1/30 You know what will stop global warming? Energy shortage.
Refinery fubars. Oil peak. Things of that sort. I pray
our oil fields get sabotaged so that our energy costs would be
10X it is now. Then, there would be no more wasteful lifestyles.
No more SUVs and less traffic jams, and most importantly
no more irresposible suburban sprawl. -sierra club urbanite hippy
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ your opinion does not matter.
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ I'm not filthy rich but I don't mind paying extra for
gas if that extra cost comes in the form of a tax that
goes to pay for infrastructure. Our public roads cost
an arm and a leg and someone has to pay for all that
road maintenance, emergency service, and environmental
cleanup. If I use those roads as a luxury (which I do),
then I should pay for my fair share of that road usage.
How much gasoline you consume is a better correlation
than how much money you make in a year. Joe Shmo who
drives his 2500 lbs Honda 5 miles a day probably damages
the road less than soccer mom who drives her 5000 lbs
SUV 20 miles a day.
\- i'm talking about about actual poor people ... which
is relevant if we're talking about "global energy/oil
prices" ... like people who dont have electricty and
only have kerosene lanterns. if we're just talking
about say califnornia slightly more expensive gas
blend for pollution purposes, then those people dont
really factor in, but they do when considering "the
big picture". does your life really change at all
whether gas is $2.25/gal or $2.75/gal? [i'm more
irritated the bay bridge toll is going to $4].
\_ You know all the infrastructure we have came from somewhere
and it wasn't paid for with criminally high levels of
taxation. Ask yourself how the state brings in more money
than ever yet falls further into debt every year while
doing very little to improve infrastructure or even really
maintain what we have now. There is plenty of money, it
is just spent poorly.
\_ I am not so sure that there is plenty of money.
Inflation has made everything so expensive.
Additionally, as the standard of living has risen
so have expectations. One example is that longer
lives have resulted in more medical costs. We never
spent money on lots of expensive procedures and
medications before, because they did not exist. I
think it is obvious that the current standard of
living is not sustainable long-term and will have
to decline to meet the rising standard of living
in the Third World at some less-than-current level.
There really isn't enough money to live like we
have been, hence the national debt.
\_ You were talking about things like public roads and
other infrastructure. Did you know there are 42
levees in CA that are considered New Orleans quality
unsafe? Anyone can see the roads are crap.
Emegency rooms are packed. Follow the money.
Inflation has not eaten the budget. The CA state
budget has ballooned up to gigantic proportions in
the last 15 years while inflation has remained low
and we still keep adding to the debt, selling bonds
and doing very little about our state's failing
infrastructure.
\_ I really don't think that is true. What is
the state spending, per person and adjusted
for inflation and how does it compare with past
years? I am sure we spent more per person back
in the Pat Brown "golden years" when California
was able to make the desert bloom, build a
great transportation network and a world class
university system. Nowadays, since Prop 13,
no one wants to pay for new schools, so we
are just living off stuff built and paid
university system. Nowadays, with things like
Prop 13, no one wants to pay for new schools,
so we are just living off stuff built and paid
for by our parents. That, compounded with the
sprawling McMansion problem, gives us a need
for more roads and less money to pay for them.
All the illegals don't help.
\_ I am the person who mentioned emergency
rooms. I wasn't saying that inflation per
se is the cause. We spend 2x the money per
capita now than we did 40 years ago, even
adjusting for inflation. When I say
'inflation' what I am saying is that costs
have risen because of increased standards.
That is, we are getting more for our
money. My example was medical treatment.
\_ So you think the MediCal program
is the cause of limited infrastruct-
ure spending?
Health care costs a lot more now than it
did then, even adjusted for inflation, but
we received more for it. More regulations
we receive more for it. More regulations
(e.g. environment), longer lifespans, and
illegal immigration are all things that
are costing the State money that were not
really big issues in the 1950s. Add to
\_ How does longer living people cost
the state money? Same question for
environmental regulation.
that the growing population (growing
faster than high-paying jobs which
contribute to the tax base) which contributes
\_ Low paying jobs don't cost the state
money.
to the high prices of, for example, real estate
and utilities. This effects the State and
\_ High incomes are inflationary, so
you get higher real estate prices
but no more real income from them.
Low paying jobs don't cost the
state money.
employers both. There is no way the State
can return to business as it was in the
1950s and 1960s, when untreated sewage
drained into the ocean, people died at
70, ESL classes were unheard of, land was
plentiful, and crime was low. I read that
\_ Thank God, no, it can't. But boy
we sure had good roads!
Santa Ana spends 50% of its budget on
police now. I doubt that was the case
in 1960. Prop 13 is a red herring. LA
County just had a huge surplus in budget
because of windfall property tax generated
by the rising real estate market. Look at
\_ Fake money.
\_ Unlike pieces of paper, backed
by nothing? Is that "real" money?
the State budget and you'll see that
there's almost nothing to cut except for
perhaps the penal system, where we spend
much more money than ever before.
\_ Nonsense. The education budget is a
ridiculous mess.
\- people who follow these kinds of things
are well aware the real issue on the
horizon is medical spending not the
social security. there was an excellent
article on this some months back in the
ny rev books. i can dig it up, but you
have to email me. --psb
\_ Prop 13 is *not* a Red Herring. Overall
per person tax revenue plummeted after
it was enacted. True, other taxes eventually
\_ Because it was criminally high and
forcing people from their homes.
