeps up, everything, I repeat EVERYTHING is going to get more and more expensive since fuel keeps getting more expensive. IT's going to lead into a bad economic crisis because people won't be able to afford things. Why? Wages aren't going to rise with prices of fuel. If everything keeps getting more expensive but wages stay the same... economic exchange cannot take place and a freakin' recession/oder depression happens.

Therefore something needs to be done. I suggust several options to say: "We are not going to put up with this CRAP!"

1. Boycott/Minimal Petrol, Gas, Fuel Usage. Carpool, walk to work, use the damn subway, or just be frugal.
2. Hunger strikes and a demand for lower fuel prices. Hey, it worked for Ghandi.
3. Over throwing the Oil Companies through legal means and letting the lobbied against alternative fuel source scientists have free reign for a period of fifty years to develop their ideas into a practical solutions
4. Develop a alternate solutions for fuel, but distribute the information freely all around the world, making a patent useless and ignore corporate laws regarding the manufactoring of fuel or whatever. Essentially, civil disobediance.
5. Large scale civil protests. Not the large chanting crowds, but a unnerving and silent mass of humans with signs sitting at the industrie's doorstep. Essentially, dead silence is needed for the effect.

The world needs to act. NOW.

Star Cannon

[Robespierre]

Obviously, any boycott cannot be universal, especially such a serious one as what you copy here.

So what happens if 20% of gasoline sales drop off? Prices go up to make up for the slack.

I have one question for you, do you suppose that cheap gasoline is a right?

[Star Cannon]

No, I don't think cheap gas is a right. IT is a necessity for keeping the economy flowing.

Edit: cheap fuel source.

I will elaborate. Say, Robespierre, you are a business owner. You transport and manufactor steel. It cost you say, 10 dollars to send one ton of steel across the state. You pay for the worker, the maintenence for the truck, and the fuel.

Fuel prices go up. You now pay 15$ to per ton. you cannot make as much profit, and cannot pay your worker as much. Your worker, in tuirn cannot buy as much. Demand for goods goes down. The economy slows. Fuel prices still sky rocket. It costs you 30$ a ton to send steel across the state. You aren't making any profit. you have to lay workers off and cut benefits. you make minial profit even so.

The laid off workers cannot find jubs because the same situation is happening all over the damned world. The masses are unemployed and a depression eventaully results. All because of rising fuel costs.

THEREFORE THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THE WORLD's PART. JETZT! NOW! NICHT SPAETER! JETZT!

[coffeezombie]

The price of oil is not going down anytime soon due to the increase in demand from the Chinese. Actually, the *real* price is probably still less than what it cost in the 1970s at the time of the oil embargo.

Basically, people are going to have to learn to develop land and transportation systems in a more environmentally conscious way, and also make wiser choices when it comes to personal transportation decisions.

[Robespierre]

Basically, people are going to have to learn to develop land and transportation systems in a more environmentally conscious way, and also make wiser choices when it comes to personal transportation decisions.

IF they don't want to pay higher oil prices.

[Star Cannon]

I still think the prices are ridiculous.

[SheepDog]

Cut back consumption, in general, if you want to have the biggest impact.

[Robespierre]

THEREFORE THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THE WORLD's PART. JETZT! NOW! NICHT SPAETER! JETZT!

Your scenario demonstrates the differences between students of austrian economics ( www.mises.org ) and those of other, less well defined schools, like neo-classical, keynesian, etc.

Also, what makes you think that a business will only lay-off workers to cut costs? How about an alternate form of transport, a price increase, a harder search for cheaper ore, coal, coke, etc?

Perhaps this is a signal to the market that a steel mill closer to market would be more profitable, if the prices go up enough, investors will follow the high prices and capital will flood the steel market, lowering the high prices and re-aligning the locations and business practices of the entire market.

[Robespierre]

I still think the prices are ridiculous.

Get into the business then. If you are correct, and the industry is acting in a profiteering way, you should be able to get some investors together with your theory, and build a refinery, or some gas-stations, or whatever infrastructur you feel would do the job. Then open your gas-stations and sell the gas with only a tiny markup, and watch the long lines of cars.

[Cupid stunt]

Erm, Im not sure of the prices here in UK but I think it costs about $50 dollars to fill up a 2litre engine, no economy problems as of yet.

[SensEye]

Star Cannon is being naive if she thinks protests/social activism will have any effect on gas prices or consumer behavior. I think it is the economically wrong approach in any event.

People will start to practice conservation when prices get high enough. Alternative energy sources will get developed when it becomes economically viable to do so.

Fossil fuels will eventually become scarce (i.e. expensive). Humanity will have to adapt sooner or later. If society is shortsighted (and it is) a sudden steep climb in fossil fuel prices with no cheaper alternatives readily available will cause a serious economic resession. Stupidity often has a cost.

[j4ck]

Erm, Im not sure of the prices here in UK but I think it costs about $50 dollars to fill up a 2litre engine, no economy problems as of yet.

I was just going to point that out.

Being American doesn't entitle us to cheaper gas than everyone else. If we want cheaper gas we will probably just have to invade oil-rich countires. Oh, wait...

[Sam172]

Cut back consumption, in general, if you want to have the biggest impact.
Walk in the rain dammit >_<

It's actually quite nice and fun. I refuse to learn how to drive a car at the moment because the prices are stupidly high, and I know I'll start driving places if I'm able to use a car.
Now I have to cycle everywhere....

I feel for the lil bikers >_<

[Architectonic]

I have one question for you, do you suppose that cheap gasoline is a right?

No.

I don't necessarily believe that current petrol prices are all that expensive either.

I suppose you are going to mention fuel levies then?

[PsiKik]

I don't believe the oil price is high due to profiteering but the fact that
demand has increased substantially worldwide e.g. China and India.
Also oil is being produced at maximum capacity, any talk of being
able to increase the supply substantially in a short space of time
is pure fiction.

People are going to have to get used to the idea of cheap oil
as a thing of the past. From about now
the price of oil will start to steadily increase, perhaps 3-5% a year.

Another important concept to familiaraize yourself with is
that oil production is reaching peak levels worldwide a.k.a 'peak oil phenomena'.

Something to boycot would be those fucking gas guzling SUV's.

[Geoff]

It is 6.05 US$ per US$ for petrol here in the Uk as at today's prices.

We manage just fine. Cars are more fuel efficient - a lot more diesels - modern and efficient.

I have a sporty car yet it still does 40mpg. And that isnt considered very good. A colleague of mine has a good diesel car that does 80mpg!

Why dont Americans actually change their consumption - stop buying stupidly oversized vehicles and utility vehicles. Why does everyone have to drive a minibus for godsake?

-Geoff

[Darren]

I am convinced the ridiculous prices in both Europe and America are the result of profiteering.



Ridiculous prices of what? Gasoline or crude oil?

If it is crude oil you are refering to, I would suggest that $55/bbl oil is just good old supply and demand biting the world on the ass. The world consumes 81 million barrels a day of the stuff.... everybody is producing flat out, consumption has outpaced discovery for decades, the Chinese are adding a million cars a year..... it would be nice for the economy if we could find the magic oil well that never runs out (that seems to be what you are wishing for), but it ain't gonna happen.

So what's the answer? Find more, use less, and develop alternatives. The high price is an excellent signal (far better than your inane suggestions) to encourage all three of those activities. So what are you complaining about?

If you are refering to gas prices, you are aware that they are wildly different in Europe and the US? Specifically, a European pays prices that would make an American commit seppaku right at the gas pump. ($5/gallon or something like that). Strangely, you don't see many 5-ton Hummers and Ford Excessive SUVs roaring around Europe slurping up the fossil fuel, just nice sensible small cars sipping it.

Can't afford to fuel your SUV anymore? Boo-hoo! :cry:

Darren

[Geoff]

Ridiculous prices of what? Gasoline or crude oil?

If it is crude oil you are refering to, I would suggest that $55/bbl oil is just good old supply and demand biting the world on the ass. The world consumes 81 million barrels a day of the stuff.... everybody is producing flat out, consumption has outpaced discovery for decades, the Chinese are adding a million cars a year..... it would be nice for the economy if we could find the magic oil well that never runs out (that seems to be what you are wishing for), but it ain't gonna happen.

So what's the answer? Find more, use less, and develop alternatives. The high price is an excellent signal (far better than your inane suggestions) to encourage all three of those activities. So what are you complaining about?

If you are refering to gas prices, you are aware that they are wildly different in Europe and the US? Specifically, a European pays prices that would make an American commit seppaku right at the gas pump. ($5/gallon or something like that). Strangely, you don't see many 5-ton Hummers and Ford Excessive SUVs roaring around Europe slurping up the fossil fuel, just nice sensible small cars sipping it.

Can't afford to fuel your SUV anymore? Boo-hoo! :cry:

Darren

If you look at the post above you'll see I just pointed out it was $6.05 a gallon here and for Americans to stop using SUVs...

-Geoff

[Architectonic]

Why dont Americans actually change their consumption - stop buying stupidly oversized vehicles and utility vehicles. Why does everyone have to drive a minibus for godsake?

Exactly...

Except you can't get all of the efficient diesel engined cars in the US or Australia. (like Lupo TDI for example)

[Darren]

Exactly...

Except you can't get all of the efficient diesel engined cars in the US or Australia. (like Lupo TDI for example)

That may change :)

[Darren]

If you look at the post above you'll see I just pointed out it was $6.05 a gallon here and for Americans to stop using SUVs...

-Geoff

Yes, no doubt my post was an ill-tempered 'dogpile' on the OP, but I really don't like reading indignant economic suggestions from Americans who think that infinite supplies of cheap gas are a God-given right, and if those infinite supplies aren't available, some evil-doers must be at fault.

[Ka.avik]

I really don't like reading indignant economic suggestions from Americans who think that infinite supplies of cheap gas are a God-given right I can appreciate your opinion, but I've read a few articles in small 'zines that demonstrate nicely how prices strictly within the states don't really follow supply and demand laws -- profiteering is clearly at work, with the refineries making most of the money, and they're willing to spend millions of dollars and years in court to obstruct businessmen who want to sell gas at a narrower profit. Willamette Week had the most recent few articles, IIRC, that I've read.

I wouldn't mind the gas prices if they were fair. Even at $6/gal, it's cheaper for me to drive my 30mpg car 40mi each way, each day then to move closer. I've done the math; everything doubles at the county line :P except gas, which goes down, because there's more visible demand here :p

[ohnoaninfp]

How can I boycott fuel, when I need to drive to campus? Unlike other people I don't live on campus and I have to drive to school.

[Robespierre]

No.

I don't necessarily believe that current petrol prices are all that expensive either.

I suppose you are going to mention fuel levies then?

Nope. I will mention the fact that no one has an obligation to provide you or anyone else with gasoline. If you want it, you have to find a way to obtain it, some way that doesn't include violence.

[Robespierre]

- a lot more diesels - modern and efficient.

In a lot of places where the most cars are, diesel cars are outlawed, NY City for example.

[Robespierre]

profiteering is clearly at work, with the refineries making most of the money, and they're willing to spend millions of dollars and years in court to obstruct businessmen who want to sell gas at a narrower profit. Willamette Week had the most recent few articles, IIRC, that I've read.

Exactly. Where ever the free-market is restricted by cartels backed by government, price manipulation will exist. Without these restrictions on entering the market and competing, billions would have been spent by investors convinced that they could undercut the gougers.

[Geoff]

In a lot of places where the most cars are, diesel cars are outlawed, NY City for example.

Do you think that harks back to when diesels *were* dirtier and less environmentally friendly?

The emissions of diesels today are low and very close to the best petrol cars. And when you take into account 50-100% better mpg then they seem like a good option now.

I have had good sporty diesels in the past and enjoyed them and the mpg. Not currently though.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

Do you think that harks back to when diesels *were* dirtier and less environmentally friendly?

Doesn't much matter what it "harks back to", the laws are absurd and insulting.


The emissions of diesels today are low and very close to the best petrol cars. And when you take into account 50-100% better mpg then they seem like a good option now.

Yeah, and who knows how much better they might be if they were widely available in the US and subject to market forces?


I have had good sporty diesels in the past and enjoyed them and the mpg. Not currently though.

I'd love to find something in the 70mpg range. I don't really give a tinker's damn about the price, I just don't like the hassle of actually getting the gas.

[Geoff]

The Sporty diesel version of the VW Golf does about 80mpg on a long distance journey. And it has quite a lot of vroom.

-Geoff

[Darren]

I can appreciate your opinion, but I've read a few articles in small 'zines that demonstrate nicely how prices strictly within the states don't really follow supply and demand laws -- profiteering is clearly at work...

I can't speak for the States, but this question has been investigated over and over and over by the Competition Bureau in Canada and they've found that there is no collusion, price gouging, etc. (Granted, these investigations may have been corrupt or flawed in some way). I would assume you have a similiar regulatory body in the states.

To me, the explanation is not far to seek... in nominal terms the indespensible main ingrediant of gasoline, crude oil, is at record highs. I mean, what does the OP expect will happen to gas prices under these circumstances??

Darren

[Ka.avik]

I would assume you have a similiar regulatory body in the states. Can't say I'd know the name of one. There are anticompetitive & anti racketeering laws, but as Micro$haft has proven, the government is easily purchasable.

Also, the price of gasoline isn't tied to oil prices -- the refineries gouge deeper when political clout lets them, and ease back when people start boycotting. Another fact revealed in the willamette week article. Prices have been at $40/bbl before -- and gas was $1.40 at the pump. not 2.40!

[Star Cannon]

Robespierre said:

"Get into the business then. If you are correct, and the industry is acting in a profiteering way, you should be able to get some investors together with your theory, and build a refinery, or some gas-stations, or whatever infrastructur you feel would do the job. Then open your gas-stations and sell the gas with only a tiny markup, and watch the long lines of cars."

I might just do that. :-D

[Darren]

Prices have been at $40/bbl before -- and gas was $1.40 at the pump. not 2.40!

Ahem, oil closed at $58 last week, not $40. (though I think it is back down to $51 or something as of today, though I'm sure it will see $58 again before it sees $40).

It would be interesting to graph crude oil against pump price.... but of course price of crude only affects supply curve for gas, while demand curve would depend on what time of year it is (ie high demand for driving or not), etc.

I'm not saying that refineries have no pricing power at all (defined as 'pricing above their marginal cost of production'). I'm sure they do, and I'm sure that it varies. But a shadowy cabal of refineries that can markup to their heart's content? I don't buy it.

[Star Cannon]

*shakes head* Either way. I'm not in for a boycott anymore, but I do recommend reduced consumption by the world.

[Pedro_The_Lion]

The extreme projections seem to see oil at $50-$100/barrel on the average soon (so probably like $60 average). Luckily I don't have a car so I can just sit and laugh at the rest of you.

[Robespierre]

The extreme projections seem to see oil at $50-$100/barrel on the average soon (so probably like $60 average). Luckily I don't have a car so I can just sit and laugh at the rest of you.

Inflation bites all, not just oil consumers.

[Dman]

I always get a kick out of people who bash SUV’s. I bought one a few years ago (Ford Expedition). It gets an average of around 13 mpg. The civic I drove years ago got somewhere in the 30s on average, for comparison.

My primary concern for buying it had nothing to do with gas. It was about safety and functionality. Gas is gas is gas. Thinking you’re doing the world a favor by driving a car that gets “good” mileage rather than an SUV is delusional. You need to stop driving entirely for starters. Then you have to convert the airline industry, the trucking industry, and the shipping industry to alternative fuels. Not to mention get every old pickup or large American car off the road. Oh, but those SUVs! They must be stopped!

In my existing lifestyle, it is much more efficient for me to drive a vehicle than any other means of transportation. As such, I chose one that was safe and practical for my family. Ever seen a Honda civic that was in a serious accident? That’s more important to me than a few miles of gas efficiency. When the market can produce the same thing as my SUV with better mileage, and/or alternative fuels that are cheaper, I will buy it. Basic economics - supply and demand, baby.

If we all drove Honda civics do you really think gas prices would never go up?

* sniff * sniff * smells like elitism to me.

[coffeezombie]

My primary concern for buying it had nothing to do with gas. It was about safety and functionality.

How is an SUV safer? They are bigger targets, less manuverable and tend to roll over in accidents. I prefer to swerve around obstacles in my little car.

If you need an SUV for all the space, by all means, get one. But if you don't need one, you are just unnecessarily using what is a finite amount of fossil fuels.

[mgb]

That's funny because SUVs are actually less safe than say a Honda Civic. They ride much higher off the ground and are more likely to roll since they have a higher center of gravity. The only incedence that an SUV would be safer is in an accident with a smaller car, which leads to a perpetual circle of people buying SUVs. If you really wanted safety you should have bought a Semi truck, the driver in those accidents never gets hurt.

I'm also fairly certain that a mini-van has better fuel economy and as much room as an SUV.

Really, you bought your SUV for vanity.

Own it. You are a vain person.

[Geoff]

13 mpg. 13 MPG! 13 MPG!!! I wouldnt drive a vehicle like that unless it were a Ferrari.

My sporty car does 40mpg combined and that is considered average at best.

Really.. I find the suggestion that using 1/4 the fuel will make no difference to the world laughable. It doesnt if just you do, but if it does if we all do!

-Geoff

[Darren]

Basic economics - supply and demand, baby.
If we all drove Honda civics do you really think gas prices would never go up?


YES, when demand goes down, price goes down. As you say, basic economics, baby.

Oh by the way, when gas hits $5 in the US and you can't afford to drive your six ton road pig anymore, make sure you come back to the board... we got some sympathy waitin' for ya right here.

Darren (proud Honda Civic driver)

[Architectonic]

My primary concern for buying it had nothing to do with gas. It was about safety and functionality.

:rofl:

Ignorance is bliss!

[Robespierre]

Really.. I find the suggestion that using 1/4 the fuel will make no difference to the world laughable. It doesnt if just you do, but if it does if we all do!

No matter how much fuel you use, either in concert with all others, or as a single gas protestor, you won't make a difference. If you and 100,000,000 of your closest friends use gas efficient cars, the demand for gas will drop, and the supply, relative to the demand, will be high, causing prices to drop considerably, which will cause others to demand the gas more, as a fuel for heating, or as a chemical component for some product, etc etc.

[Geoff]

No matter how much fuel you use, either in concert with all others, or as a single gas protestor, you won't make a difference. If you and 100,000,000 of your closest friends use gas efficient cars, the demand for gas will drop, and the supply, relative to the demand, will be high, causing prices to drop considerably, which will cause others to demand the gas more, as a fuel for heating, or as a chemical component for some product, etc etc.

Well... I'll accept that there is an element of that being the reality. But that doesnt give an excuse for apathy.

