E&E Exchange

Things will change when the cost of the present fuels exceed the cost of the replacement fuels and the cost to upgrade or replace their current cars/trucks.

This is called the law of supply and demand.

Right now no one wants to pay more for transportation than they already do just to use an alternate fuel. If you do and you are not rich, then that is stupid.

Lastly, busses and trains just do not cut it in a society that is so spread out. The US is a big country (unlike Europe of other nations) and public transportation can not fill the needs of such an open network in a large country and the need to stop continuously to let riders on and off make the riding time a waste of time.

These modes of transportation work much better in dense population areas, but not everyone lives and works in dense population areas. Personally, I hate dense population areas and will not live there nor work there.

"Right now no one wants to pay more for transportation than they already do just to use an alternate fuel. If you do and you are not rich, then that is stupid."

If one chooses to pay more for transportation based on sustainability, i would consider that heroic, not stupid.

Be a hero.

However, I contend most people buy into that because they want to feel better. When you look into the total chain from production through maintenance and disposal the numbers for green savings often do not add up.

It is only compounded when people pay more and can't afford it. That is stupid.

Thanks AH! I will be a hero!

I agree, that green energy such as solar, wind power, etc are very fossil fuel dependent, and most of the time the savings do not add up. However, this is not reason to abandon these technologies altogether. Investment must be made into these technologies to progress them. Unfortunately this must be done at a loss considering these technologies are highly unprofitable (with out govt. subsidies of course). I am much more an advocate of reducing waste in everyday life (such as transportation!) or recovering waste heat in industrial processes. Im sure a huge dent in energy consumption could be made in these areas.

There is another very efficient alternative: pedal power . The bicycle is one of the most energy efficient mean of transportation. The infrastructure needed is in place, most of it. Bikes will be needed and designated roads/lanes for safety reasons. For those that commute 10-15 km/day this is the fastest and cheapest mean of transportation.

For bad weather conditions there is the velo-mobile. It is true that there is a bit more expensive than the bike and this is for a reason. Most(all) are hand crafted now and in itself is a bit more complicated. In the end there is the weather protection and it goes faster than the bike, reaching easily 30 km/h.

This will reduce the cost wit fuel and also with medical care (needed now for less active people with heart problems, obesity, etc.).

Of course during the winter time (where there is winter) the car can be used.

There will also be a problem for the car manufacturers if the market for new cars drops but let's face it, who stops them form making bikes and velo-mobiles?

For sure the quality of life would be better (at least there will be cleaner air in the cities).

This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Its is baffling and frustrating the amount of energy that is needlessly expended traveling. Public transportation would be the most effective way to decrease the energy consumed in the transportation sector. The infrastructure is already there. Anonymous Hero hit the nail on the head, our society is just too spread out for this to work. I believe that in the long run, once energy prices increase, we are going to have to live closer together anyways. Why not begin the transition now? We need a concerted effort (through tax breaks, public education) to persuade people to move out of the suburbs and into the cities (or even mandate it). I believe this is to important an issue to just wait for supply and demand to force the transition. Just because fuel is cheap, it does not make the wasteful use of it ethical.

Education about fuel consumption and encouraging others to consider moving closer to where they work is one thing... forcing people (through a mandate) to live a certain place is another. People should be able to make those choices for themselves.

As nikolay mentioned, I am very much for more bicycle use. It would cut car traffic, reduce emissions and fuel consumption, and help more people stay fit and healthy.

I understand that mandating something is very scary. I would much rather got the route of education/persuasion , but we are at a point in history where drastic changes in society are imminent. The sooner we begin this transition away from fossil fuels, the better off as a society we will be. Unfortunately, if we rely on strictly education/persuasion, the speed at which this change will take place will likely be at a snails pace. Furthermore, we do not want to wait for fuel prices to skyrocket before making the necessary changes (as the free market would dictate) as this would certainly be an (more so) uncomfortable situation.

"I understand that mandating something is very scary. I would much rather got the route of education/persuasion , but we are at a point in history where drastic changes in society are imminent."

Where does freedom come into the equation? What is the role of government supposed to be according to the Constitution? How do free enterprise, capitalism, entreprenurism, personal choice, affect what takes place in economies?

You say we are at a "point in history where drastic changes in society are imminent". There is no emergency that can't be handled when government encroachment of our freedoms is out of the way.

Just because someone has a personal preference for a particular lifestyle; riding bike; recycling of all glass, plastic, etc.; living in close proximity to other people, driving a vehicle the size of a large cracker box, etc. doesn't mean it is for everyone, or certainly not to be mandated by some government beauracrat. Let people decide on their own as they respond to the market as it operates and as they prefer.

There are enough resources to last decades and decades while alternatives to fossil fuels are researched, developed and made viable for consumers. There is no catastrophe waiting to happen!. The only catastrophe is to listen to people without vision of the future and who do not understand and value freedom.

"The only catastrophe is to listen to people without vision of the future and who do not understand and value freedom."

Or listening to people who know nothing of environmental science.

Are you talking about Al Gore, the man-made Global Warming hoax, the governments involvement with "green" industries, the counterproductive implementation of "green" energy that is neither efficient or economically feasible without tax dollars financing, etc.?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be steps taken to be efficient and good stewards of what we have been blessed with. I'm not saying there shouldn't be judicial/criminal consequences for abuse and irresponsibility but it shouldn't be done by an overly restrictive government official who wants to push his weight around, i.e. EPA, DOE, etc.

