September 06, 2007
Musing on Energy Use.
When one member of the Evangelical Mafia sent
this link along, and made a tart comparison between Al Gore's / George W. Bush's environmental habits (though noting that he still couldn't stand either one of the gentlemen in question), it reminded me that I've been thinking a good deal about government subsidies of alternative energy sources, particularly when it comes to meeting transportation needs—for instance, the fact that we are pursuing fuel-cell cars so aggressively at this moment, when they are still so far from being practical.
Of course, there is the issue of whether Federal subsidies are truly the best way to midwife the birth of a new industry—a question which may not have an obvious answer. After all, there is the issue of the internet to consider; where would it stand without the DOD's underwriting of the ARPA net? Beyond, that, though, I'd like to know if you all think there's a philosophical justification for this action at the Federal level? Energy independence is a bona fide national security issue.
(Yeah, I know: first, I won't take the "no new Clintons" pledge. And now this bit of heresy. But dangit: I'm curious, and slightly torn.)
Discuss, please.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:15 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Fuel cells represent the best chance for energy independence from fossil fuels. When combined with the hydrogen option, of course. Electricity(what you recharge those battery cars with) is not a primary energy source--some other primary energy sources are consumed to generate it. At a HUGE energy loss: Less than 1/3 of the energy value of the fuels used to generate electricity is available at your plug socket. The rest was lost during generation, transmission, and distribution. Hybrid cars still rely upon fossil fuels. No one see them as more than a transitional technology.
Alcohol is inefficient as well. And the loonies have made carbon dioxide public enemy No. 1. Making alcohol from cellulosic wastes would be a step in the right direction, but don't expect "cheap". Even waste has a cost(collection, etc).
The general rule of thumb is the government handles the cost of BASIC research--years-away. risky, but potentially greatly rewarding research that private companies can't or won't do. The closer it gets to market, the more the people that will benefit SHOULD do, and pay for, the work. And they will, for the profit.
Posted by: Darrell at September 06, 2007 10:26 AM (hzEJX)
2
Well, I've never argued with the need to subsidize university research in the, um, real sciences (biology, physics, geology, etc.).
And fuel cells themselves are a by-product of the space program, which is of course
finally transitioning into private hands.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 06, 2007 10:52 AM (Zrf7u)
3
The problem is that Americans, as usual, want something for nothing.
Energy independence without any changes. No lifestyle changes, no drilling for oil in parts of the Gulf of Mexico, no wind farms where I can see them. (It isn't just Kennedy who is fighting wind farms, though he is the most hypocritical.)
Now oil is concentrated in the transportation industry. Energy generation could shift more to coal and nuclear, but natural gas driven turbine generators have been one of the most popular power plants to build in recent years. They take care of the summer air conditioning peaks nicely. Do you want to regulate that, or let the market decide?
More could be done with diesel-electric (or gas-electric) driven vehicles. The Army did a test and found a turbine/electric drive Hummer was 30 percent more fuel efficient than the standard diesel hummer, but the price was astronomical (more like buying a helicopter instead of a car.) It looks to me like the Army's new MULE vehicle use the "electric wheel" (a real term - do a search.)
The railroads went to diesel-electric in the 40s and 50s. Long haul trucking and probably all of trucking could do the same for the same reason.
But people don't want to change their lifestyle. Carpool? Live closer to work? Drive less?
The new Camry has something like 270 horse power. That is insane. But American's like faster and bigger cars. Given how the average Camry will be driven, you could get by with a smaller engine, less gas - diesel is inherently more efficient than gas - if you would just look at the impacts of your purchases. Do you really need car and driver to tell you the 0-to-60 time for a sedan? That will sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic most of the time or take the kids to school?
Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 06, 2007 11:59 AM (+gqOq)
4
Developing the oil and gas resources we have goes without saying. And there are significant amounts left, not including the sources that will someday be exploited like methane clatrates/methane hydrates(natural gas in ocean environments, etc). Huge resourses there--many times total cumulation conventional production.
And, no, I don't want to suffer and the good news is I don't have to. With Middle East oil production costs still running below $5/bbl, $70/bbl oil prices are hard to sustain. Forget the agenda stuff, Know how fast oil prices FELL 50% in 1986? It can happen again. Today's high prices are the driving force for all the good things on the energy horizon.
Now how can I get Toyota to go to the 295-hp V6 next year?
Posted by: Darrell at September 06, 2007 03:07 PM (hzEJX)
5
The problem is that government action, when it gets beyond the R&D stage, tends to be driven by politics and fashion rather than by technical and economic factors. Corn ethanol, for example, is being heavily subsidized, yet from an energy-balance standpoint it is considerably less efficient than sugarcane ethanol...which has a 50 cent per gallon import tariff on it.
Posted by: david foster at September 06, 2007 07:44 PM (gguM0)
6
The whole issue of government subsidies is a rat's nest of good intentions and political (rather than scientific) decisions. It's my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that the oil industry is receiving huge subsidies (often disguised by different terminology) - far outstripping those given to the alternative energies. Comparative costs per unit (watt or calorie) might be much more competitive and much easier to calculate if the field were made level.
In the end, alternative energy theology set aside, it makes more long-term sense to use renewable energy sources than limited fossil fuels, and it should make more economic sense to use higher efficiency energy consuming devices.