I dont buy the 'I cant make any difference, so I'll just keep fucking it up for all of us' argument.

Personally I would add $5 a gallon tax to US petrol, about $3 for diesel and give tax-free breaks to development of rival and clean technologies.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

Well... I'll accept that there is an element of that being the reality. But that doesnt give an excuse for apathy.

Apathy? Because someone isn't working towards some goal that you have arbitrarily decided upon?


I dont buy the 'I cant make any difference, so I'll just keep fucking it up for all of us' argument.

Do you buy the "you're completely wrong and I disagree with your methods and goals" argument?


Personally I would add $5 a gallon tax to US petrol, about $3 for diesel and give tax-free breaks to development of rival and clean technologies.

You're a monster. The primary result of your gas-tax would be massive unemployment. Most people drive to work, and a great many of them drive very far to work for a wage the just barely gets the bills paid. If you increase the price of gas that much, most of these people will not be able to afford to find work.

You would rob the poor, those who use cars to get to work, and give to rich, those who sit around in think-tanks and research institutes frittering away federal money on pie-in-the-sky schemes.

The source of this entire problem is public property, and a legal system that ignores pollution as a tresspass.

[Geoff]

Apathy? Because someone isn't working towards some goal that you have arbitrarily decided upon?



Do you buy the "you're completely wrong and I disagree with your methods and goals" argument?



You're a monster. The primary result of your gas-tax would be massive unemployment. Most people drive to work, and a great many of them drive very far to work for a wage the just barely gets the bills paid. If you increase the price of gas that much, most of these people will not be able to afford to find work.

You would rob the poor, those who use cars to get to work, and give to rich, those who sit around in think-tanks and research institutes frittering away federal money on pie-in-the-sky schemes.

The source of this entire problem is public property, and a legal system that ignores pollution as a tresspass.

Monster? No, realist. The taxes raised could pay for an awful lot of improvements in a rapid space of time. Give *half* the extra tax back to manufacturers on a sliding scale based upon fuel efficient or alternative fuels. Imagine how quickly the modern and efficient european (for example) diesels would be adopted? people vote with their wallets.. and quickly.

And we already have that level of fuel tax in the UK, and we have lower average income per capita, and this great collapse you talk about doesnt happen. I am talking about the utilisation of an existing tested system, not some fictional economic disaster.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the massive unemployment doesnt happen.. instead the next time people change their cars, they buy one that uses half the fuel...

-Geoff

[Ka.avik]

Personally I would add $5 a gallon tax to US petrol, about $3 for diesel[...] I could totally agree. Except for one thing. Give a politician $1 in taxes, he'll spend $1.50. Cut taxes by $1, and help reduce spending by $0.89. So in order to agree to your scheme, the bill would have incude strong language that this new source of $$$ could NOT be spent on new things. In particular I would like the greater majority of it to make some belated attepmt at paying down our seven and a half trillion dollar national debt.

That's not asking too much, is it? To pay our way out of debt, instead of raping thrid world countries for it?

[Ka.avik]

13 mpg. 13 MPG! 13 MPG!!! I wouldnt drive a vehicle like that unless it were a Ferrari. Our company vehicle gets 8. Depending on who's driving; I can nearly get 12 if I'm not in a hurry. Any station wagon would suit us. The Scion xB gets, what? Low thirties? But that's not the way people think over here.

[Hypnos]

a) I love burning through premium on my bike -- a small price to pay for such sweet song.

b) If you're in Ohio, taxes have been hiked recently:

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

[Dman]

Let’s see…where to begin…this is gonna be fun…

The “rollover” argument seems to be a real popular one against SUV’s. First off, how often does that happen? And if you notice, it’s usually the smaller SUVs involved in those types of accidents, for one thing; and more importantly it’s almost always driver error which causes the rollover in the first place (speeding, overcorrecting a swerve). So yes, if you are a poor driver, you are more likely to crash. That is true with every vehicle. The rollover argument is bunk. Compare head on crashes, side impact crashes, and rear end crashes and types of vehicles vs. rollovers.

Motorscooters and geo metros are some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. How many of you would strap your baby into one of those and feel safer than in a large SUV? I guess I’m just ignorantly blissful. Although I expected you folks to understand basic physics a little more than that. School buses have high centers of gravity and suck the gas down too, but I’m sure that kids would be safer if we had smaller sedans driving them around, no? Just think for a minute people – who is going to be hurting more – two civics crashing into each other at 40 mph or two suv’s crashing into each other at 40 mph? Hmmm….

Next – who says I won’t be able to afford driving my “road pig” when gas reaches $5 a gallon? I don’t drive it all that terribly often anyways, and even doubling the price of gas will not prevent me from driving. Would it prevent the civic driver from driving?

At any rate, why would anyone care if it costs me more to fill up than you? Are you being elitist or something? It already cost me more to buy it in the first place than it would a smaller sedan, is that supposed to make it wrong of me to buy it? I don’t understand that logic.

Also, my contention isn’t “if I can’t make a difference” I’ll f – it up for everybody. I already stated my reasons for safety and practicality (which no one seems to pick up on the practicality part – that’s funny) were of a higher priority than the mileage. Put another way, I’d rather have a higher chance of not being injured or killed in an accident than to save 10 or 20 mpg. Seems fairly logical to me, but the mob seems to be hung up on “mileage” more than their own personal safety. Talk about ignorance.

Lastly – where is the outrage against pickup trucks? They get just as poor mileage, high center of gravity, etc etc. Why has there never been any outcry about them? I know why! Holier-than-thou snobbery! See you on the road – stay out of my way if you don’t want to be crunched in your little sissy-mobiles ;)

FYI – (2005 model figures used)

Ford Expedition – 14/19
Toyota Sienna (minivan) – 19/26 mpg

Ford F150 4x4 pickup – 14/18

Honda Accord – 21/30

BMW 330 sedan – 20/30

Honda Civic – 32/38

Geo Metro (1990 model) – 46/50


Wow, what was I thinking! I knew I should have bought one of those tin cans instead.

Or at least a BMW sedan or a minivan, and saved a whopping 6 or 7 mpg.




…In particular I would like the greater majority of it to make some belated attepmt at paying down our seven and a half trillion dollar national debt.

That's not asking too much, is it? To pay our way out of debt, instead of raping thrid world countries for it?

I’m assuming by your statement that you are willing (and practicing) voluntarily contributing more than your legally obligated share of taxes in an effort to help this cause? You know you can do that at any time, right?

[Dman]

Excuse the double post, I like this argument and haven’t had it in a while so I feel compelled to continue –


How is an SUV safer? They are bigger targets, less manuverable and tend to roll over in accidents. I prefer to swerve around obstacles in my little car.

Precisely because they are “bigger”. More mass to absorb the impact of a collision. I already addressed rollovers (fallacious hype), and generally the need to swerve around obstacles is of less concern of injury than, say, someone t-boning you in an intersection. You're also more likely to be NOTICED so that people don't run into you! When I had my civic, I was nearly run into at least once a day. That virtually never happens in my big bad SUV.


I'm also fairly certain that a mini-van has better fuel economy and as much room as an SUV.

As you see in my above example, one of the safest and most popular minivans gets an astounding 5 mpg more than my vehicle. So, all other things being equal, yes that would be the best choice. However I wanted a more powerful engine and 4-wheel drive capability (yes I use 4wd several times a year).

The SUV also looked cooler. But I’m sure no one else ever factors THAT into the vehicle they choose to drive. Granted it’s not at the top of the list of priorities, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t care what my car looked like. If I’m shelling out thousands of dollars for something, I won’t the most desirable traits I can get. So yes, vanity plays a part, along with anyone else who desires a certain color, certain style, washes their car, etc.


My sporty car does 40mpg combined and that is considered average at best.

Sporty? Sounds awful vain to me! I’m sure you’re doing the world a favor by driving around in your gasoline combustion engine vehicle for “sporty” purposes.

Must be nice to not have a family and/or other large items to haul around.


YES, when demand goes down, price goes down. As you say, basic economics, baby.

I think your misunderstood remark has already been addressed.


Ignorance is bliss!

Yes! You described yourself perfectly. That explains your delusional thoughts as to why you think SUVs are less safe and that all other vehicles on the road are so much better for the environment and the world.

[SheepDog]

2004 commuter vehicle rollover stats (from us nhtsa):
http://www.safercar.gov/RollRatings.cfm

[SensEye]

The pro/con SUV argument shows the necessity of having a free market. I am ok with DMAN driving his big SUV as long as he is willing to pay the price for fuel. I am not ok, if when the price of gas gets real high, he starts whining to the government for price controls (or tax breaks because he is spending too much of his income on gas).

Personally, I believe the big=safe argument is fallacious, but I can't be bothered to get into it. It won't change anybody's behavior anyway. But I predict Dman will abandon his SUV when the operating cost gets painful enough.

I don't agree with Robsp. that conservation is ineffective. It would be true if the supply of fossil fuel was unlimited. It's partially true even though it is not, but the economic reality is that a sudden fuel shortage (short is relative here, it could be as long as several years) will severly damage the economy as it will take time to develop alternative energy systems and/or non-traditional fossil fuel reserves (oil sands and deep sea deposits for example). Conservation will help smooth the demand curve and moderate price increases while alternatives become economical to develop.

[Robespierre]

I don't agree with Robsp. that conservation is ineffective. It would be true if the supply of fossil fuel was unlimited. It's partially true even though it is not, but the economic reality is that a sudden fuel shortage (short is relative here, it could be as long as several years) will severly damage the economy as it will take time to develop alternative energy systems and/or non-traditional fossil fuel reserves (oil sands and deep sea deposits for example). Conservation will help smooth the demand curve and moderate price increases while alternatives become economical to develop.

You're right on with the rest of your post. I must disagree with your sentiments here, though. As we all know, the going price for gas at the pump does not represent the cost of getting that specific gallon of gas out of the ground, but what the station operators think is the going rate for retail gasoline, which takes into account possible future scarcity. This is also true of the oil futures and commodities markets. If oil were to suddenly become much more scarce, a shortage, the price would immediately climb. This increase in price, such as we have seen recently, will motivate more and more capital to flow into the oil industry, and will make economical, more and more extraction methods and sites.

Shortages of highly demanded commodities rarely happen on a free market, and they are not typically long lived. Shortages are often the result of price controls by governments, or other restrictions on actions that would otherwise improve the supply.

Here's a trick question. On a free market, when will the supply of oil run out?

[Architectonic]

Dman, perhaps you would like to actually prove your claims about safety and practicality? (ie, for practicality, maybe you regularly transport 8 people around, so the fuel cost per individual could perhaps be lower)
Instead of falling back on the I bought an SUV because it looks cooler arguement.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe in horses for courses, but in some ways it seems that you are defending SUVs simply because you bought one, rather than the fact that it was a more rational decision.

Motorbikes could provide a relatively safe alternative - if unobservant car and suv drivers didn't keep driving into them. ;)


When I had my civic, I was nearly run into at least once a day.

Probably by SUVs. LOL.

My personal gripe with SUVs and similar sized cars is when driving in busy traffic (in my hatchback), I can't see anything past the fat ass of the SUV. Whereas with normal cars you can see straight through the windscreens. I prefer a long line of sight when driving.


However I wanted a more powerful engine and 4-wheel drive capability (yes I use 4wd several times a year).

So you go off-roading for how many days a year?

How much does it cost to hire SUVs these days? (I have no idea..)

SUVs aren't the only cars with four wheel drive and powerful engines. (Actually, if you want performance on the road, then SUVs are generally a poorer choice.) I agree that four wheel drive is quite useful in snow/ice.


On a free market, when will the supply of oil run out?

That depends on what you mean by 'run out'. But I'd say when there is a significantly cheaper alternative available. ;)

[Robespierre]

That depends on what you mean by 'run out'. But I'd say when there is a significantly cheaper alternative available. ;)

Sort of... basically the trick is, as the real amount of un-used oil becomes scarce, prices will rise. If the supply gets low enough, the prices will rise beyond a level that most people are willing to pay, only those with the highest demand for oil will buy oil, and the supply will end up lasting forever. It's an asymptote.

[Geoff]

You're right on with the rest of your post. I must disagree with your sentiments here, though. As we all know, the going price for gas at the pump does not represent the cost of getting that specific gallon of gas out of the ground, but what the station operators think is the going rate for retail gasoline, which takes into account possible future scarcity. This is also true of the oil futures and commodities markets. If oil were to suddenly become much more scarce, a shortage, the price would immediately climb. This increase in price, such as we have seen recently, will motivate more and more capital to flow into the oil industry, and will make economical, more and more extraction methods and sites.

Shortages of highly demanded commodities rarely happen on a free market, and they are not typically long lived. Shortages are often the result of price controls by governments, or other restrictions on actions that would otherwise improve the supply.

Here's a trick question. On a free market, when will the supply of oil run out?

Well never, assuming no unexpected surprises. The price rises as the supply drops until the current price exceeds useful economic value and people stop buying it.

But that may be a simplistic view, with it being such a complex monopoly.. it could go 'wrong' if there were a very sudden surprise on supply (like if the Arab states nuked themselves).

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

But that may be a simplistic view, with it being such a complex monopoly.. it could go 'wrong' if there were a very sudden surprise on supply (like if the Arab states nuked themselves).

Something could always go "wrong". Life is not certain. And what exactly do you mean by a "complex monopoly"?

[Architectonic]

Sort of... basically the trick is, as the real amount of un-used oil becomes scarce, prices will rise. If the supply gets low enough, the prices will rise beyond a level that most people are willing to pay, only those with the highest demand for oil will buy oil, and the supply will end up lasting forever. It's an asymptote..

Naturally.. By 'run out' I meant no-longer being supplied. If significantly cheaper alternatives to oil (of all possible uses of oil) were invented tomorrow, then oil would thus already be too scarce (which leads to its relatively higher price) to be of economic use.

[Dman]

I thought we were the type of people who question conventional wisdom and take the pop-media with a grain of salt! Do you get all your info from “60 minutes” or something? Think for yourselves, use your common sense. Yeah, large SUVs aren’t safe because they rollover, and Al Queda is going to bomb shopping malls on Halloween.

I’ll say it again – most of the negative publicity around SUV safety is focused on SMALL SUVs, like Ford Explorers, Toyota 4Runners, Jeep Cherokees, etc. There is a difference, people. Those are not really much more massive than large sedans; in fact I think of those as basically tall cars. That’s why I didn’t buy one of those and never would. I’m talking about mega-SUVs like mine, and Suburbans, and Tahoe, Cadillac Escalade, etc.

Check out this website below. They still try to put down mega-SUVs, yet notice that they admit that they were the safest of all. Of course following up by saying “but minivans were real close behind them!” What a load of BS. If I want the safest vehicle, I don’t want those among the “closest” to the safest, I want those that are THE safest.

Also note how they categorize them all by “types”, rather than listing the safest vehicles regardless of type. That’s because the top are all mega-SUVs, but to admit that is “politically incorrect”.

http://www.seatbelt.com/safest_cars.html

Now, about that rollover stuff, here’s some more crow for you to eat. On the following link (from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) go to page 79 of 220 in the pdf file.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2003Final.pdf

You’ll see a chart that says “large utility – involved in 1.8% of fatal crashes”. Minivans were 4.3%. That says something by itself. Now go up to page 70 (of the pdf file, not the number on the document page itself – document page is 54). Of all crash types, 2.1% were attributed to rollovers. That’s less than those involved with hitting an animal. Furthermore, it does not explain how many of those were large SUV or small SUV.

So, I’ve included these links to distinguish between the two.

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/safety/safety.htm

this one (above) is good, because it distinguishes between “occupant deaths” and “other” deaths, meaning which vehicle the deaths occurred in. Scroll down the page a little bit & note not only how low the death rate was on larger vehicles of all types were, but particularly on how low the SUVs larger than 3500 lbs were. Once again they try to put a negative spin on it by stating that it is more likely to kill the occupants of another vehicle, but I didn’t buy my vehicle for other peoples safety, I bought it for my own family’s safety. That’s ridiculous. Your safety is your responsibility. A bus is more likely to kill other people in an accident too, should people stop taking the bus? Yeah, I’d better buy a small car so that I won’t hurt someone else if they smash into me.

Here’s just another backup.

http://www.intellichoice.com/carBuying101/TruckSize

It’s difficult to find, because most reports lump all SUVs together, small and large. Everyone is afraid to highlight the fact that the largest SUVs are far safer than the smaller ones, because it puts large SUVs in a positive light. Again not “politically correct”.

Here’s for the dopes that still think larger is not safer:

“Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones.”

Here’s another note on rollovers from the same source, note the use of the words ‘SMALL SUVS’ – not ‘ALL SUVS’

“Other vehicle design characteristics influence injury risk on the road. For example, some small SUVs and pickups are prone to rolling over.”

Source - http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm


Any questions? Any doubters? Let’s hear from those who threw in their snippy elitist comments earlier in the thread.

[Robespierre]

Naturally.. By 'run out' I meant no-longer being supplied. If significantly cheaper alternatives to oil (of all possible uses of oil) were invented tomorrow, then oil would thus already be too scarce (which leads to its relatively higher price) to be of economic use.

Just becauses uses exist, doesn't mean people wish to execute those uses. That is the fundamental logic of this system which many of you are failing to grasp. The price helps define which uses people are willing to consume oil for. As prices rose, many uses would become uneconomical, and be ignored. We could use filet mingon to make spam, but the price makes the use impractical. So as long as the supply of oil allows for the economical usage of gasoline as a fuel for internal combustion, it will continue. As the price increases, this use will no longer be economical, and the demand for oil will drop as well. Its a feedback loop, think of it in those terms.

[Dman]

Dman, perhaps you would like to actually prove your claims about safety and practicality? (ie, for practicality, maybe you regularly transport 8 people around, so the fuel cost per individual could perhaps be lower)
Instead of falling back on the I bought an SUV because it looks cooler arguement.

See above post about safety. Practicality - towing a travel trailer, family (including large dog) and supplies, including long trips and, being a homeowner, frequent hauling of large various items to and fro. Can other vehicles do these things, sure. But I weighed in all factors (safety, practicality, function, price, “looks” etc.) before I decided to buy it, and it fit the bill.


Don't get me wrong. I do believe in horses for courses, but in some ways it seems that you are defending SUVs simply because you bought one, rather than the fact that it was a more rational decision.

Nope. I totally considered all things before buying it, including mileage, negative stereotypes of SUVs, rollover statistics, etc.

Seems more like the other way around to me. You people are criticizing them based upon shallow media observations and trendy political correctness, or even ridiculous things like “they block my view when driving”.


