Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I wouldn't take out Chavez for additional reasons. First, he is democratically elected, and far from mistreating his people (contrast Saddam, Castro, Khaddafi, and our history of U.S. supported hacks and petty despots such as Aquino, Saddam, the Taliban, the Sauds, etc.). He has so much oil money that he doesn't need to.

Second, he is very popular in latin America and our previous ham-fisted attempts to put in our own latin petty despots (Peron, Noriega, anyone in Colombia, the Dirty War, the Docs, Batista, the Contras, etc.) have all backfired, with the result being that the entire continent distrusts us so much that they fought for years the efforts to preserve millions of acres of Patagonia by the eco-fascist couple who founded North Face and Benetton (I think) because they thought it was a U.S. CIA plot to seize the land. We have no credibility in this region.

This is the problem with my support of better intelligence - our intelligence agencies have a shitty track record in this field. Maybe with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, they could focus better on anything other than their former mantra of "Must. Oppose. Soviet Union. Regardless," but I'm not sure. We simply often don't understand the culture and mindset of these other cultures and, accordingly, fail to handle these things appropriately. Hence, I also remain fairly anti-interventionist, not because I think things are wrong elsewhere, but because our track record on effecting positive change through our military and clandestine efforts (where we have been the protagonist/aggresssor) in the last century has been so dismal.

LessinIguazu

I don't disagree. I think we should mind our own business, until someone really impacts our bottom line or safety. Then we should pay someone in his upper echelon an amazing stack of money to overthrow and kill him.

I don't see how we can ever understand every culture. The best we can do is get along with them. If one should become a danger then take some sort of action to get rid of the problem.

All actions should be reactive, or at least preventative of definite, impending problems.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I take what Adder to be saying as this:

Some companies have a CAFE level above the existing limits. If they could sell credits for that to Ford, there will be a net decrease, because Ford will be buying those credits instead of also increasing its CAFE level.* At least that's the theory.

I say "so what" for two reasons. First, having the economic incentive to increase fuel economy is likely to drive a company like Hyundai to increase their CAFE level further--now they get compensated. Second, it means Ford won't waste everyone's time and money producing small cars that no one wants. That production floods the market and drives down prices for Hyundai's small cars, so that Hyundai has a harder time selling cars that it can produce at lower cost. Ultimately society will win.

Good point.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's easier to get re-elected if the cost to consumers is baked into the cost of a new car, rather than added to the price of gas at the pump.

I think a partial solution to this is tax credits for more fuel efficient vehicles that give consumers a chance to get back some of their increased tax bill.

The power and water companies can do this themselves for front-loading washing machines, why can't we do the same thing for cars?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once you start knocking off foreign leaders, it becomes attractively simple for our political leadership to try to deal with foreign problems in that way. E.g., the temptation to think that Chavez is the source of our problems with Venezuela, rather than a symptom. I agree that our intelligence agencies are not always perfect, but there's also a problem at the top (generally, not just in this administration).

What problems do we have with Venezuela but those created by Chavez (and our faild attempt to oust him)? They sell us a shitload of oil and have been until recently an open, democratic culture with which we've never been at odds.

Chavez doesn't like the power of our oil companies. OK. Well, he's addressing that disdain, buy nailing them with huge fees for using the country's oil fields. What he's really mad about is the fact that he can't bleed any more money out of us because we have economic power over him. Citgo's got 15,000 locations in and billions in refinery technology over here. We're also his WalMart, in the sense that, like a wholesaler forced to give WalMart price breaks because it's buying 70% of the wholesaler's production, Chavez can't live without us. If he nationalizes Exxon's oil fields, we can bring his country to its economic knees. The man's whining because he's running out of negotiating options to squeeze more cash from us.

Perhaps he should build a bomb like Kim Jong Il did. That seems to be the most profitable way to blackmail us.

Chavez is a despot parading around like he's Che Guevera. He'll be corrupt powermad fool lording over an economic husk of a country in a decade, which he and he alone will have created.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What problems do we have with Venezuela but those created by Chavez (and our faild attempt to oust him)? They sell us a shitload of oil and have been until recently an open, democratic culture with which we've never been at odds.

Chavez doesn't like the power of our oil companies. OK. Well, he's addressing that disdain, buy nailing them with huge fees for using the country's oil fields. What he's really mad about is the fact that he can't bleed any more money out of us because we have economic power over him. Citgo's got 15,000 locations in and billions in refinery technology over here. We're also his WalMart, in the sense that, like a wholesaler forced to give WalMart price breaks because it's buying 70% of the wholesaler's production, Chavez can't live without us. If he nationalizes Exxon's oil fields, we can bring his country to its economic knees. The man's whining because he's running out of negotiating options to squeeze more cash from us.

Perhaps he should build a bomb like Kim Jong Il did. That seems to be the most profitable way to blackmail us.

Chavez is a despot parading around like he's Che Guevera. He'll be corrupt powermad fool lording over an economic husk of a country in a decade, which he and he alone will have created.

You could plausibly suggest that an oil-rich country in South America is likely to produce a leader like Chavez. There is a lot of discontent with the U.S. in the region. Chavez plays off that -- he didn't invent it. His rise coincides with the run-up in oil prices -- not coincidentally, since it gives him $$$ to cause trouble, and increases the likelihood of authoritarian government, as elsewhere in the world. It's the curse of oil-rich countries.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree generally, but think you are assuming (in your first point) that CAFE standards will continue to rise. If they don't, then it seems to me that you've transfered wealth from Ford to Hyundai without accomplishing much else.