Free enterprise and capitalism will only work properly when those in leadership (CEO's or the guys on the loading dock) operate with character, honesty, courage and integrity with the long-term consequences of their actions in view.

You wrote, "...persuade people to move out of the suburbs and into the cities (or even mandate it)"

Please don't run for office.

I am not convinced that bus are really more efficient than cars over a week.

They certainly are at rush hour when full. Probably by a factor of ~5 times more fuel than a car (mostly because of the multiple start stop) / 50 people per bus = 0.1X for 3-4 hours a day.

Outside rush hours they break even for another 3-4 hours during the day.

In low periods when the bus is basically empty but the service is maintained for the odd passengers, they consume more than ~3 cars (less stopping) X empty 80% of the time ~ 15 times. (cars don't run when not needed, bus do)

When this is added over a day (18 hours service) we get at best (4h x 0.1 car fuel) + (3h x 1 car fuel) + (11h x 15 car fuel) = 168 times more fuel than if the customers had used their cars. It is obviously the many hours running empty that kill the public transport gains!

Also, at rush hour, a the bus slowdown the traffic drastically as each time it stops, many cars stuck behind have to stop. This increases their fuel consumption from un-necessary stops.

While these numbers are just approximations and can certainly be off by a factor of 2 to 5, it still make bus consume more fuel per passenger than private cars. This doesn't take into account the time wasted by the passengers (2-3x longer) and the cost to all the public (heavily subsidized). A car owner pays all his expenses!

Therefore, if you want to reduce pollution, make better, smaller cars.

I am totally for a reduction of energy consumption and pollution but want to do the right thing. Not what clueless "green" and politicians try to impose on me.

Maybe the solution is to have a "smart" public transportation system. One that monitors the number of people who need bus service at a certain time. It could combine, redirect or eliminate routes where necessary.

Some cities are trying a "call as needed" system using a combination of small buses and taxis. The problem is the increase in the number of vehicles that are very expensive to maintain. Even if a large bus cost many hundred of thousand of dollars to buy. The cost of the driver and and maintenance exceeds this by multiples.

This is why cities buy big busses as one large bus cost less to operate than two small ones. They don't worry about the fuel wasted when running the big bus basically empty. It is almost negligible.

The other problem is what do you do with all the drivers that are not needed between rush hours? Their union contract prevent them from helping at the maintenance. They could wash the busses, do paprework, count the money, and even change the tires... This would optimise the workforce and reduce the cost of public transport.

Many people have to change their mentality to have an efficient system. Human opposes changes unless it gives him a visible direct benefit and even then, some people are too lazy (or scared) to change. It is going to take a lot of time...

Well the unions would have to agree to change their contracts. The unions are supposed to side with the workers and their interest, and this certainly would be in the interest of workers (improved health through better air quality etc.) so i don't see that becoming a major obstacle (albeit still an obstacle).

"Many people have to change their mentality to have an efficient system. Human opposes changes unless it gives him a visible direct benefit and even then, some people are too lazy (or scared) to change. It is going to take a lot of time..."

This is exactly my point. If we see that these changes will ultimately benefit society as a whole, and that people are too lazy, scared, or unmotivated enough to implement these changes on their own, then what is the problem with mandating certain changes to speed things up (so long as there is plenty of oversight and public involvement to minimize corrupt policies)? Otherwise nothing gets done and we will continue to squander our limited resources.

In general, people want the society to do things for them, they are not willing to make any (much) effort for the society...

Changes that benefit the individuals directly and rapidely are accepted. The effort to change comes from the desire to have the latest gadget, save money, or be more comfortable.

This is what I try to implement in my energy saving products. Telling the potential customer that they will help the society doesn't sell much. They have to get something out of it directly.

You wrote, "...and that people are too lazy, scared, or unmotivated enough to implement these changes on their own, then what is the problem with mandating certain changes to speed things up..."

The problem is that is tyranny. People have a right to live the way they want to, even if that is self destructive.

In the end people change because they want to, which is a far better way to see the light than have some tyrant beat it into them.

If the majority of the people still do not see it your way after you make your case and you can't accept that, then you can always exercise one more freedom that you have in this country: leave.

I believe that people have the right to live however they want, no matter if it is self destructive also. However, when your decisions begin to impact the health of others, you step into the realm of human rights. I could argue just the opposite. By refusing to protect peoples air quality and water quality , you are denying them basic human rights, therefore you are actually the tyrant.

Furthermore, if these regulations were done democratically, then they would not be tyrannical (which is what i proposed to begin with).

Then it would not be an issue because a majority will have agreed to those changes. However, remember, the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic.

AnonymousHero-

I am very much in tune with your concerns over tyranny, but one issue that is usually ignored is that we HAVE had things like where we can live and where we can work and where we can shop pretty much dictated to us by Planning Boards. In many places, even if you WANT to live close enough to where you work that you can walk or ride a bicycle, the local Planning Board may block you. This is not true everywhere- back in the mid-1980's, for a while, I lived in an apartment building connected to the office where I worked through an under ground garage- in Pittsburg. Great for the winter commute! There was a grocery store a block away, and the buildings were surrounded by nice gardens for summertime enjoyment. The only time I used the car back in those days was when I had to go out to the airport- I probably could have used public transportation for that, but I can envision all sorts of problems trying to man-handle luggage on and off a public transport...

Anyway, now that I live outside the US, I live in an apartment on the second floor above my shop on the first floor. In many, many parts of the US, this is not feasible, because of the dictates of the local zoning laws...