My personal gripe with SUVs and similar sized cars is when driving in busy traffic (in my hatchback), I can't see anything past the fat ass of the SUV. Whereas with normal cars you can see straight through the windscreens. I prefer a long line of sight when driving.

Yes, we should get rid of those irritating buses and semi-trucks too, and RV’s, or anyone towing anything.


So you go off-roading for how many days a year?

On average, I’d say a couple times a year, maybe 3 or 4, I’ll drive on the beach or in the mud.


I agree that four wheel drive is quite useful in snow/ice.

Bingo.


SUVs aren't the only cars with four wheel drive and powerful engines. (Actually, if you want performance on the road, then SUVs are generally a poorer choice.)

No kidding. I said those were among the reasons I didn’t buy a minivan instead.

[Geoff]

Something could always go "wrong". Life is not certain. And what exactly do you mean by a "complex monopoly"?

The usual meaning of complex monopoly, in this case in the hands of Esso, Shell, BP etc. I am sure you dont need me to explain!

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

The usual meaning of complex monopoly, in this case in the hands of Esso, Shell, BP etc. I am sure you dont need me to explain!

Please do, I'm not getting it.

[Geoff]

In simple terms, the major players stifle the market by eliminating smaller opposition. It is virtually impossible to set up as a major oil producer. The oil companies have in the past (and no doubt continue to do so) act in anti-competitive ways.

For example, the oil cartel that bought up, and shut down most of the tram (or streetcar, if you prefer) public transport systems in the US in the 20th century.

Not a simple monopoly (Microsoft - pretty much) but a complex one (like the Major Banks, or Diamond producers, or Grocery stores (in the UK) - in this case the Oil producers.

-Geoff

[Dman]

Gee, where did all the anti-SUV folks go?

I sure got a quick response when I mentioned that I owned one, but only Architectonic has stepped up to the plate to try to back up his disdain for them (which I thoroughly destroyed ;) ). I'm assuming the others realized they were speaking out of their arses?

Maybe I'm just not being patient enough.

[Robespierre]

In simple terms, the major players stifle the market by eliminating smaller opposition.

Eliminating competition how? If you mean by government intervention, you may have a case for monopoly. Otherwise, you are describing the free market.


It is virtually impossible to set up as a major oil producer. The oil companies have in the past (and no doubt continue to do so) act in anti-competitive ways.

Only possible through governments.


For example, the oil cartel that bought up, and shut down most of the tram (or streetcar, if you prefer) public transport systems in the US in the 20th century.

You're going to have to provide some sort of evidence, or at least some names for that one.

Even if that did happen, how would such a practice be anything BUT competitive? Aggression is anti-competitive, had oil companies sent armies to destroy competitor's pumps and wells and such, that would be anti-compeititve.


Not a simple monopoly (Microsoft - pretty much) but a complex one (like the Major Banks, or Diamond producers, or Grocery stores (in the UK) - in this case the Oil producers.

You've got to explain what's up with grocery stores in the UK, I don't know anything about how they operate.

Microsoft is in no way a monopoly. A monopolised market is one that competitors cannot enter by law or violence. The British East India Company was a Tea monopoly because they were the only group allowed to import tea to the UK.

[Geoff]

Eliminating competition how? If you mean by government intervention, you may have a case for monopoly. Otherwise, you are describing the free market.



Only possible through governments.



You're going to have to provide some sort of evidence, or at least some names for that one.

Even if that did happen, how would such a practice be anything BUT competitive? Aggression is anti-competitive, had oil companies sent armies to destroy competitor's pumps and wells and such, that would be anti-compeititve.



You've got to explain what's up with grocery stores in the UK, I don't know anything about how they operate.

Microsoft is in no way a monopoly. A monopolised market is one that competitors cannot enter by law or violence. The British East India Company was a Tea monopoly because they were the only group allowed to import tea to the UK.


There is some good stuff on this on http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/XMODERN2.HTM
(after a random search).
search for 'cartel' on the page if you want to skip reading it all.
Basically though (I have read up on this a few times in different places)...
Oil and Motor industry companies created a fake cartel that bought up streetcar networks, allegedly to own, then closed them ruthlessly. To replace with buses (and then cars).
It worked. And the fine they got (eventually) when found guilty was pitifully small.

I seem to be having to explain the concept of a complex monopoly when it is a well known economic concept. Do you not accept that the idea exists.. or just that it doesnt exist in the oil industry? (that would make it easier for me to understand what you need me to clarify!)

A monopoly does not need (in all cases) Government intervention, a laissez faire government can also allow one to form (like Microsoft) by not taking action if (or at all) until the Company concerned is big enough to destroy the free market. Someone good comes along? (Netscape)... destroy it with your control of market share. Keep going until you are too big to be challenged.

-Geoff

[Dman]

Still no refute from the anti-SUV gang to my earlier points? Bunch of pompous wind-bags with no supporting evidence, as I suspected!

I mean that in a kind, respectful way, much like the kind, respectful way those of you responded to my first post on the subject.

I wish everyone irl would actually think things through before they bash SUV owners. And the SUV owners get blamed for being ignorant - what irony.

[Hypnos]

Dman: is it worse to be hated or ignored? ;)

My only beef with SUVs is that people don't know how to drive as it is; SUVs, due to their size, less forgiving handling and larger blindspots, make bad drivers worse. As a motorcyclist, this is an even greater concern to me.

[Geoff]

Still no refute from the anti-SUV gang to my earlier points? Bunch of pompous wind-bags with no supporting evidence, as I suspected!

I mean that in a kind, respectful way, much like the kind, respectful way those of you responded to my first post on the subject.

I wish everyone irl would actually think things through before they bash SUV owners. And the SUV owners get blamed for being ignorant - what irony.

If it helps, I dont bash SUVs. It is vehicles with that level of environmental suckage. So I dont like pickups and minivans either with similar issues!

-Geoff

[Architectonic]

I think you mistook my intentions - I simply wanted you to make some legitimate points to argue your case. Secondly, some people have other things to do than post on INTP Central - like sleeping. ;)

Secondly, you are taking things too personally. I am arguing against not just large SUVs, but small SUVs, pickups, minivans etc


http://www.seatbelt.com/safest_cars.html

On this site, it shows that cars had higher crash ratings than the heavy SUVs. If the extra mass made the vehicle safer, it would have been factored into the crash rating in the first place.


Now, about that rollover stuff, here’s some more crow for you to eat. On the following link (from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) go to page 79 of 220 in the pdf file.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2003Final.pdf

You’ll see a chart that says “large utility – involved in 1.8% of fatal crashes”. Minivans were 4.3%. That says something by itself. Now go up to page 70 (of the pdf file, not the number on the document page itself – document page is 54). Of all crash types, 2.1% were attributed to rollovers. That’s less than those involved with hitting an animal. Furthermore, it does not explain how many of those were large SUV or small SUV.

5 door/4 door hatchbacks fatalities were only 0.3%. I don't care that SUVs have less fatalities than Minivans, because I don't like minivans either.
That link also stated that compared with other vehicles, utility vehicles experienced the highest rollover rates: 35.7% in fatal crashes, 10.3 percent in injury crashes. Once you factor in the relative totals of each type of car on the road, that is quite significant.

Secondly, are those statistics adjusted to account for the fact that there are uneven amounts of each vehicle type on the road?


Yeah, I’d better buy a small car so that I won’t hurt someone else if they smash into me.

So how would you feel if you were involved in a car accident where an occupant of the other vehicle died? (which could have been avoided if your car was of a similar mass?)



http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm


From that site: "Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes."

Are you getting the point? In general, the extra mass only helps when the mass of the vehicles are dissimilar.

Vehicle size can make a difference - but larger vehicles (including SUVs, minivans, pickups which have a larger mass as a consequence) are generally less maneuverable and have a longer braking distance (not to mention increased blind spots etc in some types of vehicle) - so they are unfortunately more likely to get into trouble in the first place.


See above post about safety. Practicality - towing a travel trailer, family (including large dog) and supplies, including long trips and, being a homeowner, frequent hauling of large various items to and fro. Can other vehicles do these things, sure. But I weighed in all factors (safety, practicality, function, price, “looks” etc.) before I decided to buy it, and it fit the bill.

How many family members? How large are these items/supplies? How often do you move these supples/items? How often do you use the trailer and how heavy is it?
I have done all of those things and I have never driven an SUV.

How much money would you save per year if your vehicle got, say 60mpg rather than what it does now? How much money would you have saved if you bought a smaller vehicle? (not an SUV).

Can your SUV move around 4'x8' sheets of wood? (No real point, I'm just curious)



Seems more like the other way around to me. You people are criticizing them based upon shallow media observations and trendy political correctness, or even ridiculous things like “they block my view when driving”.

In your opinion.



Yes, we should get rid of those irritating buses and semi-trucks too, and RV’s, or anyone towing anything.

Ultimately, if safety is the concern, then yes this is a definite possibility. In the mean time, a dual system, such as the o-bahn (where I live) can be a good idea to keep busses off the road when it can be avoided.


On average, I’d say a couple times a year, maybe 3 or 4, I’ll drive on the beach or in the mud.

So is it really a sensible idea to drive an SUV around all the time when you only use it for its main practical use only 3-4 times a year?

[Pedro_The_Lion]

Inflation bites all, not just oil consumers.

I don't really buy much but true nevertheless.

[Ka.avik]

So is it really a sensible idea to drive an SUV around all the time when you only use it for its main practical use only 3-4 times a year? Likewise. I plan on getting a diesel 1-ton dually pickup. I have uses for it, as a rural homeowner, and a horse owner. I also plan on parking it and riding a small bike most of the time.

9/10ths of what I see SUVs used for can be done with any station wagon. VW TDI models get nearly 50mpg doing, and have the handling to avoid an accident -- safety in an accident is only an issue if you can't dodge the problem. So I consider all sub-compact cars to be an order of magnitude safer than SUVs because they're so incredibly undrivable.

you're welcome to your six-ton road pig. I'm welcome to sneer at you on the freeway.

[Dman]

I think you mistook my intentions - I simply wanted you to make some legitimate points to argue your case. Secondly, some people have other things to do than post on INTP Central - like sleeping. ;)

Secondly, you are taking things too personally. I am arguing against not just large SUVs, but small SUVs, pickups, minivans etc

I take it personal when someone accuses me of being ignorant. And I find it interesting that you are opposed to virtually all passenger vehicles except cars…have you really thought that through?


On this site, it shows that cars had higher crash ratings than the heavy SUVs. If the extra mass made the vehicle safer, it would have been factored into the crash rating in the first place.

That’s because they automatically penalize SUVs for rollovers, regardless of the facts. By definition SUVs cannot get perfect ratings because they ding them for rollovers, which is fallacious as I already addressed.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that ratings are less useful than actual statistics – ratings can be arbitrary and subjective whereas statistics speak for themselves (provided you understand the details of the statistics). That was sort of my point – people need to read between the lines.



5 door/4 door hatchbacks fatalities were only 0.3%. I don't care that SUVs have less fatalities than Minivans, because I don't like minivans either.
That link also stated that compared with other vehicles, utility vehicles experienced the highest rollover rates: 35.7% in fatal crashes, 10.3 percent in injury crashes. Once you factor in the relative totals of each type of car on the road, that is quite significant.

That’s precisely why I mentioned that it did not distinguish between large and small SUVs when mentioning rollover rates. Again, remember physics – smaller SUVs have more narrow wheelbases but are almost as high center of gravity as large SUVs. This makes the smaller SUVs more prone to rollovers than large ones. There are also more small SUVs on the road than large.

At any rate, taking into account that 2.1% of fatalities are in large SUVs, and 35.7% of ALL SUV rollovers result in death, of which it is reasonable to assume most of the rollovers are small SUVs, you are left with a very small fraction of deaths attributable to large SUV rollovers. You would never know this based upon all the hype about rollover though, you’d think almost every SUV rolled over and killed people.





So how would you feel if you were involved in a car accident where an occupant of the other vehicle died? (which could have been avoided if your car was of a similar mass?)

I’d feel awful, of course. But I wouldn’t wish that I had been in a smaller car where we could all be dead. I’d feel bad if I was on a school bus and it was in an accident that killed someone too, which could have been avoided if people didn’t take the bus and drove small cars or walked instead.

Being a non-large vehicle owner, I would demand safer cars that were better able to handle large impacts. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do have a smaller sedan as well and I bought one of the safest cars in its class that I could afford.


From that site: "Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes."

Are you getting the point? In general, the extra mass only helps when the mass of the vehicles are dissimilar.

The question is are YOU getting the point? Apparently not, although I’ve mentioned it over and over. It’s basic physics. Regardless of the dissimilarity of the vehicle weights, the larger mass is still safer. If two large SUVs of equal mass crash into each other, you are still safer than if two small cars crashed into each other. There is simply more mass (and room) to absorb the impact.

Maybe you’re confused by “single-vehicle crashes”. What they mean by a “single-vehicle” crash is if you run into a light pole or something, an accident that does not involve anyone but you. The reason they say it MAY not offer good protection in POORLY DESIGNED heavy vehicles is because of the risk of rollovers in single-vehicle accidents (as in a bad driver in a small SUV who is speeding and turns too sharp, thus rolling over).


Vehicle size can make a difference - but larger vehicles (including SUVs, minivans, pickups which have a larger mass as a consequence) are generally less maneuverable and have a longer braking distance (not to mention increased blind spots etc in some types of vehicle) - so they are unfortunately more likely to get into trouble in the first place.

That is a faulty argument. It assumes the driver is a bad driver, in which any vehicle is likely to get into trouble, not just large ones. You simply compensate for the longer braking distance by staying further behind vehicles than if you were in a small car. You also become aware of any blind spots and either mitigate it by attaching more mirrors, or any other host of ways to overcome any blind spot that any vehicle may have. I used to drive delivery trucks where blind spots were everywhere. I never got into an accident because I was aware of the blind spots and I adjusted my driving style accordingly. They are only more likely to get into trouble if the person driving them is not a responsible driver, which again can be said about any vehicle. Using this argument, everyone should drive motorcycles, which have much better braking ability and virtually no blind spots as compared to cars.




How many family members? How large are these items/supplies? How often do you move these supples/items? How often do you use the trailer and how heavy is it?
I have done all of those things and I have never driven an SUV.

None of that is important for you to know. It is only significant to me, and by my judgment these factors were part of my reasoning to buy a large SUV. Personally I would find driving a sedan with a family, pet(s), cargo, and towing a heavy trailer rather risky and more dangerous on the road than a large SUV doing the same thing, regardless of if it could be done or not. It is also much easier and more convenient. Yes, in most circumstances an SUV is not required, but again, it was among many reasons for choosing one. It’s the same thing with 4WD. I do not need a 4 wheel drive vehicle to drive in snow or ice or mud either, but I prefer it, it’s more convenient, and I feel it is safer.


How much money would you save per year if your vehicle got, say 60mpg rather than what it does now? How much money would you have saved if you bought a smaller vehicle? (not an SUV).

I don’t know. Likely I would save more with a more fuel efficient vehicle. But I didn’t base my decision to buy it solely on monetary savings. If that were the only criteria, I wouldn’t have bought any vehicle, I’d have bought a bicycle.


Can your SUV move around 4'x8' sheets of wood? (No real point, I'm just curious)

Yes.





So is it really a sensible idea to drive an SUV around all the time when you only use it for its main practical use only 3-4 times a year?

That statement is just plain silly.

First, who said I consider it’s main practical use as only when driving in the mud and sand, and secondly, who said I drive my SUV around all the time?

[Dman]

Likewise. I plan on getting a diesel 1-ton dually pickup. I have uses for it, as a rural homeowner, and a horse owner. I also plan on parking it and riding a small bike most of the time.

See above posts. Architectonic evidently sneers at people like you who drive large pickups as well. You're in the same category as me, hot shot. Just because you think your reasons are more important for buying a gas hog than mine or anyone else's signifies to me that you are an ignorant snob. Why do you have horses anyways? Is it worth it, considering you feel it necessary to buy a gas-guzzling death machine? Are your horses more important than another human life, or our country’s oil dependency, or the environment?


9/10ths of what I see SUVs used for can be done with any station wagon. VW TDI models get nearly 50mpg doing, and have the handling to avoid an accident -- safety in an accident is only an issue if you can't dodge the problem. So I consider all sub-compact cars to be an order of magnitude safer than SUVs because they're so incredibly undrivable.

There’s so much wrong with those statements that I don’t know where to start and don’t have the energy to address them all. Can that VW TDI avoid a car instantaneously swerving head-on into it at 60 mph? Or blasting through an intersection on a red light? Or another car passing on a corner or hill? Or rear-ending it while it’s sitting at a stop light? Or suddenly sideswiping it? Are those all rare occurrences in severe accidents? Not where I’m from. The accidents you refer to only address those that you can see coming and have time to react to. SUVs are only “undrivable” if the person at the wheel is incompetent, and, once again that can be the case with any vehicle.


you're welcome to your six-ton road pig. I'm welcome to sneer at you on the freeway.

ok, you’re welcome to your 1-ton dually road pig hick-mobile for your precious horses (as I’m sure that’s the ONLY time you will ever drive it). I'm welcome to sneer at you on the freeway like some dumb redneck who doesn’t have a clue!

[Ka.avik]

First, who said I consider it’s main practical use as only when driving in the mud and sand, and secondly, who said I drive my SUV around all the time? That you use the SUV as your primary vehicle has been the assumption all around, all along. You're the one getting all defensive over a vehicle that, by your own admission does things which can be done by some other vehicle design.

At least, that's been the assumption I've been operating on, for the above reason. Oh, update: I just bought my 1-ton. Not a dually, but it is a diesel. Diesel can be manufactured on your own land -- gasoline not so easily, if at all....Not that I expect to start farming rapeseed on my steep clay hillside. But I could :p

[Robespierre]

A monopoly does not need (in all cases) Government intervention, a laissez faire government can also allow one to form (like Microsoft) by not taking action if (or at all) until the Company concerned is big enough to destroy the free market. Someone good comes along? (Netscape)... destroy it with your control of market share. Keep going until you are too big to be challenged.

Laisse Fair IS the free market. How can it destroy the free market?

The point is, unless people are forced by threat of violence to purchase something, or prevented from competing, by threat of violence, there is no monopoly. In a free market there will never be the oportunity to execute monopolistic pricing. Once the price rising high enough, people will either simply stop purchasing the product, or find some other way to solve their problem. Also, when the markup is very high, the potential profit for a second firm entering the market and undercutting the first is huge.

[Geoff]

Sorry, Robespierre. If you dont accept monopolies arise with a laissez faire Government, then I am not going to teach you basic economics! It'd take a series of lectures.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

Sorry, Robespierre. If you dont accept monopolies arise with a laissez faire Government, then I am not going to teach you basic economics! It'd take a series of lectures.