You can use lighting devices with a greater efficiency than the old incandescent bulbs without sacrificing your standard or style of living.
Transportation is going to be the really sticky point - alternative sources of energy just don't have the facility and power contained in fossil fuels. We may need to change our lifestyles, but I would far prefer to make my own changes based on clear market choices, rather than having the government tell me what they think is best.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that bit of fairness!
Think globally, act locally. If you can afford PV or solar hot water, do it. If you can accept the change of lifestyle, reduce your energy demand, increase your efficiency - to paraphrase Ben Franklin, if you would be rich, decrease your desires or increase your income, preferably both. If you would spend less on energy, decrease your usage (higher efficiency or reduced use) or produce your own, preferably both.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2007 03:45 AM (410HF)
7
"...perhaps erroneous..."
Yup.
Posted by: Darrell at September 07, 2007 09:32 AM (yxdyI)
8
But I'd like to get beyond the abstractions. I'd like to know where we should be investing the most--as individuals, and through the government.
I know that hybrid (gas-electric) technology is just a bridge, but I'd like to know where that bridge is going--toward hydrogen, or toward ethanol/flex fuels? It matters in terms of how we adapt the existing infrastructure for future needs.
I'm getting the impression that Honda and Toyota are putting more into the "bridge" technologies, but Ford and GM are investing more in hydrogen, which would be awfully promising if it weren't for its high cost, some engineering challenges, and--perhaps--a difference in how well-suited it is to various regions of the country.
The fact is, most of us who are just scraping by don't have a lot of extra dough to serve as beta-testers for experimental technology. And I think most of us are genuinely willing to make some sacrifices in terms of convenience.
The horsepower thing . . . well, I feel safer when I can accelerate and keep up with traffic. And one spots a drunk driver, one likes to know one can either stay behind him/her or accelerate a bit to get ahead by a few miles.
People do tend to be selfish about safety issues. And those who aren't that way on their own behalf often get that way in a hurry when it comes time to buy cars for their kids.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 08, 2007 11:57 AM (Zrf7u)
9
Also, I share, to some degree, Glenn Reyonolds' squeamishness about the idea of making fuel from food. Therefore, I'm kind of hoping--Market willing--that we end up making our ethanol (if ethanol turns into the focus, rather than hydrogen) out of corn husks, e.g., rather than corn.
(And, yes, David--this is a hell of a time for protectionism. I'd love to see the corn growers loosen their death-grip.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 08, 2007 12:01 PM (Zrf7u)
10
I think there's a lot of potential in the plug-in hybrid. (1)Like today's hybrids, it recovers braking energy into the battery rather than wasting it as heat (2)It allows part or all of the journey to be powered by electricity from the grid, which is considerably cheaper than gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis (3)Electricity generation is "omniverous" in that the power can come from any mix of several sources--coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc (4)Electric motors are high-torque beasts at low speeds, and should be able to offer good acceleration from a standing start.
The big question mark is battery technology. GM is now doing production engineering on the Chevy Volt, implying they're actually serious about making it, but there is clearly some uncertainty about whether the battery technology will be ready in time to avoid holding up the show.
Posted by: david foster at September 08, 2007 05:27 PM (gguM0)
11
The concern about making fuel out of food is ill founded. No human would be eating the corn used to make ethanol. It is made from feed corn, the corn that is used to feed cattle, not the corn that is used for human consumption, and there is quite a difference. Feed corn is large grained, very coarse kernels that are extremely tough; you would wear out your teeth very rapidly if you tried to eat the stuff. So, don't think of it in terms of making fuel out of food. (Fuel out of cattle food, OK, but not fuel out of human food.)
Posted by: Dr. D at September 08, 2007 06:46 PM (KG5do)
12
If past performance is any indication, far more of the new Camrys will be sold with the 158-hp inline-4, rather than the big honking V6, mainly because Toyota wants a couple of grand for the bigger engine.
Posted by: CGHill at September 08, 2007 08:25 PM (GiT5t)
13
Electricity cheaper than gasoline? Let's see--At 13 cents/kWh(my cost) and 3412 Btu/kWh, the cost is $38.10 per million Btu. At $3/gal for gasoline and 125,000 Btu/gal, the cost is $24 per million Btu. Use your electric bills to get your cost. Divide the actual dollar amount by the number of kWh of electricity you used during the current month.
How do you think batteries will perform in all those areas that see -20 F temperatures in the winter? GM's old electric car had battery packs(plus controllers) that cost an estimated $7 grand(exact number a secret). Lithium ion batteries in the new concept would cost around 30 grand if pulled off the shelf today. It's going to take a whole lot of new manufacturing capacity with resultant economies of scale to get that down to a reasonable level. Unless you don't mind paying $7000-$30000 every 5 years or so. Maybe the used-car buyer wouldn't check? Or the dealer?
Does your state have a lot of excess electric generating capacity? Can it handle the additional load if a significant number of gasoline users make the switch? Do you think the new plants required might affect today's cost?
All alternative technologies have that "unproven" burden--with the exception of natural gas conversions. At the US average of $13.00 per thousand cubic feet and 1020 Btu/1000scf, natural gas is a bargain at $13.26/million Btu. But again you have the problem of what will the price be if demand rises sharply with conversions?