It is not tyranny only when they won't let YOU live as you chose- it is also tyranny when they won't let OTHERS live as they chose...

The people of America have always been flexible and ready to adapt, or, to make things change. We have been in the past very innovative, courageous, entrepreneurial, independent, etc. As conditions change so will the American people.

Like AH stated we are much different here than in many parts of the world where there are much greater concentration of the populace. In those environments mass transit is more viable, they provide greater service to a higher number of people therefore making them a better option. We do have some large population centers but even then the concentration of people and space used is much different than many other parts of the world.

We have become very independent people from a transportation standpoint as well. We would rather be on our own than travel with the adjoining constraints of having other people with us. There are some habits we have developed that aren't very efficient.

As far as alternative fuels and methods of transportation goes, that will come as research continues. New industries will be developed under the vision and drive of small business owners. This will only take place effectively when the government gets out of the way and lets the free-enterprise system work. That is best when there aren't a bunch of beauracrats in the way trying to create their own little fiefdoms rather than representing us, the people.

"As far as alternative fuels and methods of transportation goes, that will come as research continues. New industries will be developed under the vision and drive of small business owners. This will only take place effectively when the government gets out of the way and lets the free-enterprise system work."

Free enterprise is precisely the reason that this exorbitant waste exists. Restrictions were not imposed regulating MPG or the distance a person lives from his/her workplace (and thereby energy consumption). I believe it is well know that car manufacturers could have achieved much higher fuel efficiency much earlier, but as certain companies were making record profits from these inefficiencies, the standard MPG for a car in the US was kept low. As i said, and i think this needs reiterated-Just because something is cheap, it does not make its unmitigated use ethical.

Ok so "free enterprise" wasnt exactly the word i was looking for. Lets say American "captialism" then. My point is, if we rely only on market solutions, green energy will never get developed as long as burning fossil fuel is so cheap. I believe that fossil fuels are artificially cheap as they don't consider environmental damage in the price.

Lets do a thought experiment. What if fossil fuels were in infinite supply? However, the environmental damage is still the same. When would the market deem it necessary to make the switch? Well probably never.. that is unless (*gasp) regulations were imposed. We would all likely perish in a huge cloud of NOX SOX Hg and MO before any changes were ever made.

If forcing people to live and work more efficiently is insane... then i'm totally bonkers then.

"If forcing people to live and work more efficiently is insane... then i'm totally bonkers then."

Well, that about sums it up. I join AH in a hope that you are not a candidate for public office... in America, anyway.

Welcome to the club! Good to have you over.

"I think not. Fee enterprise, when left unmolested, always gravitates toward the least expensive and most efficient solution."

Think again. If it were not for that pesky EPA, that darned OSHA, and many other watchdog agencies, we would be far less healthy, and many corporations would be far more wealthy. Lowering cost of production, while lowering quality, does not make something more efficient, you of all people know that.

Free enterprise, like politics, gravitates toward the money. I gravitate toward money. This revelation in the last 20 years that this is the guiding light for your moral compass is fascinating. We absolutely know that extracting oil and coal from the earth is unsustainable, is wreaking havoc on the environment, allows capital an undeserved excessive return (because these activities by and large do not pass on the longterm cost of environmental damage and habitat destruction, not the least of which is human habitat). Because we can access these fuels cheaply, and if we buy your theory, they should be even cheaper, it does not mean we should. We should be hell bent on saving the planet from certain death. We should be forcing capital to finance these sustainable technologies in order to ensure that your children, and mine, have a hospitable place to live.

Free enterprise will survive just fine. We will make lots of money.

"We should be forcing capital to finance these sustainable technologies in order to ensure that your children, and mine, have a hospitable place to live."

What part of freedom in a republic doesn't apply from your statement? According to your statement someone should be "forcing capital to finance ...." Who should be doing the forcing? Why should there be force involved when we operate in a free market type of economy (which has been bastardized badly by our politicians)? Where does the "capital" come from that is supposed to be used?

We live in a country that was founded upon the principles of freedom for it's citizens.

The government is supposed to help set an environment where it's citizens can operate small and large business alike in a climate (not atmospheric) that is conducive to entrepreneurism, capitalism and free enterprise.

The role of the Federal government is help maintain our borders, our sovereignty, respond to catastrophes that the individual states can't handle on their own, help set an environment in which trade can take place between states and internationally. That's about the extent to which it should be involved. The rest is to be taken care of by individual citizens and the states themselves.

The "capital" comes from businesses operating and providing goods and services to it's customers. The government does not generate capital and does a wretched job of handling the funds it takes in through egregious taxation.

A high majority of the clamor and noise that we are ruining our planet does not come from accurate scientific data but from data skewed and interpreted to promote a certain political viewpoint and exert even greater control over people.

People need to operate with principles of honesty, integrity, character, self-discipline, hard work, free enterprise, accountability, etc. in order for this all to work properly. When there aren't timeless principles to live and operate by all bets are off and it's every man/woman for themselves. This moral relativism is becoming more prevalent as we move farther away from our Judeo-Christian roots as a country.

It is hard to understand your position, but your argument sounds like you are simply an anti-capitalist. However, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my position clear.

First, capitalism does require regulation. However, regulation is a two-edge sword. Unfortunately, we have far too much of it now and it is costing people their livelihoods, but we can not run open loop without regulation. We need a balance.