Explain how a government grant to be the sole supplier of a good can come about with no government or a laisse faire government.

[Geoff]

Explain how a government grant to be the sole supplier of a good can come about with no government or a laisse faire government.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Definition of a monopoly :

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).

Note the "or" test above.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Definition of a monopoly :

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).

Note the "or" test above.

Friedman is incorrect. Although he gets closer thn most "economists". I would define monopoly as the coercive control of a market which results in one supplier of a good or service in the market.

A monopoly isn't something that can happen without coercion, and is right out when considering free markets, as the very definition of a free market is trade without coercion.

[Ka.avik]

Friedman is incorrect. Although he gets closer thn most "economists". You do realize that no one else is willing to use your definition of monopoly? Microsoft is a monopoly. OPEC is a monopoly. Yes, technically about 5% of the market isn't them, but that's not enough to for the market to behave as if there was competition.

The reason economists use the definition of monopoly that they do, is that's how supposedly free markets work. Greed and narrowmindedness from both supplier and demander interact to result in an uncompetitive market. Human nature being what it is, any unregulated market, given enough time, will result in monopolies. Which will survive until, as with all the great civilizations, they rot from within -- becoming too complacent to notice that they have competition that needs to be snatched up. Or, as is happening with M$, they got too heavy handed in a market they couldn't buy up. Even with linux, and the associated interest in the BSDs, M$ has the desktop market sewn up. Not because they have a better product -- they don't. Not because they're cheaper -- they're not. But because they coerce vendors to never consider and form of mix-n-match.

Coercion can be more than just physical force. When you're an 800lb gorilla, as M$ is, refusing to sell to customers because they might also be buying from the 'competition' is anti-competitive. I understand you don't see it that way, I just want you to understand that no one agrees with you.

[coffeezombie]

If no new firm can enter a market and be profitable, there will be a monopoly even without coercion.

[Robespierre]

If no new firm can enter a market and be profitable, there will be a monopoly even without coercion.

So how do you define a monopoly then? Does it include the ability to increase prices as a result of being the sole supplier?

[coffeezombie]

So how do you define a monopoly then? Does it include the ability to increase prices as a result of being the sole supplier?

Well, from what I learned in economics, I think monopolies have to in order to gain the most profit. I was assuming you meant coercion in the sense that a monopoly could only exist if one of the companies coercively drove out competitors.

[Robespierre]

You do realize that no one else is willing to use your definition of monopoly?

That's not true at all. www.mises.org

Even if it were true that no one else was using my definition, what bearing does that have on the use of my definition in describing reality?



Microsoft is a monopoly.

How so? Can no one compete with them? Does apple, linux, et al simply not exist?



OPEC is a monopoly. Yes, technically about 5% of the market isn't them, but that's not enough to for the market to behave as if there was competition.

But there IS competition, and there always will be. Between oil and corn substitutes, between oil and electricity, between oil and natural gas, etc etc etc.



The reason economists use the definition of monopoly that they do, is that's how supposedly free markets work. Greed and narrowmindedness from both supplier and demander interact to result in an uncompetitive market.

Uncompetitive? Define that. Also explain how greed and narrow mindedness, a value judgement which you make, and which may not be shared by all others, come into the equation. Do you suppose that people EVER act in a manner that doesn't further their own self-interest as they see it?


Human nature being what it is, any unregulated market, given enough time, will result in monopolies.

I guess you should have a lot of examples from before 1890 in america, right? Since that is when the sherman anti-trust bill was passed. I think you will find that all real monopolies form as a direct result of government "regulation". In all cases, regulators, whether they say it publically or not, are acting in their own best interests. Because of the nature of politics, those with the most money and political power use these regulators to gain an advantage in their market.


Which will survive until, as with all the great civilizations, they rot from within -- becoming too complacent to notice that they have competition that needs to be snatched up.

So now individual businesses are like entire civilizations? Expand on that, I'd like to see where you're going.


Or, as is happening with M$, they got too heavy handed in a market they couldn't buy up. Even with linux, and the associated interest in the BSDs, M$ has the desktop market sewn up. Not because they have a better product -- they don't.

Here we see the typical arrogance of the socialist. You have decided that there is ONE answer to the question "which desktop is best", and you wish to IMPOSE that decision upon all the rest of us. That is the beauty of markets, and what scares so many INTp's about them, people are free to pick something for whatever criteria they choose, even if they base their decision on something the socialist/intp/regulator/etc doesn't approve of, like ease of use, ability to get help easily, etc etc.


Not because they're cheaper -- they're not. But because they coerce vendors to never consider and form of mix-n-match.

How do they coerce vendors? Do they send out goons with guns? Of course not, vendors are free to choose to sell alternate products if they wish. If people don't want Microsoft on their PC, who is FORCING them to buy it? Should there be a law that forces ford to offer chevy engines in their trucks?


Coercion can be more than just physical force.

I'd define coercion as physical force, or the threat of physical force.


When you're an 800lb gorilla, as M$ is, refusing to sell to customers because they might also be buying from the 'competition' is anti-competitive.

Again, how can such an action be defined as "anti-competitive", don't you really mean "too competitive"?


I understand you don't see it that way, I just want you to understand that no one agrees with you.

I understand that YOU don't agree with me. I also understand by the way you frame your response that haven't spent much time thinking or reading about the subject, so I forgive you for your uninformed position and rudeness.

[Robespierre]

Well, from what I learned in economics, I think monopolies have to in order to gain the most profit. I was assuming you meant coercion in the sense that a monopoly could only exist if one of the companies coercively drove out competitors.

Well, as you defined it before, a monoply might be a company in a market where no other company can enter and make a profit. I would start out by saying that this is almost never the case, and technology and a better understanding of people's tastes can almost always lead to an inroad in any market.

However, the market itself sees to it that no single supplier can take advantage of his status, without inviting competition. If there is a sole supplier of a certain good, he can only raise his prices so high, before it becomes profitable for a new company to enter the market and undercut his price. Capital markets enable this process by providing quick resources to investors who monitor prices and demand.

[Dman]

Alright, alright, I’ll lay off the arrogance and defensive attitude. Just wanted to give back a little bit of what I receive. I primarily wanted to make everyone think a little bit before jumping on the anti-SUV bandwagon.

I drive it as little as possible. It is obviously not sensible to drive it short distances on residential streets regularly by myself. My wife and I regularly carpool to work (low-speed surface streets – we both work within 5 miles of home) in our mid-size sedan and save the SUV for longer trips (such as on the interstates) or any other reasons that I’ve previously outlined. Rarely do I drive around in my SUV when it’s just me, not needed for 4WD (snow or ice), not towing or hauling anything, or driving a significant distance on higher speed roads. I feel safe enough in my car on the lower speed residential roads I drive regularly and thus do not feel compelled to drive the less efficient SUV.

Regardless, yes I do feel defensive at the times I am driving it, particularly when there are so many uninformed judgmental people out there who assume I am ignorant (based on their own distorted perceptions) because of the vehicle I choose to drive for my own personal reasons. To be fair, though, I am guilty of the same type of thinking – whenever I see a subcompact car, with a baby seat in it, flying down the highway.



As for this monopoly business, you guys are gonna have a tough time arguing against Robespierre by coming at it from those angles.

Even if a firm is not acting in a coercive manner, it still can have the effect of stifling competition and innovation. Although if it gets too out of control, it can be argued that competition will indeed come into play and provide alternate solutions.

The problem is that a company behaving as what one could say was “monopolisitic”, as in dominating a particular market, is generally not perceived as the most efficient due to its practices. The argument is whether or not this is true market efficiency or not – by saying that there is no outside interference, one could argue that the “monopolistic” dominating behavior is by definition a natural market occurrence and should be left alone. The other aspect is that this is a flaw in a natural market system that must have outside interference to correct in order to make it a sustainable and viable system.

[Geoff]

On the monopolies point (to turn the govt intervention aspect on its head).

What about this...

M$ make an offer so large and is accepted, for all of the next 9 software firms. Apple etc etc. What should the govt do?

In the UK (and there is something in the US) deals with a public interest like this have to be cleared by the 'monopolies and mergers commission'. This prevented the biggest grocery chain from buying one a little further down the list because of the creation of a virtual monopoly.

Similarly, the UK commission prevented the merger of two very big banks because of the danger to the free market if two many customers are 'controlled' by one corporate entity.

Do people agree that this is positive action by the Govt, and that a laissez faire attitude would have allowed an uncompetitive monopoly to arise (even if to some people's definition it is merely an uncompetitive environment - I dont want to get too hung up on semantics here).

I am just interested in how people view govt intervention in these situations. I think it is a good idea to see a govt act positively to prevent a monopoly forming, but recognise it is very vulnerable to political interests and corruption.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

What about this...

M$ make an offer so large and is accepted, for all of the next 9 software firms. Apple etc etc. What should the govt do?

Nothing at all.


In the UK (and there is something in the US) deals with a public interest like this have to be cleared by the 'monopolies and mergers commission'. This prevented the biggest grocery chain from buying one a little further down the list because of the creation of a virtual monopoly.

The Sherman Anti-Trust bill set up a similar commission in the US. The most obvious flaw in the theory of anti-trust is the reliance upon "public interest", which I propose is something that simply doesn't exist. There are only individual interests, anything termed as a "public interest" is merely something that an individual has determined as desireable by himself, but passes it off as something higher.


Similarly, the UK commission prevented the merger of two very big banks because of the danger to the free market if two many customers are 'controlled' by one corporate entity.

Again, some arguments as in the microsoft case, what "control"? Who are they forcing to do business with them? If people don't find value in the services provided by the new, merged bank, they will respond by pulling their money out. Regulating such mergers is merely a tool that politically connected industrialists and labor kingpins use to control the market in their favor, at the expense of individual liberty.


Do people agree that this is positive action by the Govt, and that a laissez faire attitude would have allowed an uncompetitive monopoly to arise (even if to some people's definition it is merely an uncompetitive environment - I dont want to get too hung up on semantics here).

I'm certain that plenty people agree, you among them. The problem is, none of those people have any right to manage the affairs of private firms not owned by them. The majority of people in the US once thought that inter-racial marriages were bad, and laws were passed banning them. In both cases, the "public", another word for torch-wielding-mob, has no place in the discussion.


I am just interested in how people view govt intervention in these situations.

I suspect that people view intervention as good when it seems to suit their ends, and bad when it seems to oppose their ends. People are generally upset when governments act to limit free speech, as they easily imagine themselves being victimized by such actions. However, after years of public school indoctrination, at least in the US, most people have been brought up to believe that all businesses are evil robber barons who must be controlled at every turn. My belief is that ALL interventions are a moral wrong. Property defines where we have a right to act freely, and if a company is owned by some individual, or group of individuals, they should be free to utilize their property as they see fit, without the approval of some commission.


I think it is a good idea to see a govt act positively to prevent a monopoly forming, but recognise it is very vulnerable to political interests and corruption.

At least we have some common ground here, the recognition of likely corruption. We differ in basic philosophy, as you want the government to protect the "public interest", where-as I don't believe such a thing exists, and that each individual is qualified to recognize and pursue his own best interests in freedom from oversight.

[Robespierre]

The other aspect is that this is a flaw in a natural market system that must have outside interference to correct in order to make it a sustainable and viable system.

In what sense? What must be "corrected"?

[Geoff]

Nothing at all.



The Sherman Anti-Trust bill set up a similar commission in the US. The most obvious flaw in the theory of anti-trust is the reliance upon "public interest", which I propose is something that simply doesn't exist. There are only individual interests, anything termed as a "public interest" is merely something that an individual has determined as desireable by himself, but passes it off as something higher.



Again, some arguments as in the microsoft case, what "control"? Who are they forcing to do business with them? If people don't find value in the services provided by the new, merged bank, they will respond by pulling their money out. Regulating such mergers is merely a tool that politically connected industrialists and labor kingpins use to control the market in their favor, at the expense of individual liberty.



I'm certain that plenty people agree, you among them. The problem is, none of those people have any right to manage the affairs of private firms not owned by them. The majority of people in the US once thought that inter-racial marriages were bad, and laws were passed banning them. In both cases, the "public", another word for torch-wielding-mob, has no place in the discussion.



I suspect that people view intervention as good when it seems to suit their ends, and bad when it seems to oppose their ends. People are generally upset when governments act to limit free speech, as they easily imagine themselves being victimized by such actions. However, after years of public school indoctrination, at least in the US, most people have been brought up to believe that all businesses are evil robber barons who must be controlled at every turn. My belief is that ALL interventions are a moral wrong. Property defines where we have a right to act freely, and if a company is owned by some individual, or group of individuals, they should be free to utilize their property as they see fit, without the approval of some commission.



At least we have some common ground here, the recognition of likely corruption. We differ in basic philosophy, as you want the government to protect the "public interest", where-as I don't believe such a thing exists, and that each individual is qualified to recognize and pursue his own best interests in freedom from oversight.

I am more of a free will believer than I am one for Govt interference, this is somewhat of an isolated case for me.

And it is a beguiling argument, but if free will means that one company (conglomerate) reaches such a size and dominance that the free market is stifled.. does it matter if it takes 20 years for any sort of competition to muster (if it ever does) then I would be pro Govt interference (even if that is something I dont normally want to see)

Example : One company buys up realistically every source of oil in the world in a super merger. Like it or not the economies of many countries would take a long time to switch to alternative fuels and sources of energy. That giant Esso/BP/Shell etc merger then quadruples the price of oil on its way to the pumps (who's going to stop them?). They own 99% of the stations across the US and Europe. How quickly will any competition emerge in the real world (if at all).

Noone is going to suddenly switch their economies to natural gas or wind power (remember the automobile?) in anything under 20 years.

Remember that in your 'free market' the massive profits that this super company are now making will allow it to buy any competitor as it forms and grows - they can offer 'silly money' as soon as somebody has 100 producing petrol stations together. Or can simply bribe and politically influence govts to ensure that the laissez faire created monopoly is sustained.

Would you accept then a case for a Govt to 'vet' the proposed takeover in the 'public interest'. I would not be quick to say yes or no, but I would want a team of experts in *that* economic field to consider it before allowing the takeover to go ahead.

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

I am more of a free will believer than I am one for Govt interference, this is somewhat of an isolated case for me.

And it is a beguiling argument, but if free will means that one company (conglomerate) reaches such a size and dominance that the free market is stifled..

Here's the rub. First, I don't believe that the modern multi-national corporations would be very competative without massive government supports like intellectual property laws(which I do not support), tariffs, and regulations of all sorts which keep small competitors small. Second, if there is a free market, and the end result is one company supplies some service or good, how has it stifled the free market? Unless coercion was used, I fail to see the wrong of simply being a sole provider.


Does it matter if it takes 20 years for any sort of competition to muster (if it ever does) then I would be pro Govt interference (even if that is something I dont normally want to see)

For well developed and complicated industries, one could expect a minimum of a year or two for existing firms to retool, or new ones to build up, but twenty years seems extreme.

But here's another point of disagreement, what is the end goal of Govt intervention? To split the existing company? Why? What crime have they committed? I fail to see how being the sole provider of a good or service makes one a legitimate target for aggression by the government.


Example : One company buys up realistically every source of oil in the world in a super merger.

Why do you assume that all suppliers would sell? Even if most did, the last few on the road to sole-supplier status would see what was happening and would hold out forever, as they could see likely price increases due to coordinated production or lack of production.


Like it or not the economies of many countries would take a long time to switch to alternative fuels and sources of energy.

Yes they would, but they still have no right to simply take the oil that they want. If the grocer around the corner sells you apples every day, then oneday raises the price to $10 per apple, do you have a right to force the grocer to divest his produce section to a spin-off company so he will provide you with cheap apples? If you demand apples, and the price is going up, you must choose to spend the additional amount, or stop eating apples.


That giant Esso/BP/Shell etc merger then quadruples the price of oil on its way to the pumps (who's going to stop them?).

Makers of electric cars, ethanol, etc.


They own 99% of the stations across the US and Europe. How quickly will any competition emerge in the real world (if at all).

There already exists competition and at the very least, the option to stop purchasing petroleum products.


Noone is going to suddenly switch their economies to natural gas or wind power (remember the automobile?) in anything under 20 years.

Again, that is the business of those individuals who make up those economies, not of those who own oil resources.


Remember that in your 'free market' the massive profits that this super company are now making will allow it to buy any competitor as it forms and grows

There will always be people who will compete, and refuse to sell out, simply for the pleasure of undercutting the giant. This is the beauty of markets. Plus, if this giant is a big and beligerant as you say, the new competition would be able to make an incredible amount of profit, simply by the fact that they are not the oil conglomerate.


- they can offer 'silly money' as soon as somebody has 100 producing petrol stations together. Or can simply bribe and politically influence govts to ensure that the laissez faire created monopoly is sustained.

And how would a government ensure that laissez faire markets do anything? Wouldn't that be self-contradictory?


Would you accept then a case for a Govt to 'vet' the proposed takeover in the 'public interest'. I would not be quick to say yes or no, but I would want a team of experts in *that* economic field to consider it before allowing the takeover to go ahead.

Never. Those experts then quickly become very sought-after individuals for those in the oil business. Not only are the eminently corruptible, they have no right to make such decisions. As I've said before, there is no such thing as the "public interest", that is a rhetorical tool typically used by those who wish to impose their will upon society.

[Darren]

No matter how much fuel you use, either in concert with all others, or as a single gas protestor, you won't make a difference. If you and 100,000,000 of your closest friends use gas efficient cars, the demand for gas will drop, and the supply, relative to the demand, will be high, causing prices to drop considerably, which will cause others to demand the gas more, as a fuel for heating, or as a chemical component for some product, etc etc.

Ooops! Not so. You are confusing "movement of a demand curve" and "movement along a demand curve".

100 million of my close friends all trading in their SUVs for Civics shifts the overall demand curve for gas (which is just the horizontal summation of all individual demand curves) to the left.

Supply curve doesn't move (why would it?)

Price goes down, overall Q goes down.

Other users of gas move ALONG their individual demand curves as price falls (ie their Q consumed goes up... but OVERALL Q consumed goes down).

Darren (MA in Economics, experienced TA in undergrad econ)

[Darren]

Just think for a minute people – who is going to be hurting more – two civics crashing into each other at 40 mph or two suv’s crashing into each other at 40 mph? Hmmm….

AFAIK, your implication that two SUVs in an accident will be less likely to lead to injury than two Civics is incorrect.

Whether you are in an Austin Mini or a Hummer, if you are going 40mph and you hit an immovable object, you are going to decelerate at EXACTLY the same rate. Of course, a poorly designed small car might be more likely to poke you with the steering wheel or something, but that is what crash tests are designed to measure. A Honda Civic that gets five stars is EXACTLY as likely to give you an injury as a Hummer that gets five stars (if you hit an immovable object).