Hydrogen can be made from any hydrocarbon as well, by the way, including coal. See the Steam-Iron process developed by IGT, for example. Hydrogen can also be made from water via electrolysis. Despite rumors to the contrary, you can't say the same for gasoline.
Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2007 07:24 AM (wBwBK)
14
This just in from MSN's Stop Global Warming propaganda pages, "Greening Man Annual festival of radical self-expression goes green." http://stopglobalwarming.msn.com/article.aspx?&cp-documentid=5346916>1=10427
Yeah. If you exclude the burning man part. And the three tons of weed consumed.
Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2007 10:31 AM (NgviE)
15
Darrell...most of the energy in gasoline is turned into heat rather than turning the wheels. There are unavoidable thermodynamic losses in the engine as well as friction losses and throttling losses at anything less than 100% power.
The economics of the electric power industry is driven by the shape of the load curve. There is lots and lots of generating capacity available from roughly 10PM until 7AM, which would be the optimum time for charging batteries. Power companies *love* off-peak users.
Posted by: david foster at September 09, 2007 11:54 AM (gguM0)
16
David -- There are conversion losses in an electric vehicle as well. There is internal battery resistance that is a loss both during charing and again during operation, and there are losses in the electric motor, even a high efficiency motor. If a PWM contgroller is used to get variable frequency operation and thus variable speed operation, then the losses increase considerably. The electrical system may have less loss it will most certainly involve a large weight penalty for batteries and controllers. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch.
Posted by: Dr. D at September 09, 2007 02:48 PM (KG5do)
17
That's why we need devices that CAN convert the fuel's energy directly into work without burning it-- like fuel cells-- because they can even exceed Carnot efficiency limitations. (The thermal efficiency of a typical gasoline engine is around 25% for those interested--or for those not interested for that matter. The Carnot maximum is around 73%. We engineers receive big checks from the oil monopoly, Halliburton, and Big Pharm to keep it that way. Pissing Al Gore off is just a bonus. )
Posted by: Darrell at September 10, 2007 05:47 AM (6alw0)
18
Darrell -- "We engineers" know that fuel cells provide electricity, but that really does not amount to useful work; electrons flying off the end of a wire don't develop much thrust. There is still an electro-mechanical conversion to be made, and there will be losses in that conversion. Last time I had any involvement with fuel cells, unless there was a pure hydrogen feedstock available, it was necessary to provide a reformer to make hydrogen for them. All of this, the reformer and the fuel cell, and the fuel itself, contributes weight that has to be carried around. The electromechanical energy converter will require controllers and that will add more weight and bulk. As I said before, there is no free lunch.
Posted by: Dr. D at September 10, 2007 01:47 PM (KG5do)
19
De minimis non curat lex thermodynamicae(vel praeficio). . .
Also, we bring our own lunch.
Posted by: Darrell at September 10, 2007 06:30 PM (kf07E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 21, 2007
Mine Over Matter.
More on the
Rosia Montana mining controversey. The environmental extremists are looking worse and worse.
If it were up to me, everyone would see Mine Your Own Business; the points it makes go well beyond Transylvanian gold.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:18 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As bad as the environmental extremists look, they smell even worse.
Posted by: John at August 23, 2007 05:27 PM (njYUy)
2
Maybe these environmental wacko's will pay the local folks their wage differential. (I know there is as much danger of that as the wacko's minding their own business). This crap will continue until we figure out a way to hit the environmentalists in the pocketbook. Can ATH write a movie about the environmentalists having to pay the locals?
Posted by: RWB at August 26, 2007 03:42 PM (jaO5K)
3
Anything he accomplishes in that arena has to be managed through extreme stealth . . . believe me.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 27, 2007 11:30 PM (VgDLl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 26, 2007
The Nine Tailors, in Real Life.
Shit. After the frosts in California,
floods in East Anglia.
Most of the "buy locally" movement is pure silliness, and comes from living in an area/country/state with varied terrain, wherein a balanced diet can be produced by local farmers. It also sort of assumes that no one ever gets a hankering for tropical fruit, unless they in fact live in the tropics.
The politics of scurvy. And, in cases of flooding or frost, the politics of "let them eat, well . . . nothing. Honey, do you have the crossword puzzle from today's New York Times?"
To some degree I like to buy locally, but that has a lot to do with the fact that I'm cheap, and I therefore look for the best deals on produce. That means I tend to buy fruit from California or Mexico. But if the New Zealand apples look good and are reasonably priced, they jump into my shopping cart with some alacrity.
And of course as a Person with Allergies, I'm supposed to eat local honey when I can. Instead, I take a crapload of Clariton and get a hydrocortisone shot every few years. These procedures are a lot less messy than the honey thing.
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2007
The Trade Deficit
. . . is
narrowing, though the U.S.-China balance is still out of whack. This weak dollar thing is very helpful overall, though of course one feels sorry for the college kids who are doing their summer-in-Europe this year (mine was during the 1980s, so our dollars bought oodles of extras).
The U.S. trade deficit narrowed more than forecast in April as a weaker dollar pushed exports to a record and demand for imports waned.
