No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why not All Of The Above?

I forgot to mention that he dumped Bridget Moynahan after he got her with child outside of the bounds of matrimony. No gentleman would do such a thing to a nice Irish Catholic girl.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I live in a place where zoning decisions made decades ago have complicated fucked any prospect of good transportation policy. (Notwithstanding, I had managed to arrange my life to have a short, non-freeway commute, until a jackass financier came along and re-arranged things.)

My point was that if you are trying to create incentives to get car makers to build these cars, it makes some sense to give the stickers to the first x such cars from a given manufacturer, rather than the first y such cars. That spurs product choice and development, rather than a huge first-mover advantage.

There are lots of other things one could do that would create better incentives still. Raise gas taxes and use them to fund other transit. Re-zone to encourage development around transit. Fund transit that works. But, drivers vote.

The car salesman was predicting that electric cars will continue to sell. I doubt it -- I'm overcoming the range limitations for the HOV sticker, but if that wasn't the sweetener, I'd be buying something else.

say if you buy a car and get the sticker, then next year that car's sales spike, do you lose your sticker?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My point was that if you are trying to create incentives to get car makers to build these cars, it makes some sense to give the stickers to the first x such cars from a given manufacturer, rather than the first y such cars. That spurs product choice and development, rather than a huge first-mover advantage.

Living in a place where Prius sales are twice as high on the side of the river where they get an HOV exemption than on the side where they don't, I didn't realize California HOV exemption policy was so nuanced - I take it that any new model meeting certain criteria can get an HOV sticker up to some specified production volume? With the idea being that it gives an implicit subsidy (at the expense of all other drivers) to cover the fixed costs of a new car rollout? China could learn something from such carefully tailored industrial policies . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

say if you buy a car and get the sticker, then next year that car's sales spike, do you lose your sticker?

No. The sticker is good through 2019, I believe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I take it that any new model meeting certain criteria can get an HOV sticker up to some specified production volume? With the idea being that it gives an implicit subsidy (at the expense of all other drivers) to cover the fixed costs of a new car rollout?

If I understand correctly, hybrids get a green sticker and zero-emission vehicles get a white sticker, both of which allow one to use the HOV lanes, which are otherwise not crowded, since people don't carpool. Calling it a subsidy at the expense of all other drivers seems wrong, since no one is proposing getting rid of HOV lanes, which might violate federal law or something. You could say that it's a subsidy at the expense of carpoolers, except that there are so few of them that it doesn't seem to clog the carpool lanes. It's a funny property right, in that sharing it more widely does not seem to diminish the value to others until you hit a tipping point, and then it totally does. It's clearly a subsidy, but from whom is less clear.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I understand correctly, hybrids get a green sticker and zero-emission vehicles get a white sticker, both of which allow one to use the HOV lanes, which are otherwise not crowded, since people don't carpool. Calling it a subsidy at the expense of all other drivers seems wrong, since no one is proposing getting rid of HOV lanes, which might violate federal law or something. You could say that it's a subsidy at the expense of carpoolers, except that there are so few of them that it doesn't seem to clog the carpool lanes. It's a funny property right, in that sharing it more widely does not seem to diminish the value to others until you hit a tipping point, and then it totally does. It's clearly a subsidy, but from whom is less clear.

If HOV lanes are federally mandated then there's a problem of underuse created by that rule. But surely there are ways to undermine that rule, such as more limited hours or low fines for misuse (Montana figured that out in the 70s, when it issued $5 "wasteful use of gas" tickets for driving >55). Given that the state could presumably effectively eliminate the HOV rules, I take it that the state has decided to remove 25-33% of the lane space on certain roads from all drivers and make them available only to a select group.

If you want to look at it differently, anyone can use the HOV lanes. For most people, it costs them the expected value of the fine (fine*likelihood of being caught). For others it is free.

[Icky Thump]

A young lady at my gym is like a strawberry blonde version of Michelle Jenneke -- not only with similar build, but similar outfit and workout.



My biceps are very sore from doing 19 sets of curls every day, but I have all these bruises on my shins from trying to walk around with dark, wrap around sunglasses.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[QUOTE=Mmmm, Burger (C.J.);497516]If HOV lanes are federally mandated then there's a problem of underuse created by that rule.[QUOTE]

Potentially. Yesterday the HOV was pretty full, and many cars were carrying more than one passenger.