Hitting another car of exactly the same weight is like hitting an immovable object at twice the speed, so again it doesn't matter if you are in a five star Civic hitting a Civic or a five star Hummer hitting a Hummer.

The difference comes when a Hummer hits a Civic. The deceleration of the Civic is far far more abrupt as it has less mass, and the deceleration of the Hummer is less abrupt. THAT's when the SUV is a lot safer (for the SUV driver, that is).

Do you see now why Civic drivers hate SUVs? This vehicle, by making you safer, makes me less safe. So whenever an SUV rolls over and kills the smug, self-satisfied prick who owns it (when a Civic in the same circumstance would not have rolled), I can't say there isn't a certain justice there.

BTW, 99% of pickup truck owners actually need a pickup for hauling stuff, so I'm willing to forgive them...99% of SUV owners just want to be able to crush Civics.

Darren

[coffeezombie]

Do you see now why Civic drivers hate SUVs? This vehicle, by making you safer, makes me less safe. So whenever an SUV rolls over and kills the smug, self-satisfied prick who owns it (when a Civic in the same circumstance would not have rolled), I can't say there isn't a certain justice there.

Not to mention I can't see over or sometimes around the damn SUV while I am driving my Mini. :angry:

[Dman]

AFAIK, your implication that two SUVs in an accident will be less likely to lead to injury than two Civics is incorrect.

Whether you are in an Austin Mini or a Hummer, if you are going 40mph and you hit an immovable object, you are going to decelerate at EXACTLY the same rate. Of course, a poorly designed small car might be more likely to poke you with the steering wheel or something, but that is what crash tests are designed to measure. A Honda Civic that gets five stars is EXACTLY as likely to give you an injury as a Hummer that gets five stars (if you hit an immovable object).

Hitting another car of exactly the same weight is like hitting an immovable object at twice the speed, so again it doesn't matter if you are in a five star Civic hitting a Civic or a five star Hummer hitting a Hummer.

The difference comes when a Hummer hits a Civic. The deceleration of the Civic is far far more abrupt as it has less mass, and the deceleration of the Hummer is less abrupt. THAT's when the SUV is a lot safer (for the SUV driver, that is).

Do you see now why Civic drivers hate SUVs? This vehicle, by making you safer, makes me less safe. So whenever an SUV rolls over and kills the smug, self-satisfied prick who owns it (when a Civic in the same circumstance would not have rolled), I can't say there isn't a certain justice there.

BTW, 99% of pickup truck owners actually need a pickup for hauling stuff, so I'm willing to forgive them...99% of SUV owners just want to be able to crush Civics.

Darren

Evidently you didn’t pay attention in your high school physics class, nor did you read earlier posts addressing this subject. Here’s a refresher (several of my links I included earlier, even the anti-SUV ones, also back this up)


The question is are YOU getting the point? Apparently not, although I’ve mentioned it over and over. It’s basic physics. Regardless of the dissimilarity of the vehicle weights, the larger mass is still safer. If two large SUVs of equal mass crash into each other, you are still safer than if two small cars crashed into each other. There is simply more mass (and room) to absorb the impact.

Emphasis on the “more mass (and room) to absorb the impact”.

I also mentioned why statistics of real, actual accidents were more important to study than arbitrary crash test ratings.

Do you see now why some SUV drivers hate smug, self-satisfied pricks that drive civics? They pass judgment based upon fallacious information and half-truths and think this makes them holier-than-thou.

I imagine people with this kind of thinking who ride bikes or motorcycles also hate civic drivers with a passion and think they should burn in hell, since civic owners (and everyone else driving a car/truck) make them less safe. If you care about those people, you should put your money where your mouth is and stop driving your civic, no?

I’d also be curious to see where you get that 99% of pickup truck drivers need them for hauling stuff. I’m assuming your implication is that they need to haul stuff that could not fit in a station wagon or large sedan. I see an awful lot of those big super-duty pickups with the oversize wheels and suspension lifts driving around empty…in fact far more than I see actually “hauling stuff”…but if you can back up your 99% of pickup drivers are getting more utility out of them than SUV owners are, I’d be willing to listen.

Drive safe!

[Geoff]

Darren (MA in Economics, experienced TA in undergrad econ)

Darren.. as an educated individual in economics (albeit the traditional viewpoint I guess) what is your view on the above monopoly question?

I am leaning somewhere between my previously held view and Robespierre's at the moment (because I do actually dislike Government intervention).

-Geoff

[Robespierre]

Darren (MA in Economics, experienced TA in undergrad econ)

The point of my statement was that someone will find a use for the supply. Billions have been invested in building infrastructure to take the resource from the ground, and it provides something which is easily converted into useful energy. If the demand from autos drops, another industry will be motivated by the decreased price, to take up the slack in demand.

I've always found appeals to authority, masters degree or otherwise, to be weak. Should we really trust your opinion simply because you can play all the games that the typical college demands? Let your opinion stand on its own.

[Architectonic]

I drive it as little as possible. It is obviously not sensible to drive it short distances on residential streets regularly by myself. My wife and I regularly carpool to work (low-speed surface streets – we both work within 5 miles of home) in our mid-size sedan and save the SUV for longer trips (such as on the interstates) or any other reasons that I’ve previously outlined. Rarely do I drive around in my SUV when it’s just me, not needed for 4WD (snow or ice), not towing or hauling anything, or driving a significant distance on higher speed roads. I feel safe enough in my car on the lower speed residential roads I drive regularly and thus do not feel compelled to drive the less efficient SUV.

Regardless, yes I do feel defensive at the times I am driving it, particularly when there are so many uninformed judgmental people out there who assume I am ignorant (based on their own distorted perceptions) because of the vehicle I choose to drive for my own personal reasons. To be fair, though, I am guilty of the same type of thinking – whenever I see a subcompact car, with a baby seat in it, flying down the highway.

Yes, you see the point. I have nothing against people purchasing suvs, minivans, pickups etc and for a majority of the time, using them for their practical intended purpose. But the sad fact is a significant amount of people don't - if you are going to use one of these vehicles for their intended purpose very rarely, then perhaps it would be more sensible to buy a cheaper/smaller car and perhaps borrow/hire a different vehicle when necessary. (hence my question earlier about costs of hiring vehicles..)


I also mentioned why statistics of real, actual accidents were more important to study than arbitrary crash test ratings.

I agree. 0.3% is much lower, therefore we should drive 5 door/4 door hatchbacks. :P

[Robespierre]

I've found some good expostion from www.mises.org today on monopoly theory. I'll post the one I most identify with, the Rothbardian:


http://www.mises.org/story/1800


ROTHBARD'S MONOPOLY THEORY

Professor Rothbard's analysis of monopoly, monopoly price, and the welfare implications of such economic conditions differs radically from that of both Mises and Kirzner. Indeed, in his discussion of monopoly, Rothbard is sharply critical not only of the neoclassical monopoly theories, but also implicitly critical (and occasionally explicitly critical) of views held by his fellow Austrian theorists as well.[23]

As far as Rothbard is concerned, there are three possible definitions of monopoly: one, the single seller of any given good; two, a grant of special privilege by the state, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group; and three, "a person who has achieved a monopoly price."[24]

Although Rothbard admits that the first definition (single seller) is a coherent and even a "legitimate" one, he rejects it as impractical because it is too broad and all-inclusive. The impracti*cal nature of this definition can be illustrated, Rothbard argues, by noting that any difference (differentiation) in any two goods or resources and, more importantly, any consumer-perceived dif*ference in any two commodities or resources will make them unique (specific) goods and thus, by definition, "monopoly." Hence, "the single seller of any given good" could always reduce to the notion that everyone is a monopolist since each person in a market system is presumed to have exclusive ownership of his own (unique) property. But a definition that makes everything monopoly and everyone a monopolist is barren, "confusing," and "absurd" according to Rothbard.[25]

Rothbard clearly prefers the second definition of monopoly—i.e., a grant of privilege from the state restricting competitive production or sale. This is a monopoly since entry into the privileged activity is prohibited by the state; logically, no such monopoly could ever exist in a free market. This definition will be adopted as the "proper" one should the final alternative definition prove nonsensical or illegitimate.[26]

Rothbard's criticism of the theory of "monopoly price" (as well as his criticism of the theory of "competitive price") is certainly a controversial contribution to the literature on monopoly. For here he argues that in a free market there is simply no way of conceptually distinguishing "monopoly price" from a free-market competitive price.

On the free market there is no way of distinguishing a "monopoly price" or a "subcompetitive price" or of establishing any changes as movements from one to the other. No criteria can be found for making such distinctions. The concept of monopoly price as distinguished from competitive price is therefore untenable. We can speak only of the free market price.[27]

It has been common, of course, to speak of monopoly price as that price accomplished when output is restricted under condi*tions of inelastic demand, thus increasing the net income of the supplier. Even Mises, it will be recalled, employed the term in this manner and drew some fairly dismal welfare implications from the "restriction."

Rothbard argues, however, that there is no objective way to determine that such a price is a monopoly price or that such a "restriction" is antisocial. All we can know, according to Rothbard, is that all firms attempt to produce a stock of goods that maximizes their net income given their estimation of de*mand. They attempt to price (other things being equal) such that the range of demand above the asking price is elastic. If they discover that they can increase their monetary income by pro*ducing less—or even destroying existing stock—in the next sell*ing period, then they do so.

Rothbard maintains that to speak of the initial price as the "competitive" price, and the second-period price as the "monopoly" price makes no objective sense. How, he asks, is it to be objectively determined that the first price is really the "com*petitive" price? Could it, in fact have been a "subcompetitive" price? Indeed, the entire discussion is absurd for Rothbard since there are no independent criteria that would allow either determi*nation. All that can be known for sure, he argues, is that the prices both before and after the supply change are free-market prices.

Rothbard also argues that "monopoly" prices cannot be in*ferred by comparing such prices to prices charged for similar factors. So long as the factors are not perfectly identical in the eyes of buyers, the differences in price (or profits) are simply free-market determinations of value for different goods. And any talk of monopoly price or monopoly "gain" when two dif*ferent factors or goods are being compared is analytically in*correct.[28]

Finally, the welfare implications concerning alleged monopoly prices would not follow even if such prices could exist. Since the inelasticity of demand for Rothbard is "purely the result of voluntary demands" of the consumers, and since the exchange (at the higher prices) is completely "voluntary" anyway, there is no way to conclude that consumers or their "welfare" have been injured.[29] Thus, for Rothbard there is no social "problem" as*sociated with monopoly in a free market. Monopoly prices can*not be defined logically, let alone established in a free market.

...

ROTHBARD'S MONOPOLY THEORY RECONSIDERED

New Directions in Austrian EconomicsRothbard it will be recalled had defined monopoly as "a grant of special privilege from the State reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group." This defini*tion of monopoly would appear to be immune from the sort of criticism employed above against both the neoclassical and Mises-Kirzner theories of monopoly. In the first place, we can be confident that competition is "lessened" by this sort of monopoly, and that resources are non-optimally allocated so far as consumers are concerned, since governmental monopoly restricts by law both competitive entry and, consequently, free consumer choice. Legal barriers to entry restrict entry by definition. Areas of production that are truly "naturally" monopolistic would hardly require governmental entry restrictions. Consequently, consumer choke must be distorted, and the subsequent resource allocations must be "inefficient," since consumers are prevented by law from making choices that differ from those already made for them by the political authority. Hence, we conclude that governmental monopoly always restricts competition, always violates consumer (and producer) sovereignty, and always "injures" consumer welfare.

It would be tempting to argue that these "restrictions" and "injuries" are, perhaps, minor in the case of "minor" legal impediments to either production or exchange. Yet, there is no satisfactory way to cardinally measure either "competition" or consumer "utility." Since utility is a completely subjective notion, and since interpersonal comparisons of utility are not possible, there is no objective way to determine how severe even "minor" state impediments to entry and competition actually are. It is completely possible, for instance, that what may appear to be an extremely inoffensive governmental regulation, i.e., setting minimum safety standards for sellers, may in fact be harmful in the extreme with respect to certain potential businessmen and specific classes of consumers.

We conclude, therefore, that any and all state restrictions are "monopolistic," competition reducing, and destructive of consumer satisfaction vis-à-vis alternative free-market situations. We also conclude, in summary, that this particular theory of monopoly is the only theory that meets all the standard critical objections and remains entirely consistent with the general Austrian methodology.

[Robespierre]

A sure-fire way to eliminate ALL traffic deaths is to make the speed limits 5 mph.

[Dman]

Yes, you see the point. I have nothing against people purchasing suvs, minivans, pickups etc and for a majority of the time, using them for their practical intended purpose. But the sad fact is a significant amount of people don't - if you are going to use one of these vehicles for their intended purpose very rarely, then perhaps it would be more sensible to buy a cheaper/smaller car and perhaps borrow/hire a different vehicle when necessary. (hence my question earlier about costs of hiring vehicles..)


Define rarely. Where is the line between using it often enough to buy one versus infrequently enough to "rent" a different vehicle when necessary?

Wouldn't it be more sensible for you to ride a bike rather than a car, and rent a car only when necessary? Do you really need a car? Just about any comparison you make for reasons not to buy an SUV I can make for people not to buy ANY vehicle, including fuel efficient cars. When all is said and done it's about convenience and efficiency. Everyone has a different opinion about what is more convenient and efficient. Then you throw in variables such as safety, cost, looks, etc.


I agree. 0.3% is much lower, therefore we should drive 5 door/4 door hatchbacks. :P

I said STUDY the statistics, not take them at face value. Obviously the number of hatchbacks on the road is a different number than the number of SUVs on the road, but I shouldn't have to explain that. Of course, I shouldn't have to explain why a larger mass vehicle is safer either, but, heh.

I bet deaths attributable to driving Ford Pintos was pretty low in 2004, maybe we should all be driving one of those.

[Darren]

The point of my statement was that someone will find a use for the supply. Billions have been invested in building infrastructure to take the resource from the ground, and it provides something which is easily converted into useful energy. If the demand from autos drops, another industry will be motivated by the decreased price, to take up the slack in demand.

... which is a movement along their individual demand curves, not a shift in their demand.

Your reasoning continues to be flawed, unfortunately. Please reread what I wrote. You appear to be assuming perfectly inelastic supply, which is not quite true in the short run and not true at all in the long run.... and your story still does not yield an unchanged price if 100 million of my friends switch to Civics.




I've always found appeals to authority, masters degree or otherwise, to be weak. Should we really trust your opinion simply because you can play all the games that the typical college demands? Let your opinion stand on its own.

Actually, I logged in today precisely for the purpose of removing that particular tagline (which I later regretted writing). I agree with you that my argument should stand on its own... and I think it does.

Darren

[Dman]

(Quote)“Although Rothbard admits that the first definition (single seller) is a coherent and even a "legitimate" one, he rejects it as impractical because it is too broad and all-inclusive. The impracti*cal nature of this definition can be illustrated, Rothbard argues, by noting that any difference (differentiation) in any two goods or resources and, more importantly, any consumer-perceived dif*ference in any two commodities or resources will make them unique (specific) goods and thus, by definition, "monopoly."


The first thing I see wrong with that is his argument that the first definition is “too broad” a definition, when he is the one making it too broad.

A more appropriate definition would qualify the statement to say “the single seller of a good with no substitution”. Of course there are plenty of single sellers of a particular good, due to differentiation, but when one speaks of a monopoly one is typically referring to a good or service which has no close substitutes. This should be obvious.

So right off the bat he weakly dismisses the most compelling argument regarding monopolies because it’s a poor definition – but only because he’s choosing to make it a poor definition. Seems like faulty logic to me.

[Architectonic]

I said STUDY the statistics, not take them at face value. Obviously the number of hatchbacks on the road is a different number than the number of SUVs on the road, but I shouldn't have to explain that.

No shit, I've already said that a few days ago. SUVs are less common than other cars, so if you look at the statistics, it would actually suggest that SUVs result in more fatalities.... But in reality there is much more to it than that.
I've been having trouble finding proper statistics on numbers of vehicle type (not just "passenger vehicle", "truck" etc). All I've found is that there were ~24.2 million SUVs registered in 2002 (from gov't site). And there were about 225.7 million vehicles registered (in 2002).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pdf

Here is another statistic you should know. ;) Fatalities divided by number of reported crashes was 0.4% for passenger cars and 0.52% for SUVs, 0.448% for vans, 0.648% for pickups.

And media articles like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/business/17auto.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=ab39f99261bb8c6e&ex=1250481600&partner=rssuserland), that claims "The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered."

[Robespierre]

... which is a movement along their individual demand curves, not a shift in their demand.

Your reasoning continues to be flawed, unfortunately. Please reread what I wrote. You appear to be assuming perfectly inelastic supply, which is not quite true in the short run and not true at all in the long run.... and your story still does not yield an unchanged price if 100 million of my friends switch to Civics.

Actually, I logged in today precisely for the purpose of removing that particular tagline (which I later regretted writing). I agree with you that my argument should stand on its own... and I think it does.

That's cool. Your opinion does have legs, and I am forced to reconsider my prediction of the oil market's future, at least so I can attempt to explain my problems with econometrics.

Supply and Demand curves, equillibriums, etc, are all idealized ways of thinking about the market. They can be helpful in some instances, but it is my opinion that they offer too high a temptation to take them literally to be very useful. There really is no certain way to describe people's reaction to rising or falling prices. It is typically correct to say that people will buy less when prices rise, and typically correct to say that people buy more when prices fall, but not necessarily, and not always in quantities that corrolate with the smooth mathematical curves of the econometrician.

The disagree comes to two alternate predictions of the future. You suggest that if overall gasoline consumption by autos is decreased, the price will drop. I don't disagree that as the decrease is occuring, the price will drop. But over time, more and more other consumers will find new uses for the newly cheap gasoline, and the changing market and increase the demand back to its previous level. You disagree. I assume you are suggesting that the price would remain lower. There's really no way of settling it, short of agreeing that we have differing opinions on the possible future course of oil prices.

[Robespierre]

So right off the bat he weakly dismisses the most compelling argument regarding monopolies because it’s a poor definition – but only because he’s choosing to make it a poor definition. Seems like faulty logic to me.

He hasn't dismissed anything, he is laying out the groundwork for his claim about what constitutes a monopoly. If you have a differing opinion, you are free to express it, but his opinion is no less valid simply because he chooses to precisely aim his definition.

You are being circuitous in your argument. You are saying that what Rothbard describes as a NOT a monopoly, IS a monopoly, without giving a reason.

[Robespierre]

Fatalities divided by number of reported crashes was 0.4% for passenger cars and 0.52% for SUVs, 0.448% for vans, 0.648% for pickups.