The deficit fell 6.2 percent, the most in six months, to $58.5 billion, from a revised $62.4 billion in March, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The gap declined even as the shortfall with China widened.
The dollar's drop and expanding economies in Europe and Asia are fueling demand for American-made goods and the deficit is retreating from a record $67.6 billion in August. The gain in exports may also help economic growth accelerate after the slowest quarter in more than four years.
``The trade imbalance seems to be permanently on the mend,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. ``Certainly, trade is going to contribute to growth in the second quarter.''
Rupkey predicted a deficit of $60.2 billion, the lowest among 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News before the report was published.
In April, exports rose 0.2 percent to a record $129.5 billion, as sales of foods, plastics and consumer goods such as jewelry improved. Imports slipped 1.9 percent.
``The rest of the world is growing,'' said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial Inc. in Chicago. ``With the tailwind of a weak dollar, that's good news to keep our factories humming. This will probably easily throw GDP growth over the 3 percent range for the second quarter.''
Via Reynolds, who remarks, "good news, I think. Am I wrong?"
Well, it looks more good than bad to me, especially when coupled with this tantalizing little detail:
Oil imports fell to $24.9 billion, from $25 billion a month earlier, as a drop in volume offset higher prices.
Hackbarth? Verdon? What do you think?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ask Nancy Pelosi. I sue she will be able to include the words "worst ever" and "Great Depression" somewhere in the opening remarks.
Don't forget to congratulate Nancy's son, Paul Jr., on his $180,000 second full-time job with InfoUSA. I'm glad they gave the boy a chance given that he has no experience o training in that firm's primary business operations. It's not the $millions that Info USA's Vino Gupta throws at Bill and Hillary, but it's a start. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/4/210922.shtml?s=al&promo_code=34F0-1
I'd give you a better link, like to the NYT, LA Times/Guardian/SocialistWorkersParty Marketeer, or the WaPo, but I guess that they have other fish to fry.
Posted by: Darrell at June 09, 2007 08:12 PM (4Gy3p)
2
"I sue"="I'm sure". . .The monkeys got their gin rations.
Posted by: Darrell at June 09, 2007 08:14 PM (4Gy3p)
Posted by: Attila Girl at June 10, 2007 12:00 AM (VgDLl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2007
Yes.
Lotteries
are taxes, and they tax those who can least afford it.
I am not anti-gambling, but state-run lotteries prey on the poor, and they should stop. They are an obscenity.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
March 10, 2007
Google: Only Evil If You Don't Work There.
They've found the ultimate way to spoil their employees, with a
company bus system:
The company now ferries about 1,200 employees to and from Google daily—nearly one-fourth of its local work force—aboard 32 shuttle buses equipped with comfortable leather seats and wireless Internet access. Bicycles are allowed on exterior racks, and dogs on forward seats, or on their ownersÂ’ laps if the buses run full.
Riders can sign up to receive alerts on their computers and cellphones when buses run late. They also get to burnish their green credentials, not just for ditching their cars, but because all Google shuttles run on biodiesel. Oh, and the shuttles are free.
Via James Joyner, who remarks: "They must have one hell of a union. Certainly, no greedy corporation would do this kind of thing simply to attract top-notch employees."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
December 17, 2006
There's Nothing Worse
. . . than organizations that depend upon high turnover in order to propel themselves forward. Megan McArdle
bares her soul about her time with PIRG:
. . . The shamelessly llame pretexts for getting rid of the overly successful, and the deliberate assignments to bad turf in order to depress your wages and thus force you to quit, or if that doesn't work, give them an excuse to fire you. . . . . It all comes flooding back . . .
Those who run organizations that treat their employees badly have a special place in Hell.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:17 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Find out who they are and withold your business from them, so that they have a special place in bankruptcy court as well.
Posted by: John at December 17, 2006 12:56 PM (kFakI)
2
Right right, but they don't produce anything. They're a massive ultraliberal "non-profit" lobbying entity. PIRG-- Public Interest Research Group.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 17, 2006 05:34 PM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 01, 2006
Who Knew the Terminator Lacked Backbone?
Steve Frank
skewers the Governor's planned hike in California's minimum wage, providing a summary of the arguments against minimum wage laws, which Larry Elder likes to point out "hurt most those they purport to help."
Apparently the plan is to increase the minimum wage in two increments, ultimately by a full dollar an hour, landing us at $7.75 an hour. As usual, this will make it harder for unskilled people—and those who are the victims of prejudice—to find work.
We know about the failure of the California education system. Over 100,000 12th graders are in jeopardy due to their inability to pass a test, at the 10th grade level in order to graduate. These will be the first victims on the altar of the raise in minimum wage.
The lessons learned from the 40's, 50's, '60's, through the '90's was still true in 2005. If you want to harm those most in need, raise the minimum wage. Of course this helps the Democrats. They believe in government control over the individual. They want poor people, that is why their policy is to keep people poor, not allow them to become self sufficient. That is why this is not a compassionate act, the raising of minimum wage, it is a crass political act of power--power over people, their money, their jobs, their families their future under freedom.
This is what we know:
1. Those on welfare are 44% less able to get off welfare
2. teenage blacks lose even more opportunity for jobs
3. The poor have fewer chances for a job
4. Studies show that only 6% of those receiving minimum wage are actually the single financial support for a family.
5. Minimum wage folks also receive free health care, can receive vouchers for food and housing, and have other support systems.