It's not just a wealth transfer. Any car co. that is above the CAFE limits has no incentive for further improvements (beyond what the market demands). If they can financially benefit from further improvements, however, they will seek further gains that they can sell.

Same reason tradeable emissions permits work. Even a factory that's below whatever cap there is has an incentive for further reductions if they can trade them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're talking about the way the act could be, not the way it is. Changing it as Burger suggests doesn't let Ford off the hook, since Ford has to either improve its own fleet MPG or pay another company for the credits. Someone is improving fleet MPG, and the only question is whether Ford will find more efficient to pay someone else to get that reduction or to do it itself.

You miss the point. we're not trying to let Ford off the hook, or keep it on a hook- we're trying to clean up the planet. Keep this in mind until after lunch- i'll expand in a few hours.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
I think a partial solution to this is tax credits for more fuel efficient vehicles that give consumers a chance to get back some of their increased tax bill.

The power and water companies can do this themselves for front-loading washing machines, why can't we do the same thing for cars?

Totally different things.

First off, any fuel efficient car brings savings to its buyers in the form of lower fuel costs, whether fuel or taxes. Second, under CAFE, some cost of lower fuel economy is further baked into the price of large gas guzzlers, while small cars are subsidized. (Remember all the great prices on Ford Escorts in the 80s and 90s? That was so Ford could sell lots of Continentals and then later SUVs).

If you increase gas taxes to create disincentives for fuel consumption, the way to give it back is through reduced income taxes. Or, the better proposal was to reduce social security taxes--make the first $4k of annual income exempt from FICA (or whatever amount necessary for revenue neutrality), and fund the SS trust fund with the gas taxes. That means that any objections to a gas tax's being regressive are muted because wage earners get the biggest benefit.

Second, water and power companies are not the government. The reason they offer rebates is because it is cheaper to get more fuel efficient appliances (or water users) than it is to build additional capacity. (And, FWIW, there are massive tax incentives for hybrids, but they have been a wealth transfer to teh producers of those cars, who have been able to maintain prices above the MSRP of about the amount of the tax credit).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You miss the point. we're not trying to let Ford off the hook, or keep it on a hook- we're trying to clean up the planet. Keep this in mind until after lunch- i'll expand in a few hours.

How are they not on the hook if their option when producing another gas guzzler is to pay Toyota $5000 for a credit that allows them to do so instead of building another small car and paying a customer (in the form of a discount/subsidy) $5000 to buy it?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given our success interdicting drugs from Canada and Mexico, I'm reasonably sure a national ban on handguns would have approximately the same results.

But how do you know? Does everybody who can't buy a Tec-9 or an 8-ball check in with you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not just a wealth transfer. Any car co. that is above the CAFE limits has no incentive for further improvements (beyond what the market demands). If they can financially benefit from further improvements, however, they will seek further gains that they can sell.

OK, good point.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Or to repeat myself, the current form of Republican is just a renamed Southern Democrat. George Bush is Lloyd Bentsen without the savvy.

Spanky: "I think Less is even more libertarian because I don't think Less would support the US getting involved in any foreign wars and he would end all zoning laws. At least that is the way he used to think."

Not quite. I have always agreed with the need for security from within and without to some degree. Now, however, I would opt for cheaper and more effective forms of addressing our enemies than the NeoCon's proven expensive and ineffective ones in Afganistan and Iraq (although nothing has been more ineffective, inefficient, ridiculous nad harmful abroad and within than the 80-year failure that is the so-called War on Drugs). I lean more towards better funded intelligence than armed services, and the use of assassination instead of the blunt instrument that is an army, navy or air force.

2. I am totally with you on the assassination concept.

[Adder]

Originally posted by taxwonk
2. I am totally with you on the assassination concept.

Well, isn't it an agreeable day on the board today.

I agree with the concept too, although not for Chavez, and, I would argue that the targets should be terrorist cells more than foreign leaders.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So? If Ford finds it cheaper to pay Toyota to hire engineers than to hire their own, why not let them? If Ford's engineers are either better or cheaper, Ford will not buy credits from Toyota. On the other hand, if Ford's engineers are fat and lazy, well, then what's the problem with laying them off?

What's even more likely to happen is that Ford will fire them, buy the credits from Toyota, who will hire Ford's former engineers, but get 25% more productivity from them.

I think you're opverlooking Hank's primary point. The aim of the CAFE rule is to require the entire industry to work toward reducing hydrocarbon consumption and emissions.

The current work Ford is doing with alternative fuel and Flex-Fuel vehicles is exactly what the rules are aimed at. It odesn't matter if they build an Exploder or a Prius, if they can get both vehicles to run on hybrid engines that get 100 miles to a gallon, or safe hydrogen fuel cells that don't blow up.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
Well, isn't it an agreeable day on the board today.

I agree with the concept too, although not for Chavez, and, I would argue that the targets should be terrorist cells more than foreign leaders.

It seems to me there are an awful lot of troops running around Afghanistan not finding Bin Laden. There's a good place to start.