You're all missing the obvious point here.

ALL traffic deaths could be eliminated by establishing a national 5 mph speed limit.

[Ka.avik]

Actually, I logged in today precisely for the purpose of removing that particular tagline (which I later regretted writing). I agree with you that my argument should stand on its own... and I think it does.
Actually, I found that tagline quite helpful. It tells me that you've logged a certain number of hours listening to people who spend their days thinking about economics. Of course I'm still free to disregard your opinion -- I am an INTP, after all.

But an opninion bourne of experience, even as remote as a classroom, is something I can respect.

And yes, your argument does stand on it's own.

oh: Robsp....organizations as civilizations: Dunno. That's just always the way I've seen it. and:
linux != socialism
I'm actually a libertarian. But I don't see a functional distinction b/w governments and corporations. They both operate w/o regard to those at the bottom, holding them up. And yes, I do believe in the existance of altruism, of 'the public good'.

I believe the goverment should be at least as large as the biggest company (M$...?) and with that said, believe in small government.

[Ka.avik]

You're all missing the obvious point here.

ALL traffic deaths could be eliminated by establishing a national 5 mph speed limit. Horses can trot as ~9mph. Let 'em go 10, I says.

No, seriously -- I think all speed limits, with the exception of interstates, should be dropped to 45. Fuel economy / oil dependance is actually where I'm coming from with that one -- but, really. Who needs to be cruising at 60, just to buy a gallon of milk, or to make the daily commute?

Who here was it that suggested motorcycles? Dman? I have two, and wouldn't you know it -- the TCO is just a fraction higher than a decent civic. Partly the tiny motor needs super (92 octane, 12.5+ comp. ratio), mostly the problem is the tires. Which are also a petrolium product, in part. They cost $200/ea, and may only last 5K mi.

But, I still sneer at all you giant civic drivers, because I can use the HOV lane, and I can park anywhere. Just picture what the roads would be like, if I & 100,000,000 of my closest friends (intps have friends?) switched to a motorcycle for our daily ride.....

//bicycles, on the other hand...

[Architectonic]

ALL traffic deaths could be eliminated by establishing a national 5 mph speed limit.

Amen. /me hops on to 5 mph motor scooter. :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

linux != socialism


I've not ever stated that it did. I do however have a major problem with all intellectual property laws, mainly, that they are a menace to civilization. I don't think property can exist in information. An idea is not something that an owner can use exclusively, meaning that the owner can use the idea all he likes, and as much and as good of the idea is left behind for others to use. This is rarely possible for physical goods, as time and space make them at least somewhat scarce. But ideas are never scarce, in that any number of people can use them without depriving others of the same use.

So in a certain sense, I am split on microsoft. I defend their right to sell whatever products they like, but I abhor their use of the intellectual property laws which DO help them exclude competition.


I'm actually a libertarian. But I don't see a functional distinction b/w governments and corporations.

The distinction is choice. You have a choice when dealing with corporations, always. You can purchase their product or not. If not, they cannot still take property from you to fund their actions. Governments are in no way voluntary and do not involve choice. If you don't like the products provided by the federales, you have no recourse but to continue paying. And if they don't like your attitude, bam you're in jail. Corporations can't throw you in jail.


They both operate w/o regard to those at the bottom, holding them up.

All humans act in their own self interest, as they see it. There exist no exceptions, anywhere. The problem with this, is that individuals in government have no incentive at all to cooperate as corporations do. At some level, corporations rely upon individuals freely choosing to purchase their products. If they act up too much, people will simply ignore them, and they will disappear. Governments have no reason to care about those whom they rule over.


And yes, I do believe in the existance of altruism, of 'the public good'.

You're telling me it is possible for someone to take an action which they don't believe to be in their best interest?

Also, how do you define "public good"? Is it some ideal you have for civilization? What if 49.999% of the public disagrees with you and your vision, should they forced at the point of a gun to support your idea of "public good"?

Why not let individuals decide what is good for themselves, rather than using the cloak of "the public good" or "the will of god" as I like to call it, to impose your views upon society?


I believe the goverment should be at least as large as the biggest company (M$...?) and with that said, believe in small government.


Why? What does the size of "the largest company" have to do with the government?

[SheepDog]

You're all missing the obvious point here.

ALL traffic deaths could be eliminated by establishing a national 5 mph speed limit.
Yeah, I forgot about the federally mandated 5mph bumpers. ;)

[Robespierre]

No, seriously -- I think all speed limits, with the exception of interstates, should be dropped to 45. Fuel economy / oil dependance is actually where I'm coming from with that one -- but, really. Who needs to be cruising at 60, just to buy a gallon of milk, or to make the daily commute?

First, all governments should divest themselves from owning roads.

Second, I was being sarcastic to point out the choices individuals make when deciding between transport methods. People accept the risks as a trade off for obtaining some other good. You seem to value fuel efficiency and safety. Fine, you should not be forced to drive a semi-truck at 80mph. Another may value roominess, looks, or flat out speed. Who gets to decide which opinion is best? The individual of course. And that brings us back to the first point. The roads are horribly mismanaged by the various governments. It is not possible to operate in the public interest, as no such objective thing exists.

[Ka.avik]

I've not ever stated that it did [equal socialism] You referred to my opinion that there are better desktops then M$ as the arrogance of the socialist. I suppose if there were no means by which to purchase advertisements, I could be happier at the state of things. But, that would require government interference, wouldn't it?

I do however have a major problem with all intellectual property laws, mainly, that they are a menace to civilization. They weren't always. I wouldn't choose to eliminate IP laws, only to restrict them to only benifitting the inventor. -- 20yr lifespan, a few other things. The reason, in part, america is the strong nation it is, is we encouraged innovation -- through a blend of plagarism and copyright.

But USPTO burning all their records, and going on permanent holiday -- that wouldn't be all bad. Probably less bad then things are now. But, that would require goverment interference, wouldn't it?


The distinction is choice. eh. We chose this government. We choose to change it. We're all just people -- the notions of government, or of corporation are all just arbitrary.


All humans act in their own self interest, as they see it. There exist no exceptions, anywhere.
disagree strongly.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.




The problem with this, is that individuals in government have no incentive at all to cooperate as corporations do.
I think you have it backwards. Corporations rely on sheeple who buy the advertised product. Goverments rely on voters, over here -- and on non-riots, elsewhere. Their SJ need to be at the top, to be secure, absolutely depends on making the people feel good about their governance
The CEOs just need to see pretty graphs. A better bottom line is all they're about.


You're telling me it is possible for someone to take an action which they don't believe to be in their best interest?
How else will the market remain open? It's not in my best interest to let you compete with me. If I _can_ kill you, I should. Why don't I?


What if 49.999% of the public disagrees with you and your vision, should they forced at the point of a gun to support your idea of "public good"?
Find a compromise. When either the minority back down, or the majority overwhelm them, you've got it. How else could it happen, if there is no altruism?


Why not let individuals decide what is good for themselves
Only an INTP can actually believe that. We are all individuals, and you are responsible for what you do. You will be held accountable to the creator for what _you_ did.

But the SJs -- they don't seem to see it that way. So, we have to find a compromise. Some form of democracy that keeps us all happy. Some level of intervention that lets us continue to be who we are.

[Robespierre]

You referred to my opinion that there are better desktops then M$ as the arrogance of the socialist.

No, I implied that your idea of deciding which desktop is best, for everyone, was arrogant. Maybe you find that linux is best, and maybe another person finds other operating systems superior.


I suppose if there were no means by which to purchase advertisements, I could be happier at the state of things. But, that would require government interference, wouldn't it?

What? Why would you want to ban advertising?


They weren't always. I wouldn't choose to eliminate IP laws, only to restrict them to only benifitting the inventor.

Even this seemingly benign form is a huge problem. The "inventor" has no right at all to restrict others from using his idea. Such restrictions as patents and copyrights are anti-competitive mercantilist structures built by governments and the politically connected to wield the power of government, the same as tariffs, regulations, and lisencing schemes.


-- 20yr lifespan, a few other things. The reason, in part, america is the strong nation it is, is we encouraged innovation -- through a blend of plagarism and copyright.

I'd say that America has done well in spite of IP laws. How do you define property, that something such as an idea, which can never be scarce, could be considered property?


But USPTO burning all their records, and going on permanent holiday -- that wouldn't be all bad. Probably less bad then things are now. But, that would require goverment interference, wouldn't it?

Huh? No government interference would require interference? How so?

I must be missing something, this is the second time you've made a point like this. You just suggesting closing the patent office, a government organ, and then told me, in a mocking tone, that it would require government intervention? What am I missing?


eh. We chose this government. We choose to change it.

Not at all. I certainly didn't choose to be ruled by this government, yet here I am. Or is this some form of indentured servitude?


We're all just people -- the notions of government, or of corporation are all just arbitrary.

Not really. There's enough common ground among people, language, that we can speak meaningfully about governments and corporations. Specifically, the fact that government allows no real choice to opt out, as corporations ALL do.


disagree strongly. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Perhaps you can think of an example of someone acting against his own best interests as he sees them. I'm curious to hear what you are thinking of on this topic.


I think you have it backwards. Corporations rely on sheeple who buy the advertised product.

Nope, that's exactly what I said. Corporations rely on people to choose to buy their products. No force is used to coerce them.


Goverments rely on voters

Governments rely upon guns, not voters. Voting is an exercise by which the majority is allowed to rob the minority. Nothing moral about it. Democracy is shameful.


, over here -- and on non-riots, elsewhere. Their SJ need to be at the top, to be secure, absolutely depends on making the people feel good about their governance
The CEOs just need to see pretty graphs. A better bottom line is all they're about.

Yes, and? How does this differ from ANY other individual? You miss the point in taking the typical rout of attakcing supposed "greed". Corporations act to increase profits? Sure. How? By providing people with things they demand, always. Can a corporation possibly do positive harm by operating in such a way as to supply products to demanding markets? Can corporations TAKE money from people to further their goals? No, of course not. People must, in all cases, willingly give their money to the corporation. This same is Never true for governments, there exist not voluntary governments in the world.


How else will the market remain open? It's not in my best interest to let you compete with me. If I _can_ kill you, I should. Why don't I?

Quite obviously because it would not serve your best interests to destroy your associate's trust in you. The exact same forces that keep most people from killing each other right now. Fear of police retribution rarely comes into the matter.

Where will you buy gas when my wife begins the information campaign to destroy your character for being a murderer? Who will do business with you when they learn you are a murderer?


Find a compromise. When either the minority back down, or the majority overwhelm them, you've got it. How else could it happen, if there is no altruism?

How else!? Seriously? How about people decide upon their own actions, and take them. Why must there be ONE collective decision on any issue? This is the fundamental problem with democracy, any why it is only slightly better than an absolute monarchy. Only some portion of society will be free to take those actions that it deems necessary. Why should this be so?


Only an INTP can actually believe that. We are all individuals, and you are responsible for what you do. You will be held accountable to the creator for what _you_ did.

Well, first, I'm not an INTP. and secondly, it has been my expirience with them, that they are deathly afraid of individual liberty. They wish to be the exaulted intellectuals placed high above the common man, and given power over the little people's lives, so they may steer them in the right direction. There is no attitude that I despise more.


But the SJs -- they don't seem to see it that way. So, we have to find a compromise. Some form of democracy that keeps us all happy. Some level of intervention that lets us continue to be who we are.

Compromise is fine and dandy, when it isn't at the point of a gun, as is the case in a democracy. Let people come together and agree upon standards and all the other things that arise from human civilization. There need not be centralized governments to do these things, the emergent systems created by individuals interacting on a large scale are good enough to produce order and society, with the ultimate goal of voluntarism.

[Dman]

He hasn't dismissed anything, he is laying out the groundwork for his claim about what constitutes a monopoly. If you have a differing opinion, you are free to express it, but his opinion is no less valid simply because he chooses to precisely aim his definition.

You are being circuitous in your argument. You are saying that what Rothbard describes as a NOT a monopoly, IS a monopoly, without giving a reason.

Because his first definition of a monopoly, which he dismisses, is not anyone else’s definition of a monopoly. Thus it becomes an irrelevant point to refute in his argument. I did give a reason why.

I could say the SUVs are safer than anything else, because my definition of an “SUV” is an actual army tank. But most people’s definition of an SUV is not an actual army tank. Similarly, most people’s definition of a monopoly is not simply one that has a unique good or service.

His intentional omission of qualifying the statement to include no available substitutes takes the wind out of that argument. Who cares about his or my definitions of the word, how about just addressing the most widely-held views? The dynamic of a company that produces a good with no substitute is a powerful one in his argument, but he does nothing to address it – instead chooses to ignore it and use a definition that suits his argument best rather than a popularly accepted one.

[Robespierre]

The dynamic of a company that produces a good with no substitute is a powerful one in his argument, but he does nothing to address it – instead chooses to ignore it and use a definition that suits his argument best rather than a popularly accepted one.

So we shouldn't redefine things as makes sense, but instead should stick to the popular definitions? I don't see it.

Anyways, as he pointed out, ALL items are unique and have no substitute, and if you want to use the definition of monopoly that most people do, you must consider all items and all sellers monopolized. That is why the first definition is useless.

[s]

I am convinced the ridiculous prices in both Europe and America are the result of profiteering.

I live in Ohio. I don't need to be more specific. People here need gas to go to work, to transport goods, to generate heat, electricity, and to manufactor goods.

If this trend keeps up, everything, I repeat EVERYTHING is going to get more and more expensive since fuel keeps getting more expensive. IT's going to lead into a bad economic crisis because people won't be able to afford things. Why? Wages aren't going to rise with prices of fuel. If everything keeps getting more expensive but wages stay the same... economic exchange cannot take place and a freakin' recession/oder depression happens.

Therefore something needs to be done. I suggust several options to say: "We are not going to put up with this CRAP!"

1. Boycott/Minimal Petrol, Gas, Fuel Usage. Carpool, walk to work, use the damn subway, or just be frugal.
2. Hunger strikes and a demand for lower fuel prices. Hey, it worked for Ghandi.
3. Over throwing the Oil Companies through legal means and letting the lobbied against alternative fuel source scientists have free reign for a period of fifty years to develop their ideas into a practical solutions
4. Develop a alternate solutions for fuel, but distribute the information freely all around the world, making a patent useless and ignore corporate laws regarding the manufactoring of fuel or whatever. Essentially, civil disobediance.
5. Large scale civil protests. Not the large chanting crowds, but a unnerving and silent mass of humans with signs sitting at the industrie's doorstep. Essentially, dead silence is needed for the effect.

The world needs to act. NOW.

Star Cannon

Just fall off a turnip truck?

Yea, that sounds great... lots of luck.

[Ka.avik]

So we shouldn't redefine things as makes sense, but instead should stick to the popular definitions? I don't see it.

Anyways, as he pointed out, ALL items are unique and have no substitute, and if you want to use the definition of monopoly that most people do, you must consider all items and all sellers monopolized. That is why the first definition is useless. He's fallen to a straw-man fallacy. Not only does no one else use his definition, he provides it to you only so he can poke fun at it. It was useful to point out the ends, but leaning on them is of no value.

As to what you're missing: human nature. I've gotta go, but I'll try to come back later with more on that.

in short: we need government to prevent monopolies. And to prevent quasi-monopolies from leaning on existing government for special protection.
And don't think that corporations would never stoop to violence to take your money. Mafia hit men to protect your casino's profits, anyone?

I think, but will have to think it over more, that my definition of 'public good' is along the lines of the end result of everyone's altruism.

and, I'm sorry you've had such bad luck interacting with INTPs. I hate arrogance too. But these are lofty considerations we're discussing -- far removed from actual office politics, much less how you're putting food on your table today. A certain level of absurdity is almost unavoidable. I have, however, had fun discussing the issue of why goverments suck.

Are you then, an anarchist? I'm having a tough time pigeonholing your arguments ... http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/blushing.gif

[Robespierre]

He's fallen to a straw-man fallacy. Not only does no one else use his definition, he provides it to you only so he can poke fun at it. It was useful to point out the ends, but leaning on them is of no value.

He certainly does a good job, in my opinion, of making the definition of monopoly used by most modern economists look foolish and useless. However, I do believe that the straw man fallacy requires there to be a false representation, which I don't believe is the case here. Rothbard is simply taking the logic used and applying it to examples which show the useless nature of the definition.


As to what you're missing: human nature. I've gotta go, but I'll try to come back later with more on that.

Please do, that's primarily what I am interested in. Most of my arguments are based upon what I know about human nature. Obviously my knowledge is not perfect, so I welcome any discussion on the topic.


in short: we need government to prevent monopolies.

Which is ironic, because that is exactly what government is, and allows, at least the modern nation-state.


And to prevent quasi-monopolies from leaning on existing government for special protection.

We need government to prevent individuals from abusing the government? Again, self-referential.


And don't think that corporations would never stoop to violence to take your money. Mafia hit men to protect your casino's profits, anyone?

I don't propose that my ideas will eliminate all crime. I am merely pointing out that the government is a criminal organization by any standard.


I think, but will have to think it over more, that my definition of 'public good' is along the lines of the end result of everyone's altruism.

Yeah, you're going to have to elaborate on that one a bit, I don't know where to go with that.


and, I'm sorry you've had such bad luck interacting with INTPs. I hate arrogance too. But these are lofty considerations we're discussing -- far removed from actual office politics, much less how you're putting food on your table today. A certain level of absurdity is almost unavoidable. I have, however, had fun discussing the issue of why goverments suck.

I as well. I don't refer to you specifically when I denigrate INTp's and their arrogance. My comments come from previous experiences on this board.


Are you then, an anarchist? I'm having a tough time pigeonholing your arguments ...

That's a good guess. Some would call me an anarcho-capitalist, others a propertarian. I think of myself as a libertarian, a voluntarist, and an individualist. None of those labels are exactly right though.

[Dman]

No shit, I've already said that a few days ago. SUVs are less common than other cars, so if you look at the statistics, it would actually suggest that SUVs result in more fatalities.... But in reality there is much more to it than that.
I've been having trouble finding proper statistics on numbers of vehicle type (not just "passenger vehicle", "truck" etc). All I've found is that there were ~24.2 million SUVs registered in 2002 (from gov't site). And there were about 225.7 million vehicles registered (in 2002).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pdf

Here is another statistic you should know. ;) Fatalities divided by number of reported crashes was 0.4% for passenger cars and 0.52% for SUVs, 0.448% for vans, 0.648% for pickups.

And media articles like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/business/17auto.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=ab39f99261bb8c6e&ex=1250481600&partner=rssuserland), that claims "The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered."