But, there is an answer. I, too, want to raise the take home pay and spendable income of the poor and least among us. You don't mandate policies that cause them to lose jobs, instead you create incentives for business to grow and therefore create competition for jobs--which causes higher wages.
Cut taxes, on sales, on income, on corporations. If the private sector is more vibrant, more jobs will occur—that is the Milton Friedman answer. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush all saw this, now Arnold needs to go back and re-read "Capitalism and Freedom."
Frank backs his assertions up not just with Milton Friedman's work, but study results, and quotations from the likes of Alan Greenspan. So be sure to read the whole thing.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.
December 19, 2005
How Do We Measure the Wealth of Nations?
Here's
one way. The World Bank's approach underscores something that has been on my mind for years: the fact that producing wealth often hinges less on "natural resources" than it does on what Thomas Sowell calls "cultural capital." The obvious example is Israel, whose natural resources are nearly identical to those of the surrounding Middle Eastern states (or inferior to them, if one takes into account the oil reserves in the area). Yet the Israelis have built a strong economy out of little more than education, salt water, and . . . sand.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:12 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Excellent piece, thanks. A pox on Jared Diamond!
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 19, 2005 07:56 AM (gdWEQ)
2
Egads--did you manage to get through that tome? It was so poorly written, and just went on forever and ever . . . I loaned it to someone to get rid of it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 19, 2005 08:51 AM (zZMVu)
3
Another interesting example is Japan, which has little in the way of natural resources.
I do think that American natural resources are likely to become more important again in the future, as demand from developing nations accelerates. I'm thinking specifically agriculture and coal. Of course, intangible resources are important here too; there's a lot of knowledge (and cultural attributes) that go with being a successful farmer or coal miner.
Posted by: David Foster at December 19, 2005 09:30 AM (7TmYw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 27, 2005
Ireland vs. Scandinavia: Fostering Economic Growth in Europe
From the
Brussels Journal.
(Via Insty.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:56 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One thing that the study does not do, which I would be interested to see, is control for the huge amount of inward EU investment in Ireland (that is, state subsidies) over the last 15 years. While I'm not claiming this invalidates their argument, a significant reason that Ireland has been able to maintain low taxation is because someone else (that is, the EU) has been picking up the bill for much of Ireland's infrastructure improvements.
Posted by: Christophe at November 27, 2005 02:33 PM (td8Qe)
2
1. GROWTH AND EU-SUBSIDIES.
The graph shown at
http://workforall.net/English/size_of_government.gif
clearly illustrates that Ireland's continuous wealth explosion has a neat starting point in 1985, and that this starting point coincides with the moment they reduced their tax burden.
The relation between EU subsidies and Ireland's explosive Growth is statistically insignificant.
Ireland benefited from European subsidies long before 1985, with no growth effect noticable at all.
Ireland's growth explosion continued its steady 5,6% pace when European subsidies dramatically were reduced, and the Irish boom continues even today (5% growth expected once again). The spread diagram between subsidies and growth consequently shows no relationship at all. Other regions such as Greece or Wallonia received comparable subsidies, but apparently could not use them for the benefit of their economies at all.
.
2. SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
The conclusion that big government harms growth and that high direct taxes on income and labour are the most distortive taxes (as opposed to consumption taxes) does not originate from single country comparisons, but from the scientific multiple regression analysis in which 17 European countries were involved. In this investigation WorkForAll examined 25 possible causes of growth differentials over an 18 year period. The regression model explains for over 93% of the growth differentials and left only 7% unexplained for. The conclusions are undisputeable and clear: "big government" is detrimental to growth, and "countries with a higher proportion of consumption taxes" have very significant higher growth rates.
Full report of the study can be read at:
http://workforall.net/Tax_policy_and_Growth_differentials_in_Europe.pdf
And the abstract at :
http://workforall.net/EN_Tax_policy_for_growth_and_jobs.html
.
3. THE CENTRAL POINT
The central point is do we choose for Irish policies which have proven realistic and successfull for over 20 years, or do we believe socialist dogma's and choose a Scandinavian nanny type of government that proved so catastrophic for both wealth and job creation, and robbed the individual from his dignity as a free and responsable being?
As anonymous posted here before: if we adopt a more Irish view, it is possible to create bigger wealth. More people become independent of government support. The Scandinavian model however, only redistributes wealth without any progress in society. In the long run, there will be equality, but it will more resemble equal poverty than equal wealth.
Posted by: Paul Vreymans at December 11, 2005 12:22 PM (TFa/n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 03, 2005
The News from France
My heart just
aches. I can't even be snarky. Not yet.
Shades of L.A. in 1992. Though our riots only lasted for three days, and these have gone on for eight.
Ironically, in L.A. it underscored the line between the decent and the indecent: despite the racial overtones to the rioting, when I waited in line at the supermarket alongside black people we still shared a camaraderie: we were part of the decent people who wanted to hunker down with our loved ones until the craziness stopped.
Posted by: Attila at
08:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh come on... you can be a little snarky.
I thought France was the home of Euro-togetherness where people of all sorts lived in blissful happiness, eating cheese and drinking wine.....