\_ Obviously you prefer shitty roads,
overcrowded emergency rooms and
declining schools to paying a
few more percentage points of
GDP to taxes. I respectfully
disagree.
took the place of property taxes, but they
are much more cyclical, causing weird
booms in tax revenue and then inconvenient
busts, during recessions, right when
government spending needs to be higher.
\_ Gosh, you mean the people we elect
to manage the state will have to
take that into account and have
a rainy day fund and not spend every
penny plus the future with bonds?
Furthermore, the decade or so of under-
investment in infrastructure post-13 has
put us in a rut we still haven't dug
ourselves out of. I am not even going to
get into the regressive effect of things
like sales taxes, which replaced prop-13.
\_ Yes, it's a red herring because - as
you say - other taxes replaced it.
We spend 2x the tax dollars per capita
now than we did 40 years ago. The
solution here is not to repeal Prop
13, too. Infrastructure is not
failing because of Prop 13. The
State funds most of that anyway
and the State doesn't collect
property taxes.
\_ I don't believe you. What is your
source for your "2x" figure? We spend
13% more than we did in 1990:
http://www.csua.org/u/hz3
Are you saying it almost doubled
from 1970 to 1990? Show me your
statistics.
link:www.csua.org/u/hz4
It also fell from 1978 to 1995.
\_ So you're praying for global economic collapse and the deaths of
billions. Ok, I guess one way to save the environment is to just
kill off humanity. Of course your life style will be impacted in
ways you can't even imagine but I'm figuring you're much more
likely to be a troll than believe what you're saying. Now I know
soda is back in action. Welcome, first motd troll of 2007!
\_ I don't think a gradual ratcheting up of gasoline prices will
cause global famine. If it goes up 10-20%/year, we will adapt.
There will be fewer sprawling suburbs and smaller cars and yes,
probably a slowing in global growth, but this is better than
runaway global warming, imho.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ As the total cost of fossil fuels rises, other energy sources will
be competitive and we'll shift to somehitng else. The end.
\- it's not that simple because of externalities. although it is
true that all of a sudden were not going to have 0 oil because
it all ran out. [so the easter island tree analogy doesnt
quite work].
\_ which externalities?
\- risk, pollution, tax policy, govt subsidy etc.
but i do agree [i think we're agreeing] that correcting
the mkt forces and moving toward a level playing field
between oil and other fuels is what is most likely to
bring about change. frankly things like preaching about
conservation is stupid. that just keeps things cheaper
for the people who dont conserve. and minor investments
such as smal tax credits for solar or small r&d isnt
going to make that much of a difference. the biggest
problem in teh global wamring area [as opposed to
"energy security"] i feel will be the "big fuck you"
from china, india ... i cannot see what an agreement
between them and the us over how to share the costs
of dealing with global warming will work ... it's going
to be even more stark than the doha round collapse.
\_ In what way is there not a "level playing field"
between oil and other fuels? What are these other
fuels you're talking about? Then you mention solar
but *no one* is talking about solar as a fuel source.
\- when the govt sells drilling rights to an oil
company [or spectrum rights, or western grazing
rights, or water rights etc] those are all
subsidies. when the govt [us army corps of
\_ How is it a subs. if they paid for it?
Do you want to have food, radio, tv, and
transportation? To not sell rights to some
corporation means these will all be govt
provided. No thank you.
\- i am not saying the govt shouldnt
sell these. but the way you sell them
affects the prices you get. e.g.
an auction vs the govt setting an
aritificially low price for western
grazing lands, giving the networks
free spectrum in retun for public
service messages etc. do you know about
say "water farming"? ... where a famers
real asset is his right to artifically
cheep water which he can resell? that is
bullshit ... it is just welfare for some
rich farmer.
\_ There are no rich farmers. Just ADM.
Anyway, you/someone mentioned a level
playing field between alternative
fuels but no one said what fuels.
Like bio diesel? Like ethanol? Like
what? For many reasons these are
worse than oil for fuel and make for
a giant boondoggle to the farm states.
Which alternative fuels were we
talking about?
engineers?] dreges channels differently for
oil transportation, that is a subsidy. i am not
sure if costs are internalized for say pipeline
construction. also in cases of oil spills and
such, it is unclear full costs are paid.
\_ probably not, but that's a minor cost
on the scales we're talking about.
note: it is quite possible other industries
receive efective/indirect subsidies as well,
such as nuclear. some of these subsidies may make
senes, but they exist and people should be cognizant
of them.
\_ So you'd prefer the oil companies dredge the
channels themselves or that they pay for the
USACoE to do it for them? Let's say all of the
govt provided infrastructure you mentioned was
taken away. Either we wouldn't have an oil
industry or it would just pass the costs on to
all of us at the pump. So rich people are mobile
and empowered while the poor are screwed and the
middle class lags as usual picking up the bulk of
any tab. Taxes won't be any lower if all these
services are not provided to corporations, they'll
just be spent on some other pork project that
doesn't help the average citizen.
\_ If the tax dollars were returned to you
then you could choose whether to give it
to the oil companies to dredge (via
gasoline purchases) or to do something
else with it. When it's a subsidy the cost
is hidden. It's more more useful when
people realize what it is that they are
paying for. Costs don't get "passed on" to
consumers. Consumers choose to absorb
them - or not.
\_ But the tax dollars won't be returned to me.
They will be spent elsewhere and I'll still
have to pay more for fuel. If there was a
direct link between cutting these corp.
subsidies and lower taxes I'd agree with
you on the rest of it, but the world does
not work like that. |
http://csua.com/feed/