(sigh)

Ok, one more time - do those links and statistics illustrate the difference between LARGE and SMALLER SUVs? Because, once again, THERE IS a difference.

Funny how the large SUVs make the top lists of safest vehicles, regardless of type, if they are responsible for the most occupant deaths? Hmm...could be some information we're not seeing here...like the possibility that the smaller, and as I've pointed out, more dangerous SUVs might be more representative of those statistics...?

Maybe we should have a little vote -

who still thinks larger mass vehicles are not safer than lesser mass vehicles?

who still thinks that statistics lumping all SUVs together, regardless of size, can indicate anything about large SUVs?

Who thinks that their vision of convenience and efficiency is more “right” than someone else’s, to the point of harassment and elitist behavior?

Who still thinks that because there are larger vehicles (thus more dangerous) on the road that all larger vehicles should be frowned upon? To that end, what constitutes an unacceptably large vehicle, and who decides?

Who still thinks that because they chose to sacrifice certain benefits in favor of fuel efficiency, or because they do not have the same lifestyle demands as others, entitles them to some higher moral status than others?

Bunch of anti-SUV Nazis, that’s who!

Edit - who thinks the national speed limit should be set to 5 mph (and let's throw in that no vehicles can weigh over 100 lbs, just to be extra careful...)

[Dman]

Robespierre -

I’m curious why you draw the conclusion that INTPs want to be given power to steer the little people in the right direction. I really haven’t seen much of that. What I see is the tendency for INTPs to want, insist, that people understand things better, simply for the sake of sharing knowledge and understanding. The “arrogance” comes more from frustration when unsuccessful in communicating this knowledge, rather than from a need to dominate people. On the contrary, typical INTPs do not want to lead people, have no desire to. I think it’s safe to say we’d rather everyone else think like we do and take care of themselves. We just want a little respect, man!

Anyways, about the whole monopoly thing. The reason I harp on Rothbard’s first definition, which I feel is woefully inadequate, is because of its importance in this type of argument. A typical “monopoly” type firm is described as one which is the sole supplier of a good, with no substitute – meaning no comparable substitute.

For example, his definition would say that Crest toothpaste is a “monopolistic” product, because there is no other toothpaste exactly like it. But that is silly, because there are plenty of alternative substitutes, even if they aren’t exactly the same. They fulfill the same basic need/desire. By comparison, say (hypothetically) you have a company that supplies a computer software platform. Say they have dominated the market and due to various tactics (owns the entire distribution chain, non-duplicable proprietary knowledge, etc.) have eliminated any viable competition – meaning there is no other software platform to choose from (no substitutes). If you want a software platform, you simply must buy theirs – no alternatives. Furthermore there are no alternatives to software – it contains functions that nothing else can accomplish (remember this is hypothetical). That would constitute a “monopoly”.

So now the question becomes what to do about it. In the free-market world, no outside interference is allowed/necessary. People either buy the product or they don’t. The “monopoly” will stifle competition and innovation, and obviously exhibit other characteristics that are less desirable (to consumers and would-be competitors) than a highly competitive market. However in this free-market world that would simply be a fact of life.

In our existing world, most people do not believe the above scenario is a healthy one. People believe a competitive market is the best scenario for all people involved, including the competitors themselves. It breeds innovation, more efficient practices, economic stimulation, consumers get the best perceived deals for themselves, etc. When people see a “monopoly” as described above, they see an inefficiency in what they believe should be a competitive market, thus are inclined to believe an external force must “correct” this inefficiency to restore it to a more favorable scenario.

[Robespierre]

I’m curious why you draw the conclusion that INTPs want to be given power to steer the little people in the right direction.

It is merely an observation of mine. Most of the personalities I encounter on this board are the type that wish to place values in an absolute context. The INTP personality seems to strive for the role of Plato's guardians. They think that they have an objectively correct opinion about life and values, and that they should be allowed, even asked, to impose these opinions and values on the rest of us.


I really haven’t seen much of that. What I see is the tendency for INTPs to want, insist, that people understand things better, simply for the sake of sharing knowledge and understanding. The “arrogance” comes more from frustration when unsuccessful in communicating this knowledge, rather than from a need to dominate people.

I disagree. I think the arrogance comes in when someone dares to disagree with their "knowledge and understanding".


On the contrary, typical INTPs do not want to lead people, have no desire to.

Maybe not directly, but they brook no disagreement with their opinions.


I think it’s safe to say we’d rather everyone else think like we do and take care of themselves. We just want a little respect, man!

That's all well and good, but I've not yet run into an INTp who walks that walk. Instead, we have INTp's endorcing various violent government schemes for making people use oil in the "correct" manner and amount, as judged by the INTp, and for limiting people's ability to protect themselves. I only provide a few simple examples from other ongoing threads, but there are many.


Anyways, about the whole monopoly thing. The reason I harp on Rothbard’s first definition, which I feel is woefully inadequate, is because of its importance in this type of argument. A typical “monopoly” type firm is described as one which is the sole supplier of a good, with no substitute – meaning no comparable substitute.

Right, and what use can this definition have when it ignores the availability of competition? Is it prohibited for some other firm to enter the market that this sole supplier is in?


For example, his definition would say that Crest toothpaste is a “monopolistic” product, because there is no other toothpaste exactly like it.

Not quite. It would say that each individual tube of toothpaste is a unique product, as it exists in a unique time and place, and it's availability to any individual is unique.


But that is silly, because there are plenty of alternative substitutes, even if they aren’t exactly the same.

This statement exposes the useless nature of the first type of monpoly. The "availability of a substitute" is purely subjective.

And more importantly, in a free market, no monopolistic pricing can occur. Even if a firm is the sole supplier, they cannot raise their prices too high to gouge people, for if they do a competitor will enter the market and undercut them.


They fulfill the same basic need/desire.

In your opinion. Others may decide that linux fulfils the same basic need/desire as windows, does microsoft have a "monopoly"?


By comparison, say (hypothetically) you have a company that supplies a computer software platform. Say they have dominated the market and due to various tactics (owns the entire distribution chain, non-duplicable proprietary knowledge, etc.)

Proprietary knowledge of what?


have eliminated any viable competition – meaning there is no other software platform to choose from (no substitutes).

It's a hypothetical, granted, but I am willing to step out on a limb and say that this hypothetical is just about useless, as it is not very plausible.


If you want a software platform, you simply must buy theirs – no alternatives.

At one point in time? Possible. Not probable, but possible.


Furthermore there are no alternatives to software – it contains functions that nothing else can accomplish (remember this is hypothetical). That would constitute a “monopoly”.

And what then is the use of defining this firm as a monopoly? What are the results of this? Again, this shows the faults with the first definition. Can that firm raise the price on its product indefinitely?


So now the question becomes what to do about it.

Why should there be anything "done" about some activity which in no way inhibits the activities of others?


In the free-market world, no outside interference is allowed/necessary.

The free-market world is this world, and no outside intervention is needed or required, but we get it anyways.


People either buy the product or they don’t. The “monopoly” will stifle competition and innovation,

How can it, in your example you made it very clear that there WAS not competition or innovation?


and obviously exhibit other characteristics that are less desirable (to consumers and would-be competitors) than a highly competitive market.

This is the meat of the issue. What charactaristics?


However in this free-market world that would simply be a fact of life.

Are people entitled to receive software of a type that suits their personality? Is that a right? Does someone have an obligation to provide this software?


In our existing world, most people do not believe the above scenario is a healthy one.

They sure don't, which is why we have business cycles, a power-crazed centralized government, and much misery.


People believe a competitive market is the best scenario for all people involved, including the competitors themselves.

But, oh, how unfortunate that those inside the market don't know what's good for them? People believe all sorts of things, which is fine. It's not fine, though, if they impose those beliefs on others at the point of a gun, as anti-trust legislation does.

And geez, we haven't even gotten into the purely arbitrary nature of the enforcement of those laws.


It breeds innovation, more efficient practices, economic
stimulation, consumers get the best perceived deals for themselves, etc.

Destroying wealth and threatening violence breeds innovation? The soviet union must have been one hell of an innovative place.


When people see a “monopoly” as described above, they see an inefficiency in what they believe should be a competitive market, thus are inclined to believe an external force must “correct” this inefficiency to restore it to a more favorable scenario.

Favorable to WHOM? To themselves? How lovely. When I see a BMW drive by, I see a market force I must correct, I must restore the efficiency to the scenario by carjacking that car.

[Dman]

Why is a “free-market” society desirable in the first place? Is it because a free-market is “natural”…and isn’t the sole domination of one company over certain markets natural in many cases as well? Do those desired traits of a free market still fit within a market dominated by one of these “monopolies”?


The monopoly characteristic that I am thinking of is one which has a proprietary knowledge, say in high technology, that no one else can figure out or duplicate. This firm has a product that impacts most people’s lives, like a car or a computer or a medical device or something. The method to create the product is secret and very complex, absolutely no one knows how to duplicate or substitute anything for it except for a handful of people who run the company. This is a great achievement. It makes everyone’s lives more productive.

However, after 10, 20, 30 years go by, it has never been changed, duplicated, improved. It is still the exact same product. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. The company still makes money on it, and therefore sees no reason to change it, and people still demand it, they have nothing else to demand for that particular function.

Now say many different types of product markets behaved this way. Is that an unrealistic assumption? Maybe for commodity type products, but what about technological products which are by nature complex and often easy to guard. Innovation and competition would eventually evaporate. Would this still be a “free-market” society?

[Robespierre]

Why is a “free-market” society desirable in the first place?

Free market is another way of saying non-violent. It's possible that you desire to be controlled or lead by force and violence, and on the free market, you can pick someone to do that for you, if you want. The beauty of the free market, is that it accomodates all in the most moral way possible.


Is it because a free-market is “natural”…and isn’t the sole domination of one company over certain markets natural in many cases as well?

Individual liberty is not entirely natural, no. There are many cases in which it is completely ignored by humans. Really for humans, nothing is entirely natural or not.


Do those desired traits of a free market still fit within a market dominated by one of these “monopolies”?

Depends on what you mean by dominated. If you include the use of force, then no. Non-aggression, my friend.


The monopoly characteristic that I am thinking of is one which has a proprietary knowledge, say in high technology, that no one else can figure out or duplicate.

How long does this ever last? All it takes is for another firm to purchase several of the products in question, and replicate the process.


This firm has a product that impacts most people’s lives, like a car or a computer or a medical device or something.

And without barbaric intellectual property laws, these ideas cannot be held hostage by one firm.


The method to create the product is secret and very complex, absolutely no one knows how to duplicate or substitute anything for it except for a handful of people who run the company. This is a great achievement. It makes everyone’s lives more productive.

Not very likely. Even if such a farsical situation were to occur, the individuals within the company would have a VERY strong incentive to defect and join with other investors and create their own company to use their "unique" knowledge.


However, after 10, 20, 30 years go by, it has never been changed, duplicated, improved.

Think of one example that fits this description. The situation you describe simply won't ever happen.


It is still the exact same product. Is this a bad thing?[quote]

I don't think it's possible, but if it were, just who are we considering this to be a bad/good thing for? The company? Consumers taken as a whole? God? Mickey Mouse?

[QUOTE=Dman]Maybe, maybe not. The company still makes money on it, and therefore sees no reason to change it, and people still demand it, they have nothing else to demand for that particular function.

Do those people buying the product have a RIGHT to buy that product? Do they have a right to be able to buy it at what they consider a low price? Does the firm providing the product have a duty to provide the product? What would you do to fix this situation?


Now say many different types of product markets behaved this way.

Why? I can't think of a single one.


Is that an unrealistic assumption?

Entirely.


Maybe for commodity type products, but what about technological products which are by nature complex and often easy to guard.

Technological products are by their very nature fleeting. Something new and improved is always around the corner.


Innovation and competition would eventually evaporate. Would this still be a “free-market” society?

Well, since it could never happen, I don't think an answer is in order.


You are operating under some odd assumptions which I have been trying to coax you out of. You assume that simply because someone invents a product which some people find useful, that they somehow have inherited a duty to provide this product to the market. If people want the product, they must cooperate with the producer to obtain it, or find an alternate way to fulfill their demand.

[Dman]

Free market is another way of saying non-violent. It's possible that you desire to be controlled or lead by force and violence, and on the free market, you can pick someone to do that for you, if you want. The beauty of the free market, is that it accomodates all in the most moral way possible.



Individual liberty is not entirely natural, no. There are many cases in which it is completely ignored by humans. Really for humans, nothing is entirely natural or not.



Depends on what you mean by dominated. If you include the use of force, then no. Non-aggression, my friend.



How long does this ever last? All it takes is for another firm to purchase several of the products in question, and replicate the process.



And without barbaric intellectual property laws, these ideas cannot be held hostage by one firm.



Not very likely. Even if such a farsical situation were to occur, the individuals within the company would have a VERY strong incentive to defect and join with other investors and create their own company to use their "unique" knowledge.



Think of one example that fits this description. The situation you describe simply won't ever happen.



Do those people buying the product have a RIGHT to buy that product? Do they have a right to be able to buy it at what they consider a low price? Does the firm providing the product have a duty to provide the product? What would you do to fix this situation?



Why? I can't think of a single one.



Entirely.



Technological products are by their very nature fleeting. Something new and improved is always around the corner.



Well, since it could never happen, I don't think an answer is in order.


You are operating under some odd assumptions which I have been trying to coax you out of. You assume that simply because someone invents a product which some people find useful, that they somehow have inherited a duty to provide this product to the market. If people want the product, they must cooperate with the producer to obtain it, or find an alternate way to fulfill their demand.

Ok I give. I'm having a hard time fighting this one. Your arguments sound more reasonable to me than those that I propose.

When I have more time I will do more studying, because I enjoy the debate & you seem to be the only person I've ever discussed this with that can reasonably back up your assertions, so I have to throw in the towel on this one.

[Robespierre]

Ok I give. I'm having a hard time fighting this one. Your arguments sound more reasonable to me than those that I propose.

When I have more time I will do more studying, because I enjoy the debate & you seem to be the only person I've ever discussed this with that can reasonably back up your assertions, so I have to throw in the towel on this one.
http://www.plantimals.org/images/pwned-facekick.jpg


Haha, just kidding.

It's always fun to go to the mat on these things. You never really know how sound your arguments are unless you test them in battle. Which implies that I am open to the possibility that I am mistaken. I don't claim to have the absolute truth. I just want to understand the system we live in as much as possible.

[Dman]

I just wanted to show you that not all INTPs are arrogant "when someone dares to disagree with their "knowledge and understanding" or "brook no disagreement with their opinions"!

And "You never really know how sound your arguments are unless you test them in battle" indeed. Regardless of how I really feel about the above argument, I need to understand the flaws in each side of the argument. Meaning I must continue to research for flaws in "your side" as well as understanding the flaws in "my side" in order to reach an objective opinion of which is the more reasonable argument. At this point, yours is to me.

[Darren]

Supply and Demand curves, equillibriums, etc, are all idealized ways of thinking about the market. They can be helpful in some instances, but it is my opinion that they offer too high a temptation to take them literally to be very useful.

I just wrote my last final exam (so *now* I'm an MA in economics).... and so I definitely don't feel like having a deep discussion on the topic right now :). Suffice to say I agree with the above.

Darren

[trendal]

How can you complain about North-American gas prices? Do you know that we have some of the cheapest gas prices in the world (if not THE cheapest)?? We are one of the only areas (if not THE only) on the planet where water costs more than gasoline.

On top of this, you seem to overlook the very real and dire fact of peak-oil (as at least one other person has already mentioned). This is only the beginning of a long and drastic rise in fuel prices, as our worldwide oil production begins the long slope downwards. There is no getting around this (unless you believe in abiotic oil...).

I hate to sound like the doomsday-nut...but unless the general public learns about this in a hurry, or our self-serving politicians decide to do something (unlikely), our modern Western society is in for a big wake-up call - when the vast majority of us can no longer afford fuel for pretty much anything.

[Robespierre]

the very real and dire fact of peak-oil

This statement almost makes peak-oil theory sound scientific and absolutely certain.

[trendal]

Do you have any real doubts about the theory?

Unless you buy into the abiotic oil theories...

[Avengardh]

*Sings*: Legs were made for walkin'..tut tut.

[Ka.avik]

*Sings*: Legs were made for walkin' I vote for biodiesel to power a highway-legal scooter.
these guys (http://ecycle.com/powersports/default.htm) are painfully close to making that dream come true.

'cept, I don't wanna pay $5K for a 125cc 'sportsbike'

[trendal]

Get a bicycle ;)

I do not now, nor have I ever, owned an automobile. I walk when possible, bike if needed, carpool, and take public transportation if all else fails.

Hopefully when the crash comes, more people will start using their own pair of legs to move around with.

[Biff_Loman]

Robespierre may have a point. In the end, market forces will win the day. We'll just make more oil, as much oil as the market demands. The guys down at the oil factory will be putting in double shifts.

This is exactly why we have everything else the market demands, such as cures for cancer. Whenever the market demands something, the world just coughs it up.

[Ka.avik]

Hopefully when the crash comes, more people will start using their own pair of legs to move around with.
The human race is more resiliant than you give them credit for. The SJs are painfully unobservant, but when (if...) there's no more gas to buy, they'll all do something else.

The Europeans made it through the black plague, we can survive having no gasoline.

[trendal]

Oh no, please don't get me wrong here! I'm not claiming this is the end of the world or some sort of biblical apocalypse...just a crash.

In fact I know we humans will come out on top, in the end. Many may die, and we may lose much that we have now...but in time we will invent our way into a better, or at least more energy efficient, future ;)

It takes a good major crisis to get the masses on their feet and moving.

[trendal]

We'll just make more oil, as much oil as the market demands.

Funny thing is...some people actually believe this :huh:

[Claverhouse]

As for peak oil, the first link in this earlier thread still works, but the download one in post 23 seems to have gone:

The Oil's Running Out... (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=900)


Much of it is a discussion of conscription rather than the fact of the oil going, that's intps for you.



Claverhouse http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Dman]

I hate to sound like the doomsday-nut...but unless the general public learns about this in a hurry, or our self-serving politicians decide to do something (unlikely), our modern Western society is in for a big wake-up call - when the vast majority of us can no longer afford fuel for pretty much anything.

As I believe Robespierre may have already pointed out, we will not just "suddenly" run out of oil. Like other scarce resources, it will gradually become less and less supply, increasing prices, and alternatives will become cheaper relative to oil. There will likely be a change at some point, but it will not happen so suddenly that many people die or no one can afford to do anything. That IS doomsday thinking, and it's inaccurate.

[trendal]

I never said it would happen overnight...

Rome didn't fall overnight, either.

[trendal]

Also, I'm not saying people will starve to death or anything.