Turns out all is not sweetness and light in the home of appeasement.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at November 03, 2005 11:13 AM (S417T)
2
Unfortunately, this was almost inevitable. France has been allowing immigrants in for a long time, people with either no skills or not having jobs for them. The country is like 25% Muslim, most of whom are poor and downtrodden. They are kept on what amounts to reservations.
I just wonder how long this is going to go on, and how bad it can get. It reminds me of the opening of a book by Larry Bond called Cauldron, which ended up with Europe at war.
Posted by: William Teach at November 03, 2005 11:31 AM (AkiXU)
3
Now the rioters have gone too far...!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/
Posted by: Mikal at November 04, 2005 05:20 PM (qUqaj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 30, 2005
Over at Chicago Boyz
. . . David Foster opens a
discussion of the recent
dystopian Peggy Noonan column. I've seen the piece before, but I just figured it was raining in NYC and she had the winter blues or something. But the comments are really thoughtful, and have to do with
• the nature of our "elites";
• how living in a city affects our perceptions;
• how many decades it has felt, in this country, like "the end of it all," and whether baby boomers are more inclined than most generations to feel that way.
Head on over there.
Posted by: Attila at
11:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Too much.
But I wonder if there is a corrolation between the age of the poster and his response to the article.
I'm willing to bet that as one gets older, one is more likely to see the world as "going to hell in a handbasket," as my grandfather's generation used to say.
It may simply reflect a realization that the world is increasingly out of one's control.
for those who would like to interject at this point that it never was in any generation's control, you have hit on another, not mutually exclusive hypothesis. As martin Se3ligman has taught us, realism is associated with depression. As we get older, we lose the uhnreflective enthusiasm of youth. We become more realistic. We notice that our generation didn't fix everything, and reflect, realistically, that the next one doesn't have the skills or even the will to do so, like we thought we did.
And that can lead to depression.
It may even lead to a "separate peace."
Posted by: Averroes at October 31, 2005 12:53 AM (jlOCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2005
Dean Has an Amazing Post
up right now about politics, economics, fractals, and human physiology.
UPDATE: I mean, Dave Price (Tall Dave) does.
Go. Now.
Posted by: Attila at
04:42 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sure, give Dean all the credit
Posted by: TallDave at October 20, 2005 07:10 AM (giBEj)
2
Oh, shit. I just did The Thing One Musn't Ever Do, didn't I?
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 20, 2005 10:08 AM (LNv50)
3
I thought that was wearing white after Labor Day.
Posted by: TallDave at October 20, 2005 10:16 AM (giBEj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 16, 2005
JibJab Takes on Wal-Mart and Costco
Big Box Mart is the first short
JibJab has made that doesn't strike out at both sides of a given issue. It's a provocative little piece about trade, and how our addiction to cheap goods affects the American economy. It's protectionist, sure; however, the butt of the joke is called "Big Box Mart," which implies not just the reflexive lefty hatred of Wal-Mart, but also criticism of the "bix box" stores such as Costco (where my "enlightened" friends go to save money).
Posted by: Attila at
03:45 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If you read "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward, it shows how Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart in Arkansas, where is have been shown how she helped the company set into place the system to get tax incentives and other ways to escape most of their tax obligations. So I find it quite ironic that the Democrats today whine and complain about the power of Wal-Mart, its wealth, not forming unions, health insurance problems, discrimination of women. If the Democrats had been involved in setting up a good plan for Wal-mart (including Hillary) from the beginning instead of how to use loopholes, they might have something to be proud of. Here we are 10 years later, with Democrats/liberals/tree huggers/environmentalists/anti-business people still complaining about Wal-Mart. Now remember, it was the Democrats in charge of that little town which tried to take away the homes of people to make way for condos and business to generate more tax revenue. The Supreme Court ruled with the liberals and the moderates on the side against property rights, so if you all want to be mad, be mad at the Democrats. Do some research, get the facts, don't just pop off with emotion based on what you think is the way it is. And if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shopt there and stand up against them building in your area. People have stopped it from sucking all the business away from small town business, and protecting land areas from water problems with too much run-off water displaced by the vast acres of concrete. Good stuff to discuss, Miss Attila.
Posted by: Crystal Dueker at October 16, 2005 07:26 AM (6krEN)
2
A whole slew of big box stores tried it the last 25 years but didn't make it. Walmart seems to have it right, but even they have no guarantee. Just airlines have guarantees.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at October 16, 2005 12:08 PM (wDJE+)
3
I like Wal-Mart because they give me a good price without making me buy 2-3 times the quantity I need. At Costco it's easy to go in, spend half my month's grocery money, and not check everything off on the shoppng list. Then I have to store the extra.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 16, 2005 03:44 PM (LNv50)
4
Anyone seriously interested in offshoring issues should read "End of the Line" by Barry Lynn. I don't mostly agree with his policy prescriptions, but it's a far more intelligent analysis than most of the stuff written on the subject.
Posted by: David Foster at October 16, 2005 04:16 PM (7TmYw)
5
Americans do not want to work the assembly line jobs that are required to make the goods that stock the WalMart shelves. Not even for a "living wage". If we really wanted the jobs to stay in the US, a robust guest worker program could go a long way toward keeping the factories here instead of over there.