Second, the idea that oil companies are getting an undeserved amount of profit is the biggest lie I have ever seen people swallow. It sounds like you had it for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

From 2006 to 2010 the five largest national oil companies averaged just 6.65% annual profit. These oil companies are all publicly traded. A reasonable mutual fund returns about 12% per year. So, the only reason to invest in oil is because its rate of return is pretty predictable and positive every year. However, you can look at many other industries if you want better profits; you just have to share the risks.

The story does not end there. The largest profiteer from the oil companies is.... the US Government! They take more in taxes than the oil companies earn in profit. So, who is the greedy one now?

Another thing about oil. Do you have a pension fund, IRA, or other retirement funds? You better because social security is not going to let you retire. Let's pretend you do have your own retirement funds. Where does that money come from? Well, some of it comes from the BIG Oil and some from BIG Pharmaceutical and a host of other BIG evil corporations. If you do not plan to work in Walmart the rest of your life, then you are betting on all those BIG evil profit sucking companies to do okay so you can draw some money to live on.

Here's a hint for you... You might want to start looking at a few Roth IRAs to shore up your retirement because when you do retire the new universal health care will not cover your real needs (just take a pain pill and wait), so you need to start paying cash when the government starts denying you treatment because you are too old. The last year of your life will be the most expensive year in your life due to health costs.

Third, the current ruling party lies to you bold face. The other party is not Snow White, either, but the ruling party is (and has been for some time) been trying to divide this country using the anti-capitalist rhetoric in spades. Every lie has its kernel of truth, which is what makes it so believable, but they are lying just the same. So, the idea that capitalism needs some regulation is true, but the reason for the excessive regulations upon regulations has more to do with power than looking after the little guy.

Given that the ruling party lies (as does the out of power party) why are you so invested in their claim of truth that the sky is falling and we will soon roast or freeze (they are still trying to nail that down)? Since they have zero credibility I am loath to buy into the climate change bandwagon and that subject has already been beat to death here. I shall not repeat it.

Lastly, your first paragraph seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how free markets work. The consumer sets the quality bar. If company A delivers a substandard product, Company B has an opportunity to present a better product or a better price or both. This is known as competition. An excellent example would be the auto industry of the 1960s. They ruled the market, actually drove the market. Then in the 1970s Japan started getting a toe in the door. Japanese companies realized that they could increase their share of the market by producing what is called "a better product". It took a few iterations, but they started building cars that the public saw as superior to Detroit. The market shifted and Detroit was caught with their pants down.

It took almost 10 years for Detroit to catch up, but by then the cars rolling off the line were far superior than anything either Japan or the US had made previously. It was what is called a win-win for Detroit, Japan, and in particular, the consumer.

Consumers demand the quality, not some government agency, by voting with their wallets.

Ok, so how do you explain the fact that my toaster oven only lasts a year or two whereas toaster ovens (and really any appliance) made 30 years ago could last 10+ years. Taking you automobile example, these appliances should have gotten better, not worse.

PS. i think this thread exemplifies why CR4 needs a politics section.... We love it!

You wrote, "Ok, so how do you explain the fact that my toaster oven only lasts a year or two..."

Easy. You are buying junk toasters. Turn it over. After all the crumbs hit the counter it probably reads "Made in China."

Not that China is the problem, you are by putting price before quality. Buy a better toaster. Unfortunately, we have a problem where everyone runs to Walmart and buys the cheapest thing they can find. When you shop by price you usually get no more than what you pay for or less. Walmart will keep stocking junk toasters and other trinkets as long as their is a demand for them.

You really want a better toaster, buy a Dualit. It will be the last toaster you ever have to buy. You can probably put it in your will, too, it is so stout.

Not only that, it toasts better as well. :)

The banking/housing crash was a direct result of government social engineering, not simply greed in the marketplace. Of course the government will never point fingers at themselves, but the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was the prime reason we have what we have today.

When the government engineers something, it's the politicians that make the drawings. Private equity is happy to help with the details. I bet we could agree that politicians are generally not up to the task, Democrats or Republicans.

Absolutely! And the results are an excellent example of that.

This post fills me with hope! Thank you for sharing PFR!

However i think i disagree with your statement of "It's the unwillingness of society and politicians to regulate their behavior that is the problem we face."

The politicians wont regulate because they are bought and sold by the same corporations that are seeking to avoid regulation. The public cannot make an informed decision of whether or not a certain regulation is necessary due to the selective information (or sometimes misinformation) provided to them by the mainstream news media. The mainstream news media are controlled by those that advertise on that particular station. Sometimes these advertisers are the same corporations that are trying to avoid regulation. Therefore, isnt the logical conclusion that the source of our woefully ineffective regulations stems from the ultra-powerful corporations?

I am not in agreement with you at all.

Corporations are destined (in fact, they must) make profits for their investors. Blaming a company for exploiting an opportunity is senseless, and dangerous. We want that drive for improved efficiency, innovation to develop new products, long R and D efforts, high return for high risk, and we have very good evidence that this process works. it can produce very high standards of living for our workers.

This post is about policy. Politicians make policy, not corporations. My beef with some of these posters is that they do not perceive that it is time to invest in the most valuable commodities of the 21 st century, energy and human habitat preservation? It means we fight R and D wars instead of oil wars. Only a national energy policy can make this happen. The "free market" will exploit this policy. We will absolutely kick global ass. The free market will not create this policy.

It's the voters who elect the regulators. Voters, (and both parties) are not doing a very good job of insuring that the officials that represent them are prioritizing their interests. I don't blame the politicians or the corporations. I blame the voters who put them there.