But surely there are ways to undermine that rule, such as more limited hours or low fines for misuse (Montana figured that out in the 70s, when it issued $5 "wasteful use of gas" tickets for driving >55).

That $5 was payable on the spot, too, and I did that twice. But the feds tightened the rules and forced Montana to change the law.

Given that the state could presumably effectively eliminate the HOV rules,

I doubt that.

I take it that the state has decided to remove 25-33% of the lane space on certain roads from all drivers and make them available only to a select group.

Formulating things in this way doesn't make sense to me. I think the feds give you money to add HOV lanes to existing roads, so it is not a zero-sum thing.

If you want to look at it differently, anyone can use the HOV lanes. For most people, it costs them the expected value of the fine (fine*likelihood of being caught). For others it is free.

Not "free," since there is a heavy imputed cost to me in driving an electric car instead of, say, a BMW 328 or an Audi TT.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I am probably late to the party but Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is just outstanding. Watching it for the second time and it's just as funny.

I agree. It took me about 4-5 episodes to really warm up to it, but once I did, it quickly became a favorite. The last couple of episodes were amazing. I should rewatch too...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Formulating things in this way doesn't make sense to me. I think the feds give you money to add HOV lanes to existing roads, so it is not a zero-sum thing.

Ultimately, if you get all the variables on each side of the equation in place, everything is a zero sum game. Law of conservation of energy.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I forgot to mention that he dumped Bridget Moynahan after he got her with child outside of the bounds of matrimony. No gentleman would do such a thing to a nice Irish Catholic girl.

Not that I actually buy into the underlying premise, but, if one is going to describe someone as a "nice Irish Catholic girl," doesn't her pregnancy sort of belie that?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I understand correctly, hybrids get a green sticker and zero-emission vehicles get a white sticker, both of which allow one to use the HOV lanes, which are otherwise not crowded, since people don't carpool. Calling it a subsidy at the expense of all other drivers seems wrong, since no one is proposing getting rid of HOV lanes, which might violate federal law or something. You could say that it's a subsidy at the expense of carpoolers, except that there are so few of them that it doesn't seem to clog the carpool lanes. It's a funny property right, in that sharing it more widely does not seem to diminish the value to others until you hit a tipping point, and then it totally does. It's clearly a subsidy, but from whom is less clear.

I'm having trouble understanding how it disadvantages other manufacturers or gives the first mover an advantage. You haven't yet said there is an overall cap on the number of stickers. That being the case, it doesn't matter if Chevy and Ford each have an additional 20 million in sales, provided any other manufacturer can get the same benefit for any and all electric or hybrid vehicles it manufactures.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Not that I actually buy into the underlying premise, but, if one is going to describe someone as a "nice Irish Catholic girl," doesn't her pregnancy sort of belie that?

Not at all.

But, if you want cognitive dissonance, realize that this labor day weekend every CEO in Boston is celebrating a bunch of union lawyers as they look forward to Sundays in the luxury box.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I'm having trouble understanding how it disadvantages other manufacturers or gives the first mover an advantage. You haven't yet said there is an overall cap on the number of stickers. That being the case, it doesn't matter if Chevy and Ford each have an additional 20 million in sales, provided any other manufacturer can get the same benefit for any and all electric or hybrid vehicles it manufactures.

Once everyone knows you've got the benefit for the first X cars and no more, it's pretty easy to monetize and pocket the benefit. The acceleration of sales in California by a few months and a bit of extra market share in the early days probably isn't enough to make anyone change their behavior, especially since new competitors get the benefit after your benefit runs out.

Now that the American car makers have gotten their benefit, it means California effectively has an endless set of subsidies for various foreign auto makers.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think people are way too hung up on cheating to begin with and am skeptical about all attempts to broaden the definition of what's a "betrayal" that should threaten a relationship. I also think it's a handy way for some people to deflect from the issues in the underlying relationship.

I just can't imagine caring about my spouse's relationship with someone else other than to the extent that its interfering with our relationship (a stalking "friend" would certainly meet that definition) or symptomatic of something the two of us need to work on.

Ah yes. There it is. The ole I-don't-get-jealous bit. You know yourself better than I know you (obviously), but I am not buying this crap for a second. Your SO stops confiding in you and has nothing but intimate conversations with a man who's much better looking than you, can't wait to see him, thinks about him all the time, and that's all just a symptom of where your sole focus--the underlying communication issues between you and her--should be? FoH.

TM