I cringe whenever I have to venture into WalMart for something, but at least I recognize that it is just classist snootiness and not some pretend "principle" that makes me feel that way. If these so-called "compassionate" liberals were really so compassionate, they'd realize that WalMart does a great service to the lower and middle class by providing goods that they could not easily afford at the boutique shops and specialty stores the leftists seem to be so eager to preserve.
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 16, 2005 09:48 PM (xdX36)
6
DesertCat..."Americans do not want to work the assembly line jobs"--I don't think this is really true. Why would assembly line jobs in a well-run factory be less desirable than retail jobs at Burger King, Wal-Mart, or even Best Buy?
I visited the BMW assembly plant in South Carolina not too long ago. They said that there is a long waiting line of people who would like to work there, and that a new employee can be making about $50K after a couple of years (which I think includes modest overtime)..this in a fairly low cost-of-living area.
Bear in mind also that a manufacturing facility typically involves much more than assembly-line jobs. There are highly skilled trades, such as tool-and-die makers, and knowledge workers, such as production planners and industrial engineers.
Posted by: David Foster at October 17, 2005 07:54 AM (7TmYw)
7
Because I've worked in my share of factories doing assembly work a few decades ago. There is nothing more mind-numbing and grinding than assembling widgets for 8 hours a day 5 days a week. We're not talking about BMW plants here (last time I checked, Walmart doesn't carry high end sports cars...). High end products can command enough of a premium to make the jobs to produce them very attractive. Walmart specializes in affordable consumer goods.
Having engineers and toolmakers and production planners does not negate the fact that some poor schmuck has to insert Tab A into Slot B over and over and over and over and over and over and...
Try it sometime. You'll see what I mean. If I had to choose between the two, I would far rather stock shelves or help someone pick out a new computer component at Best Buy than to ever do assembly work again. I am an Engineer now for a very good reason.
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 17, 2005 08:32 AM (xdX36)
8
We've brought in more jobs than we've offshored. That's a net gain in jobs.
Plus we get cheap chips and DVD players, and eighteen colors of lycra stretch pants.
Screw JibJab.
Posted by: Jeff G at October 17, 2005 06:51 PM (58QEf)
Posted by: Jeff G at October 17, 2005 06:53 PM (58QEf)
10
Desert Cat...thanks for the comments. i'd observe that there are lots of people whose skills and interests aren't primarily verbal, and who would not be a good fit for the sales floor at Best Buy. True, there *are* some possibilities for such people in the retail industry, for example, working in the distribution center. But is running a forklift at a retail distribution center really a better job than running a forklift at the parts receiving department in a factory? or better than an assembly job at that factory?
My main point is that the distinction between "manufacturing" and "service" is not a good proxy for the distinction between "good jobs" and "bad jobs." There are plenty of good and bad jobs in both areas (bearing in mind, of course, that "good" and "bad" has a lot to do with individual skills and interests)
Posted by: David Foster at October 17, 2005 08:14 PM (7TmYw)
Posted by: Jeff G at October 17, 2005 09:32 PM (58QEf)
12
Yes to the forklift job being superior to the assembly job. That position would be coveted in most factories by the drones on the lines. Sure some people are better suited for certain jobs than others, but I never knew anyone who dreamed of their first assembly line job following graduation. Everyone I knew had higher aspirations for themselves. Some of them worked out, some of them didn't. Some like me had to take that kind of work until other things panned out. No one looked forward to thirty-five years of service at the plastics extrusion plant. There was a good reason that place was staffed mostly by temps.
I agree with you regarding the false distinction. Technically engineering could be considered a "service sector" job, as I am not actually producing the final product (though I often oversee those who do).
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 17, 2005 10:38 PM (xdX36)
13
Screw JibJab. Funny but essentially stupid and off the mark in this case.
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 17, 2005 10:40 PM (xdX36)
14
Hang on. Before we screw JibJab completely, how do you feel about their statement on the destructive nature of consumerism for some people? That is, if you remove the (implied) political and economic arguments from the short, does it still have something to say about Western culture, and unhealthy use of unsecured credit?
Can we just give JibJab a blowjob until we sort this out?
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 17, 2005 11:14 PM (LNv50)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 03, 2005
Hey!
Anyone in the White House
listening?
Posted by: Attila at
12:19 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
1
doubt it, the White House also doesn't seem to know the word veto exists in the english language. I thought compassionate was in addition to conservative, not in place of conservative!
Posted by: Jim at October 03, 2005 04:22 AM (HOWqQ)
2
I'm so glad the Republicans are in charge, otherwise we'd have runaway spending & a tsunami of pork
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at October 03, 2005 05:27 AM (XMBsv)
3
Why not just exempt all blacks from the income tax?
Liberals love enterprise zones, yet fail to understand that the same treatment applied to the whole country would bring boom times for all.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at October 03, 2005 07:53 AM (wDJE+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 09, 2005
P.J. O'Rourke
had a nice little
article in the
Atlantic this past spring that I somehow missed. It's a short summary of the Social Security debate, and it highlights the problem I've always had with Social Security: if this is something that we give to impoverished seniors, why do we also give it to the rich?