Now I'm ready for the barrage of government is terrible at picking winners. Blah blah blah. Right now, Americans suck at picking politicians.

I do not "blame" corporations, it is only the nature of the beast. I am simply trying to nail down the source of these policies (or lack thereof). I never stated that we were in "agreement", only that i am glad to see that there are some in the Capitalistic world who wish to better the system, although they may be handcuffed by their investors. Your distance has been established.

You do not directly address my question of influence. You stated "Politicians make policy, not corporations." , however, you also stated that "When the government engineers something, it's the politicians that make the drawings. Private equity is happy to help with the details.". Could this private equity not come from individuals who have interests in protecting certain corporations?

You blame the voters who put the officials in office. The voters decisions are a product of the information made available to them (and as i described earlier, is likely censored in some way). I understand it is the individuals duty to seek out truth, but it seems to be that it would be hard to deny that the influence exists.

I would argue that voters rarely look at the the available information on a candidate beyond how well they are groomed in their pictures.

Most vote by party line, then look at the relative attractiveness of the candidate. However, it is also easy to just stick with the incumbent.

The net result is what you see.

Plato said that the penalty for not participating in politics is you will be ruled by your inferiors.

Actually, in the US, the government regulations I find MOST stifling are those that have been promoted by commercial interests (read mega-corporations) to stifle competition...

Energy Policy is the OP.

How did those anti-competitive proposals become law? Some politicians and CEO's use this soundbite over and over. These regulations are killing jobs, killing U.S. competitiveness. Let's get rid of them, so we can make more money, hire more people, build more factories, hire more engineers.

Excessive regulation is keeping the economy from recovering. Climate change is a hoax. The Middle Eastern oil rich countries will eventually love our people as much as our money, they are just not free enough. Mercury levels are not that bad. Asthma can be caused by pollen, and states with coal power have a high levels of pollen. Historical groundwater levels and quality standards are not the best indicators. Our bridges are fine. Privatizing our prison system will save us money. We can not afford to provide basic healthcare, except through emergency room visits.

The sky is not falling, but to take a look at next week instead of tomorrow could be helpful. It will be expensive.

Several weeks ago I was in San Antonio TX to attend my son's USAF Basic Military Training Graduation ceremonies and was amazed at the huge number of very large SUVs and pickup trucks being driven there, many with a single occupant, the driver! SA has a fairly large population (3M I believe) and what I term Urban Sprawl, much like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix and LA.....everywhere you go you encounter freeways, interstate highways, and wide 4 or 6-lane secondary highways chock full of these large gas guzzling vehicles with a sole person in each of them. I saw the exact same things last week in New Jersey and Philly....we even got stuck in total gridlock for 1.5 hours on I-78 between the Garden State Parkway and the NJ Turnpike (in the vicinity of Newark-Liberty Airport) due to a overturned 18-wheeler on a ramp heading to the Holland Tunnel; a traffic backup for at least 8 or 9 miles on a Thursday morning. it didn't help matters that there was ongoing construction on that highway!

I don't know if it's the availability of cheap TX, OK or Gulf Coast gas, having a status symbol, or "keeping up with the Jones" as the reason there are so many of these large vehicles on the roads in SA. IMO, there's a lot of fuel waste out there based on poor choices across the board......possibly based on the "America-on-the-road & mobility habits" of yesteryear. Many of the SUVs out there on the road have terrible gas mileage.....what is it typically, less than 20 mpg on the highway?

I'm not advocating the all out purchase of mini-cars and electric cars, but we Americans have got to change our way of doing things before the chit literally hits the fan where petroleum-based fuels become in short supply for any number of reasons.

Then there's the issue of maintaining the existing highway and bridge infrastructure to support those millions of vehicles that we already own which is literally falling apart before our eyes because of Federal/State/Local budget cutbacks coupled together with reduced maintenance. The system, the way it is now, is fiscally unsupportable.....too many cars and trucks, too many crumbling highways choked with traffic jambs and gridlock or reduced traffic flow, too high gas prices, too little refinery capacity in the USA and CA, and too little $$ to fix what we already have in the way of highways and roads.

GA!

MaxT, freedom has nothing to do with economic scale or standing. It is what people do with the opportunities in front of them that matters. Many people choose to be poor because they handle their finances poorly. Some people are poor because of conditions beyond their control, i.e. an overbearing, restrictive current government who is actively seeking to destroy our country's economy. The Great Depression was a government-made economic catastrophe and should have been another lesson from the past that our subsequent politicians from both sides of the aisle should have learned from. I guess that was wishful thinking. They are too concerned with trying to create their own little empires and exercise control over the same people they are supposed to be representing.

There are people who make a great deal of money who are also "slaves" to the conditions around them. They are only broke at a different level and have to live their lives by obligation and not priority. Money is partly a magnifying glass of how someone thinks.

"Then there's the issue of maintaining the existing highway and bridge infrastructure to support those millions of vehicles that we already own which is literally falling apart before our eyes because of Federal/State/Local budget cutbacks coupled together with reduced maintenance. The system, the way it is now, is fiscally unsupportable.....too many cars and trucks, too many crumbling highways choked with traffic jambs and gridlock or reduced traffic flow, too high gas prices, too little refinery capacity in the USA and CA, and too little $$ to fix what we already have in the way of highways and roads."

Have you considered that many people drive big off road type vehicles because they are what can easily handle the poorly maintained roads plus when dealing with large amounts of traffic they have also proved themselves to be what gets seen and should it happen also have the best records of the occupants surviving a crash of any form?