However I expect military conflicts will become much more commonplace as the major world powers continue to make a desparate grab for the remaining oil supplies. This alone has the possibility to kill millions.

Now, as for the whole idea that the "market" will see to it that we have cheap alternatives to oil...I think this is naive thinking at best. None of the currently-feasible "alternatives" to oil can come close to replacing the cheap energy we get from oil. Not to mention the petrochemical issues. We could very possibly reach the Peak this year, and will almost certainly reach it within the decade. Perhaps if we already had alternatives that could hope to replace oil, we could make it through without a hiccup. We do not, however, and so there will be at least a period of economic and social instability as the human race searches for a new way of living.

In time, we will adapt and find new ways of living. In the short run, it'll be a bumpy ride.

[Claverhouse]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/dilbert2073244050517.gif


Please don't, Dman. Owls deserve better than that.



Claverhouse http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[Architectonic]

Funny thing is...some people actually believe this :huh:

I think you missed his point. We will ALWAYS have the potential to get oil if we need it. Even if it requires another energy source to do so.

The world is going to feel a squeeze for sure (and its already underway) - but this will ultimately result in increased conservation and innovation to deal with the problem.

And hopefully this will result in less SUVs on the road. (joking) :P

[Robespierre]

Robespierre may have a point. In the end, market forces will win the day. We'll just make more oil, as much oil as the market demands. The guys down at the oil factory will be putting in double shifts.

This is exactly why we have everything else the market demands, such as cures for cancer. Whenever the market demands something, the world just coughs it up.

The "market" is merely an abstract representation of people's wants, and the relative ability of other people to supply those wants, nothing more. To ignore the market is to ignore reality.

[Robespierre]

None of the currently-feasible "alternatives" to oil can come close to replacing the cheap energy we get from oil.

Then why do you call them feasible?

[trendal]

They are feasible in the fact that they can currently produce energy...just not enough to replace the energy we get from oil.

Fusion, for instance, is an un-feasible energy source at the current time. It is currently possible...just not feasible for energy-production needs.

[Robespierre]

They are feasible in the fact that they can currently produce energy...just not enough to replace the energy we get from oil.

Fusion, for instance, is an un-feasible energy source at the current time. It is currently possible...just not feasible for energy-production needs.

The market decides what is feasible. And recently, it has been indicating that oil is becoming less feasible than before.. rising prices.

[sbw]

The price of oil is not going down anytime soon due to the increase in demand from the Chinese. Actually, the *real* price is probably still less than what it cost in the 1970s at the time of the oil embargo.

Basically, people are going to have to learn to develop land and transportation systems in a more environmentally conscious way, and also make wiser choices when it comes to personal transportation decisions.

or just pay more. if gas were 4 bucks per gallon right now, I would still drive to work every day. if it were 20 bucks per gallon, maybe I wouldn't.

Scott

[trendal]

The market decides what is feasible.

So I can just go pick up that cure for cancer, or maybe AIDS, down at the drugstore, right?

[Robespierre]

The market decides what is feasible.

So I can just go pick up that cure for cancer, or maybe AIDS, down at the drugstore, right?

Did you mistake the word "feasible" for the word "possible"?

If not, you're question sort of answers itself, no?

[trendal]

So how do you expect the market to make things possible which are not currently possible?

What kind of magical powers does this "market" you speak of have?

[trendal]

Inventions and innovation do not happen overnight, and major inventions certainly do not happen simply because "the market" wills it to happen. That is a very limited (and just plain wrong) view of how change/invention occurs.

I suggest you take a look at the work of James Burke, for an introduction in technological innovation and how it occurs.

[Robespierre]

So how do you expect the market to make things possible which are not currently possible?

What kind of magical powers does this "market" you speak of have?

The market is the ever-changing status of individuals valuations of goods and services. If people value cures for cancer and aids, as it is fairly clear that they do, those with the intelligence to see it, will detect this demand and attempt to fill it. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that this sort of product would be highly demanded.

Either way, are you joking about innovation on the market? Or do you suppose that bio/mechanical/etc engineering cannot exist without government?

[Robespierre]

Inventions and innovation do not happen overnight, and major inventions certainly do not happen simply because "the market" wills it to happen. That is a very limited (and just plain wrong) view of how change/invention occurs.

This is silly. The market itself does not invent things. Those who have knowledge in certain areas obtain resources by convinving others that their knowledge is in demand. Those individuals then invent things.

If you would like to quote Burke, please do so, I curious to see what you can come up with.

[trendal]

No I'm not joking.

And where did you get government? I said nothing about government....

A great deal of small-scale invention/innovation does occur because of market demand, but major breakthroughs are almost always the result of the right ideas coming together at the right time. In many cases major inventions are even "accidental" in nature: side-effect discoveries that were not looked for in the first place.

If you look at some of the examples of market-driven research, such as fusion/cancer/AIDS research, you see a trend of failure after failure to actually deliver the goods.

I expect that the next big energy source will not be discovered due to market demand...but will come from way out in left field with little or no warning. It will not be due to a decades-long research program...but instead be an "accident" discovery that no one really sees coming.

Think about it: how many examples can you give of dedicated research producing the invention they set out to (minor innovations excluded).

[Robespierre]

No I'm not joking.

And where did you get government? I said nothing about government....

Where do you suppose innovation comes from?

Aside from the market, what is there, other than government? I define the market as the sum of all voluntary transactions.


A great deal of small-scale invention/innovation does occur because of market demand, but major breakthroughs are almost always the result of the right ideas coming together at the right time. In many cases major inventions are even "accidental" in nature: side-effect discoveries that were not looked for in the first place.

I fail to see how this contradicts my point of view in any way. What about the rare occasions when accidents result in useful discoveries disproves what I have said?


If you look at some of the examples of market-driven research, such as fusion/cancer/AIDS research, you see a trend of failure after failure to actually deliver the goods.

As opposed to non-market driven research? Which has accomplished what?

You set an impossible and entirely unreasonable standard, cure cancer or the market is rubbish.


I expect that the next big energy source will not be discovered due to market demand...but will come from way out in left field with little or no warning. It will not be due to a decades-long research program...but instead be an "accident" discovery that no one really sees coming.

You're missing something here, and I can't put my finger on it. Your statements seem absurd and wildly off point, but I can't quite tell you what direction to move in order to get closer to the point, as I have no idea where you are. I'll try to pin your opinion's location down a little better.[Okay, this is a little harsh. I don't mean to insult you, but to express how much I don't understand where you are coming from]

Do you suppose that I think that "the market" itself is some physical thing that actually does research? This is not my opinion at all, it is individuals, and only individuals, that can take actions.

In your above statement, you seem to think that there is a difference between innovations generated by organized research and those that spring from eureka moments and individual efforts, why? What is the relation of organized research to the market as opposed to individual efforts, and why should one be considered of the market, and the other, somehow, not part of the market?


Think about it: how many examples can you give of dedicated research producing the invention they set out to (minor innovations excluded).

I really have no idea what you mean. What is the difference? What is a major innovation as opposed to a minor innovation, and how is one a result of the market and the other not?

[trendal]

No, no, don't get me wrong! I know what you mean when you refer to "the market". I also did not intend to mean that if cancer is not cured, the market is rubbish. In fact, I don't think I even said the market is rubbish.

The point I am trying to make is that most major innovation does not occur as a planned and direct result of market-driven research. It comes sporadically, without warning.

I find the idea that we should rely on market-driven research to solve our problems to be naive. It's like counting your eggs before they hatch, you know?

"Don't worry about our future energy needs, because the market will make sure we have enough energy." It's just wishfull thinking.


Now if you can't understand what I'm trying to say, we don't have any reason to argue, do we? We'll just have to agree to disagree, here.

[Robespierre]

The point I am trying to make is that most major innovation does not occur as a planned and direct result of market-driven research. It comes sporadically, without warning.

I find the idea that we should rely on market-driven research to solve our problems to be naive. It's like counting your eggs before they hatch, you know?

"Don't worry about our future energy needs, because the market will make sure we have enough energy." It's just wishfull thinking.

Now if you can't understand what I'm trying to say, we don't have any reason to argue, do we? We'll just have to agree to disagree, here.

I still have no idea what it is that you take issue with me over.

In my opinion, ANY research or development that takes place without being funded by stolen resources(tax money), is a result of the free market. I make no distinction between purposeful development at somewhere like bell labs, ibm, boeing, and those innovations that occur in some small workshop or by accident.

[trendal]

Well if you are going to use "the market" as a blanket term for everything that happens...then sure, all researc/invention/innovation is a result of the market.

And please. I don't have an issue with you. I discuss ideas only. I don't know you ;)

At any rate, you replied to me first. What issue do you have with me/my ideas?

[Robespierre]

Well if you are going to use "the market" as a blanket term for everything that happens...then sure, all researc/invention/innovation is a result of the market.

The market is not a blanket term for everything that happens. It is a term that describes the interrelations of people exchanging goods and services. The "free" market is probably a better term for what I'm talking about, the entirely voluntary exchange of goods and services. The goods themselves or their development are not the market, but their exchange is.


And please. I don't have an issue with you. I discuss ideas only. I don't know you ;)

I take it is understood that you don't have a personal issue with me, but with my ideas, or at least how I present them.


At any rate, you replied to me first. What issue do you have with me/my ideas?

That's what I've been trying to figure out. You spoke as if the market couldn't be relied upon to do anything, that I was naive to think that way. Answer me this, what should we rely upon, if not the market?

[trendal]

Rely on what we know now. Anything else is placing bets, right? Counting eggs before they hatch.

[Robespierre]

Rely on what we know now. Anything else is placing bets, right? Counting eggs before they hatch.

What actions do you suggest, based upon your advice?

[trendal]

An immediate and quite drastic cut-back in our energy usage. It will mean a great deal of sacrifice, especially for those used to a Western lifestyle...but I think it's the best course of action until we can be sure that we will be able to meet our energy needs after the peak.

[Robespierre]

An immediate and quite drastic cut-back in our energy usage. It will mean a great deal of sacrifice, especially for those used to a Western lifestyle...but I think it's the best course of action until we can be sure that we will be able to meet our energy needs after the peak.

What peak?

[trendal]

Peak oil. Isn't that what most of this thread has been about, including the original post?

[Robespierre]

Peak oil. Isn't that what most of this thread has been about, including the original post?

Peak oil what? Prices?

[trendal]

Hubbert's Peak. The point where 50% of the oil supplies have been extracted.

[Robespierre]

Hubbert's Peak. The point where 50% of the oil supplies have been extracted.

The oil supply, in the economic sense(which is the only meaningful sense for this discussion) is not static, it changes based upon current price. The price is driven by availability, new discoveries of oil reserves, political developments, techonological developments, etc.

As the available amount of oil decreases, the price will rise, increasing the supply. Because of this mechanism, we will never run out of oil. As the price climbs, technologies which are not currently cost efficient(aka feasible), will become feasible due to the rising price of oil and new technology.

[trendal]

Note that I never said we would "run out" of oil ;)

The economic sense is not the only sense that matters, here, because oil is not simply an economic abstraction: it is a real, physical quantity which is being depleted minute by minute. There will come a time when oil becomes more costly than most of us can afford.

Yes, when that time comes other energy sources will come into play...however as I stated earlier (actually the first post of mine which you replied to) none of those energy sources, or even all of them as a whole, can hope to compete with oil in terms of cost, availability, or ease of use.

So, unless an entirely new source of energy becomes available (fusion, for example) we will be forced to reduce the ammount of energy we use - simply because there won't be as much energy to use.

[Robespierre]

Note that I never said we would "run out" of oil ;)

The economic sense is not the only sense that matters, here, because oil is not simply an economic abstraction: it is a real, physical quantity which is being depleted minute by minute.

What do you suppose economics is the study of?


There will come a time when oil becomes more costly than most of us can afford.

Exactly, so what's the problem with that?


Yes, when that time comes other energy sources will come into play...however as I stated earlier (actually the first post of mine which you replied to) none of those energy sources, or even all of them as a whole, can hope to compete with oil in terms of cost, availability, or ease of use.

So, unless an entirely new source of energy becomes available (fusion, for example) we will be forced to reduce the ammount of energy we use - simply because there won't be as much energy to use.

We won't need an "entirely new source", there are thousands and thousands of alternative ways to extract and use energy right now. Which ones will come into widespread use will be decided by the market.

[trendal]

there are thousands and thousands of alternative ways to extract and use energy right now.

Name ten.

[Robespierre]

Supposing I agreed with you(I don't), that oil consumption was a looming problem. What should be done? I mean specifically, don't just tell me that we need to reduce our consumption, how, by what means? Will you want to government to force people to lower consumption?

[trendal]

And I mean energy sources, too, not energy carriers or conversion processes.

Hydrogen, for example, is not a source, just a carrier.

[Robespierre]

there are thousands and thousands of alternative ways to extract and use energy right now.

Name ten.

Solar cells, chemical batteries, horse on treadmill, geothermal, coal, nuclear, natural gas, combusted hydrogen, fuel cells, and tidal power generators.

[trendal]

Supposing I agreed with you(I don't), that oil consumption was a looming problem. What should be done? I mean specifically, don't just tell me that we need to reduce our consumption, how, by what means? Will you want to government to force people to lower consumption?

No, I'm not much for big government. Ideally, the population as a whole must decide for themselves to reduce their energy consumption. I am not confident that this will happen until we are forced to reduce our consumption by lack of energy sources.

Specifics? There are far too many to name. You could make your use of energy more efficient, thus reducing the required energy input. You could entirely remove certain energy uses. You could move as many processes as possible to renewable energy sources.

[Robespierre]

No, I'm not much for big government. Ideally, the population as a whole must decide for themselves to reduce their energy consumption. I am not confident that this will happen until we are forced to reduce our consumption by lack of energy sources.

Specifics? There are far too many to name.

Well, let's concentrate on the last sentence of your first paragraph. Just what do you mean by force? That people will be forced by the circumstances, diminishing supply, or that they will be forced at gunpoint?

[Robespierre]

You could entirely remove certain energy uses.

How could you do that, and by what right? Especially considering you claim to not be too hot for government involvement.

[trendal]

Solar cells - one of the best alternatives, though these also require a great deal of energy to produce in the first place, are HORRIBLY innefficient, and also require petrochemicals for manufacture.

chemical batteries - same as above, and as well these are not "sources" of energy...just energy storage devices. You still need to get the initial energy from somewhere.

horse on treadmill - :P

geothermal - a VERY good choice, but not feasible for all areas.

coal / natural gas - just more non-renewable fossil fuels, which will also have their own peak production the same as oil.

nuclear - probably the best bet for the short term, but has its own obvious problems. Ever heard of a nuclear-powered car? Would you trust most people driving around with small nuclear reactors under the hood?

combusted hydrogen - NOT a fuel source at all. You have to use more energy to make the free hydrogen than you get out of burning it. It's an energy "sink". Show me the large deposits of free elemental/molecular hydrogen...

fuel cells - even WORSE than solar cells, as far as production goes (they require even more petrochemicals than solar cells). You also have the added hydrogen issues as explained above.

tidal power generators - along with geothermal, probably the best ideas for renewable sources.

So thats 5, only 5, actual sources. Out of those 5, two have major issues with production and safety as well as require oil/petrochem for production. The horse idea is just plain silly.

That leaves two.

[trendal]

By "forced" I mean forced by lack of sources. Not forced at gunpoint.

By "remove" I mean voluntarily, which is why I said I highly doubt it will happen until we are forced to (forced as explained above).

[trendal]

To elaborate on the "sources" vs "carrier" issue:

There are only three primary sources of energy on the planet Earth:

-solar
-gravitational
-nuclear

All other "sources" are merely down-stream conversions from one or a combination of these three.

[Robespierre]

So thats 5, only 5, actual sources.

I answered your question as it was posed, which was to name 10 of the "thousands and thousands of alternative ways to extract and use energy right now." Extract AND use.

Either way, the exercize is pointless, as nothing I have been saying hinges on my ability to name energy sources and uses.

[Robespierre]

By "forced" I mean forced by lack of sources. Not forced at gunpoint.

Then we are in complete agreement. People won't stop using oil until it becomes too difficult to use it.


By "remove" I mean voluntarily, which is why I said I highly doubt it will happen until we are forced to (forced as explained above).

If you could demonstrate that "removing" a use of energy would result in a savings, or something else which an individual might desire, more quiet, cleaner air, etc, people would follow your advice all the way.

[trendal]

I clarified the question in the post after I asked you to name ten.

And, as we are talking about moving away from oil as an energy source, you can't really include ways that require oil now can you?

[trendal]

If you could demonstrate that "removing" a use of energy would result in a savings, or something else which an individual might desire, more quiet, cleaner air, etc, people would follow your advice all the way.

That is demonstratably false. Most people understand that gas-burning vehicles produce air pollution such as smog, as well as a great deal of noise. That doesn't stop them from driving said vehicles, does it?

Or, perhaps, most people don't desire cleaner air or less noise...they just want convenience and comfort.

[Robespierre]

I clarified the question in the post after I asked you to name ten.

And, as we are talking about moving away from oil as an energy source, you can't really include ways that require oil now can you?

Either way, by your definition, oil is not a source of energy, so this whole tangent is pointless.

[Robespierre]

That is demonstratably false. Most people understand that gas-burning vehicles produce air pollution such as smog, as well as a great deal of noise. That doesn't stop them from driving said vehicles, does it?

Of course not, you need to read closely.


or something else which an individual might desire

"Might" not, "always does". I listed a few possible alternatives to price to give you an idea about what I was speaking. Each individual will value these things in an entirely subjective way.


Or, perhaps, most people don't desire cleaner air or less noise...they just want convenience and comfort.

Bingo.

[trendal]

Notice that in your examples I did alow downstream "sources", provided that they are in a form that is both accessible and which does not require significant alteration before use.

Oil (stored solar energy) can be more or less used as it comes out of the ground. Geothermal (gravitational energy) is available for use as-is. Nuclear fuels require little reprocessing before use.

Hydrogen must be made before it can be used, thus there is no point at all in calling it a "source".

See my point?

[Robespierre]

See my point?

Not at all. How does your discussion of the technical nature of energy relate to our discussion?

[trendal]

That's what I've been trying to discuss for this entire thread.

You were the one who brought economics into the fray.

But this is the last post I'll make in reply to you. If you want to argue something completely different, do so on your own.

I follow Physics, not Economics.

[Robespierre]

That's what I've been trying to discuss for this entire thread.

I know you've been trying, why?


You were the one who brought economics into the fray.

The original question/rant was about economics, philosophy, and politics. Not technical issues.


But this is the last post I'll make in reply to you. If you want to argue something completely different, do so on your own.

I follow Physics, not Economics.

What about this thread makes you think it is a discussion of physics?