Is it simply an inefficient government-run pension fund? Or is it a social service for the poor? If the former, why not make it efficient? If the latter, why not means-test it?
Because, as O'Rourke points out, everyone wants to have it both ways. Which is a human nature problem, really.
Posted by: Attila at
10:37 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
PJ O'Rourke is the best writer in politics, period. It's a damn crime he doesn't blog on his website. The world needs more of his wisdom.
Not to mention he's so funny, I've almost coughed up internal organs while reading his work...
Posted by: Douglas at August 10, 2005 08:34 AM (OmbZr)
2
Well. There's Hitchens. And there's Steyn.
I miss Michael Kelly.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 10, 2005 11:24 AM (RGWNz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 08, 2005
Jane Galt
. . . has an interesting discussion going on in her comments section over
here. I'm only a quarter of the way into it, since it got Instalanched and is very long. But it's fascinating.
Fighting poverty nation by nation is perhaps the hardest job in the world today. A while back I had an interesting debate with Laura, of the ever-excellent Apartment 11D, on whether or not "unregulated capitalism" was good for the third world. My answer is that when we look at the third world, our heart cries out, as it should, but that doesn't mean that those in the third world are victims of anything but nature. The appalling poverty of Sri Lanka or Mozambique is not some bizarre aberration that can be tracked to a cause we can cure. We are the aberration; Sri Lanka and Mozambique are the normal state of human history.
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila at
10:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
May 24, 2005
"Why Would a Libertarian Vote for Bush?"
You asked;
Virginia Postrel answered. It's actually fairly compelling.
(Insty.)
Posted by: Attila at
09:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
May 13, 2005
Thomas Sowell
. . .
smacks the anti-Walmart crusaders. Hard.
Via Beautiful Atrocities. (Don't forget to keep checking Jeff's "outside reading" column, and if you see somethng juicy there, go to it immediately: as he updates the list, the old stuff goes away. So if he finds four interesting stories in one night, four old ones get pushed off. He's trying to train me not to procrastinate.)
Posted by: Attila at
06:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
April 04, 2005
On Price Controls
Via
Oakland Jeff, a
TCS piece on what drug-reimportation will do to our pharmaceutical industry and therefore the future of medicine.
Posted by: Attila at
11:20 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thankfully, Michael Moore is going to expose the whole game in his new docudrama. A man whom one would like would be counting on modern medicine to work miracles
Posted by: jeff at April 04, 2005 12:48 PM (6HNEd)
2
We need to tell countries who threaten to violate patents to coerce lower drug prices that we consider that to be theft of intellectual property and an act of war.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at April 04, 2005 01:43 PM (MBCZx)
3
I actually work in the pharmaceutical industry (not in sales or even development though), but I've been saying this for a long time, ever since the issue came up to begin with.
Lots of people get completely caught up in the short-term aspect of things. "It's not FAIR that they don't have to pay as much!" While I can sympathize with people who have trouble paying for the new hot medication, it's hard to bring them past the emotional response.
If people want cheap drugs, they are free to go buy aspirin at the local grocery store, or any one of a thousand medications that have been around for a while and are available in generics. Those will be cheap, but when asked, no one will ever want to do that. They want the new, better one, and why shouldn't they?
The only problem is that unless people are willing to pay for it, the new better one will never exist. Making reimportation illegal is not the violation of free trade here. That would be the foreign price controls that created the issue in the first place.
Posted by: Christiana Ellis at April 06, 2005 08:56 AM (gLsdP)
4
To me the funniest people are the ones who invert things entirely and get mad at the U.S. government because drugs are cheaper in Canada, and they "should" be cheaper here as well. (Get it?--the U.S. government should fix the problem!)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 06, 2005 09:10 AM (R4CXG)
5
The discussion just gets difficult when you talk to someone who really needs one prescription or another, but it is a real financial hardship. They see a way that they can have it cheaper.
Telling them that the difference is because other countries aren't paying enough sounds like saying "Big Pharmaceutical companies should be making higher profits at your expense." It's hard to argue this issue reasonably because the people who support reimportation are doing so based almost completely on emotional responses. "But I NEED it!"
I've had this argument with a number of people and I remember one person who suggested, "We wouldn't be having this problem if only we'd gone with Universal Health Care." At that point, the intellectual vacuum around me caused my head to explode. (I got better.)
Posted by: Christiana Ellis at April 06, 2005 12:23 PM (gLsdP)
6
One thing people don't seem to realize is that if the people of all countries paid their share, we in the U.S. wouldn't be paying disproportionately more: the reason some prices are so high is that the burden is not spread out more. (Obviously, I don't think villagers in African countries should pay full price for AIDS medicine, but we wouldn't have those treatments without research--and I certainly think middle-class/rich Mexicans and Canadians should be paying full price.)
I don't like the fact that my sleeping pills cost as much as they do, but I like the fact that there are good ones available now that really work without as high a risk of addiction and side effects.
Everthing costs something.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 06, 2005 01:00 PM (R4CXG)
7
Make other countries pay market rate for pharms, and if they violate the patent, cut them off completely.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at April 10, 2005 01:08 PM (MBCZx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
98kb generated in CPU 0.0901, elapsed 0.2389 seconds.
218 queries taking 0.2184 seconds, 535 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.