I personally have owned both small vehicles and big vehicles in my life and I can assure you there are many reasons why I don't own small vehicles any more which are probably for much of the same reasons so many others don't either.

I drive a gas guzzling 4X4 Jeep with big tires, and performance mods. I gladly pay what I need to to drive it. I have a Honda Civic for long trips, where the jeep might not be comfortable enough. I drive a LOT, many times not because I really need to, but because I want to. I will also drive a bit farther, and take a bit more time on a back country road, rather than the most efficient route to my destination (I do this a lot).

I grew up dirt poor, Ate only the food that my family could grow and raise. We raised rabbits & chickens for food because they were cheap and plentiful, and I spent much of my time tending to either the livestock, the garden, or cutting firewood, it meant our survival.

I worked hard to get to a point where I can buy the things I want, and do the things I want to do. I (or anyone else in my family) have never taken any "hand outs" or aid from the government or anyone else. Now both of my brothers who put them selves through school by joining the Air Force are very well off, and have families and big houses and cars of their own.

I went a different route than my brothers, and worked multiple low paying jobs while going to school part time, living in camp trailers, and eating ramen. I had no economic advantage whatsoever over anyone. I did however still manage to do something, by working hard. It took me 12 years to finish college, and work to pay for it but I did it, and it felt damn good. Today I have 2 Engineering degrees, and manage an Engineering department for a decent sized company.

I don't buy for a millisecond that people of low economic value don't have every opportunity that anyone else has. In fact I think growing up dirt poor and learning that to survive you need to work hard every day actually gives you better opportunity than most people. It's work ethic, and willingness that will put you ahead of the crowd, and learning it by necessity is needed if you are "poor", and wish to change things.

Look at many of history's billionairs... Many of them started with $0.42 cents in their pocket, no family, and only had a few good ideas, and a work ethic to back them up.

I call bullock on the idea of limited opportunity for those of us who aren't born with the silver spoon.

kudos to you for your accomplishments.

I think Max tends to feel/think that once you are stratified into a class there is little or no hope to raise above. That is patently false. Even Ben Franklin arrived in Philadelphia as a child with some spare change in his pocket and half a sandwich.

You have to seize the opportunities that are around you and we are more fortunate than most to have a lot of choices. The problem is that we have a power play in politics where the poor and middle class are being pitted against the "rich" and many people are looking at this as if one class owes another class their living. So they are taught and they become pawns in a power struggle.

When you stop drinking the class warfare Kool Aid and get busy leveraging what is around you, you can ascend beyond those bonds. Unfortunately, there are too few leaders in the community to mentor those willing and far too many brainwashed that pop culture is more important than self activation.

You make a comparison of America in the 2000s with that of America in the 1700s? They might as well be two different planets, so i fail to see any pertinent point there.

With the national attacks on unions, the massive defunding of public education, statistics showing increased productivity going hand in hand with stagnant workers wages, the seperation of wealth that i described earlier, as well as the richest man in the world stating:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." -Warren Buffett

, I think my concerns are justified.

I think that maybe you should have a swig of that bitter drink called reality, and realize who is serving it to you.

You made a valid 1/2 point, messing it up by overgeneralization.

Man's knowledge is deposited in readable form at ever increasing rate. Man's psychological makeup did not change an iota in 200 or 10thousand years. When you talk, better make the distinction and reference clear.

Incoherent talk yield incoherent results. Unions were the answer for a problem in early industrialization. A prominent and effective pushback, needed for balance in the society. It did not exist in medieval times, for a reason. And I predict, it will wither in modern times for similar reason. My feelings for it, as your feelings will not matter. Remember, mankind tried many arrangements over time, none permanent.

So is with Warren Buffet. Historically, he is a dinosaur, supported by an artificial prop, cronyism (of any kind you chose). In less than a generation he will be gone, with not a ripple. A genius of a special sort, I do not know, if and how he would adapt to the coming world.

But then again, I have the same question concerning you.

Medieval times had no multinational corporations either. You predict that there will be no MNCs in the future then? I may be missing your point. Try not to be so incoherent with your responses .

Im not entirely sure what was "incoherent" about what i said. Did you want sources for the information that i quoted?

Unions became relevant in the US with the massive influx of unskilled labor that the 1800-1900 saw. The workers had to join together otherwise wages would have hit destitute levels. With the influx of unskilled labor in recent times (ie Mexican emmigration), i feel that unions would be even more relevant.

Thanks for your reply. Your last paragraph shows, that you realize, that the timely emergence of the union movement was for an acute reason.

The same reason did not exist before, and I posit, it will be avoided (having learned) in the future. That is how mankind progresses.

That's it, and that's all I am stating.

Walking around the subiect is the "incoherence", by anybody.

1. Unions are a defunct organization. At one time they served a good purpose. Now they just make senior members rich and no longer serve the interest of the people. Now they are nothing more than a political organization. Membership has been on a steady decline for decades.

2. You must be reading the National Education Funding graph upside down. Funding has has only increased at a steady rate.

3. What statistics? Show me your data! How does increasing a stagnate works wage increase their productivity if they are stagnant?

4. Buffet is an idiot. What's your problem with the rich anyway?

5. If you feel justified, fine.

1. The opinion that workers need not organize because "we have learned from our past mistakes" is pure fantasy. Making sweeping generaliztions (such as you did) can get you into hot water. Your first assumption is that employers will (willfully) act in the best interest of the employees (they wont). Your next assumption is that all unions are the same (they are not).

Employees such as the ones dying from climbing cell phone towers could possibly benefit from a union.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cell-tower-deaths/

or maybe even walmart workers could also see benefits.

2. I am a student (a senior ME) at the University of Pittsburgh. I have observed increases in my tuiton as a direct result of Gov. Corbett's slashing of education funding. k-12 has also suffered as well.

http://www.psea.org/apps/budget/budgetimpact.aspx

3. I am sure you will find any way possible to dismiss the statistics, but here they are anyways (summarized).

http://www.epi.org/publication/the_sad_but_true_story_of_wages_in_america/

4. The huge separation of wealth is my problem. I do not have a problem with people such as Buffett, only the policies that funnel the wealth from bottom to top.

5. I feel fine. Although i fear i may never acquire the taste for reality... it is just too damn bitter. Hopefully we can add some sugar to it someday.

GA

1. Come now. I have worked a number years for big business, small business, and now my own businesses. Probably more than you have been alive.

100 years ago workers had labor problems and unions helped fix those issues. Today is a totally different environment where workers command a much greater value than 100 years ago, by a wide margin. The problem is you are surrounded by theory and no real practice. When you get 10 to 20 years in the job market you will understand.

It is your responsibility to negotiate the best employment package and if you rely on a union to do that for you, you will be short changed in your career.

2. As a student of any university you should know by now that a single data point does not statistically represent the entire universe. The data I presented does for the US.

3. I honestly do not have the time right now to analyze the link you presented. My first look raises some questions. First, why compare productivity? What that really says is a good thing. Yes, it improves company profits, but it also helps stem inflation. At least some of the productivity growth is due to the large labor force reduction (layoffs), which demanded companies produce goods and services more efficiently.

A better indicator in this case is to compare the wages paid versus the profit margin the company produces. I suspect that the ratio of growth is much closer, which would indicate that the cited link is a bit misleading. I can't say that for sure, but that is my initial feel.

Nevertheless, the wages paid is a market driven event. That is, companies looking for talent will offer competitive wages based on the availability of workers to choose from. Given the high unemployment, this naturally suppresses wages because of the law of supply and demand.

4. That huge separation is somewhat due to the lackluster economy, but more to do with how people work and how they invest in themselves in the form of training. You will be paid for the wetware between your ears. If you fail to aggressively invest in that wetware by continually improving existing skills and taking on new skills in responsibility, you will always be bitter.

I have had the responsibility to hire new engineers and the first thing you need to be aware of is that when you graduate you know squat. Employers hire for you for your potential because as a new worker that is all you can possibly bing to the table.

Your only hope is to choose a job that offers you the greatest chance to learn the ropes from the bottom up, show better than average ambition and work ethics, and suck up as much knowledge as you can. Invest in yourself.

The real wage gap is because most people think the system owes them a job or a living. They are wrong.

Finally, when you go looking for a job, leave that bitter entitlement attitude/argument at home or it will be the biggest ball and chain in your career.

You are the captain of your life and career and if you want to be something else than a bottom feeder you need to apply yourself harder and longer than the next guy. See you at the top.

AH, thanks for your reply. I value debates with people of differing opinions. It helps me sort through and strengthen arguments.

1) I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I have a really hard time believing that unions are obsolete. I will continue my study with your concerns in mind.

2) you are correct, and i was honestly expecting someone to point that out. However, a quick google search can pull up information such as

"K-12 budgets were cut $1.8 billion nationwide in 2010."-LA Times

A majority of states have cut education funding from years 2011-2012 as well (a nice colorful graph can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/k-12-education-funding-mo_n_1000396.html about halfway down.)

I believe our differences are due to the fact that i am talking about state spending, whereas you are talking about federal spending.

3-4) Will have to look further into this as well.

I only want what is best for my fellow Americans as well as my children. When i look around at the current state of America, i cant help but to scream foul. Wasteful use of energy, the wars, failing education system, misinformation/propaganda from network news, incompetent/corrupt govt, worsening environmental conditions, civil rights being trampled upon etc. I am upset about these issues, but i am far from apathetic. Through the power of the people (and only through the power of the people) will we overcome these obstacles.

Over and out.

It is true that California is cutting spending, but not just in education. The state has extended its debt way too far and we are seeing the impact of those spending policies.

If you want to be the best, then be the change you want to see. However, you will find as you go that things are the way they are for a reason and many times those reasons are that way because they are the lesser of two evils. Essentially, there is no perfect solution and everything is a compromise.

The pertinent point that AH was making was the mindset and thinking that Benjamin Franklin had as he moved from his home to Philadelphia. Benjamin was just a young man when he did that, around 16 yrs. old or so, and his desire was to be successful. His desire was followed up with intentional, disciplined action. Most people in our society want to be wealthy without the activity that would make it possible. They think they will win the lottery or sue someone with deep pockets. They aren't willing to do the hard work of success.

When Benjamin wanted to start a printing shop his own dad wouldn't help fund him and he had to get the minimal startup funds elsewhere. How's that for belief, your own dad doesn't think enough of you to help?

"Methods are many, principles are few, methods may change, principles never do." The principles of successful people work in any timeframe. They aren't secrets. They just require hard work, which many people aren't willing to do and most kids don't learn them in school or from their lazy parents at home sucking off the government tit.

That is the mindset we need to help instill in our young charges, and older people alike. People who are entrepreneurial, willing to take risks now for the chance of future returns. They are the kind of people who will find alternatives to business, technologies and economies that aren't working properly, or with too many downsides.

Regarding the "massive defunding of public education", keep cutting. In the existing government run system the money spent, the waste and the abysmal results, why shouldn't it be changed? Plan, Do, Check, Adjust. When the results are flawed you need to go back and check the process to see what needs to change. You don't just keep doing the same thing ad infinitum expecting different results. That's the definition of insanity per Albert Einstein. In the government run school systems you have a bloated beauracracy that doesn't care a whit about producing a good product, kids that are capable of thinking critically and competant in life skills.

There is a growing gap between the "rich" and the poor. One of the biggest reasons for that is not because there are people making a lot of money, but because the one group sees and uses money differently. The rich use their money to generate more income through assets and the "poor" buy crap that depreciates, with someone else's money. A book that helps explain some of those principles is Cashflow Quadrant by Robert Kiyosaki.

As so eloquently put in The Big Lebowski, whom you remind me of (the real one, not the Dude), "What are you blathering about?"

Try looking at the REPLY#.

Well at least you are not worried about him peeing on the carpet!

That rug really tied the room together.

I second your life story. It mirrors mine, except I early had the "teaching benefits" of fascism, and communism too. Good, solid lessons to love this country.

Yes, we could improve on it, but compared to other systems, there is no basic comparison.

-------------------------------------------------------

By the way, to the starry eyed ones I have a practical recommendation: you think, that XYZ is better? Live there for a decade, then come back, and tell about it. Until then your opinion is null, and void.

I have a general note to MaxT and similar thinking people.

Society evolves both in the physical sense and in understanding - the social sense. The contributors are rewarded. No matter how confusing to you (or me) the human web votes. And that is an advancement indicator.

Plenty of people are afraid of advancement - into the unknown. But future is the unknown. Except contingency plans, you cannot plan for it. So, plenty of people - afraid of it - retreat into the last 2 centuries: early industrial, one size fits all, central planning.

Well, no matter the upheaval in the meantime, the world is not going back. Never did, nor will it make an exception now.

In the meantime, if you care to have an open mind, I recommend a book to read. Not about how this or that ought be, but about how the Internet is, and what that means to the world and other disciplines. That I am sure of, that the world is moving, and you can get on for the ride, or left behind as an ancient relic.

The book I recommend: LINKED by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. I happened to find it, because it was written by a compatriot of mine. No other distinction. It describes the start and evolution of the Internet, and the rules discovered and their generalization.

You want to learn some, do.

You want to left behind, do.

I do not know you, it is all the same to me.

Looks like the talk went into "rough waters".

Are we still talking about transportation? I have something else to remind you of and that would be the rule of the 3R: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Does it ring a bell?

1. Reduce - The size and weight of the car

- The number of empty seats ( see: carpooling) and the number of trips (do as much as possible in one trip).

- The acceleration when starting and the speed

2. Reuse - The smell of a new car is divine for many and even more if they worked very hard to get the car. Still, reusing a 10 year old car will produce less waste than getting a new one, even with a slight fuel consumption difference.

3. Recycle - gas guzzling SUVs and trucks into more efficient cars. The purpose of an off road vehicle is, you guessed it, to go OFF the road where you rarely can go with a regular car. The same is true for trucks.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

I DO consider #56 part of a mainstream discussion, badly needed. His answer to #54 is appropriate.

I want to address #54's total lack of Economy101. The material for that is available in any Public Library, if and when common sense is insufficient.

Value is created, by you. Earth was there, for 4 billion years, raw, no economic value. YOU came along, and created value from the raw material. Iron ore to steel bridge.

Value is created, by you. Out of thin air. Look at the fantastic valuation of the internet related companies with no brick and mortar backing.

Value is created, by you. Look at the Mona Lisa or a Van Gogh, or at the crayon masterpiece of your grandchild. The value is definitely not the price of the paint.

Value is created, by you. Ever since the Galloping Bertie bridge collapse, the engineers designed plenty of bridges inherently incapable of getting into resonances.

Value is created, by you. I saw a program, about a guy, the size of a linebacker. Sorry, his name escapes me now. He decided to solve the problem of inner cities not getting fresh vegetables. By teaching cultivation of empty lots. Successfully. He molded minds and created from nothing.

Do something positive. Spitting negativity at others is NOT a humane way to live.

I wrote before, that the unions emergence during the Industrial Revolution came as an answer for a timely need in the society. It did not exist before, and its reason for existence is fading. That is not my opininon. The % of workers represented such show it. Learn about it, then you won't be in for a surprise. When historical forces are at work, your, mine, or anybody else's sympathies, and desires do not matter a whit.

Our Education Maior friend will be in for a surprise too.

The present, one size fits all education is controlled by the Teacher's union. Including laws passed outlawing any other, competing forms of education. A classical monopoly. But they are behind the curve, by a full century. Workplace does not relies on their efforts. It teaches people on its own. I learned my life long, no thanks to any school. Except once, where I decided to pay for it, to get it fast from a private outfit. I am of the mature generation, and since public school, the monopoly does not affect me. Monopolies do not last. Check on the oil monopoly.

When you look for the younger generation, they learn via Internet, and simply endure school. For good or ill, not under the rule of a monopoly.

You would be well advised, to look at the landscape of your future, because it will be interesting too.

------------------------------------------------------

#74 facilitiesmngr and #90 redfred are correct.

I did not expect to run across of a paradigm shift in education that fast:

Edu