price of gas

Which is precisely what Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute predicted six years ago when the Bush administration enacted the new efficiency standards with promises that new technology would clean clothes better and save money. Mr. Kazman forecast dirtier clothes and pointed out the dubious assumptions in the cost calculations, but he was no match for the coalition of environmentalists and manufacturers eager to mandate expensive new machines.
Mr. Kazman and CEI are now urging consumers to register their displeasure by sending their dirty underwear to the Department of Energy. But it would take a lot of underwear to prevail against the forces on Capitol Hill currently working to impose still higher energy-efficiency standards on washing machines and other appliances — and on the biggest target of all, the automobile.
When the federal government imposed automobile fuel-efficiency standards three decades ago, the unintended consequence was an additional 2,000 deaths annually as a result of downsized cars, according to the National Research Council. As Congress debates new fuel-efficiency standards for cars, some engineers say that safety problems can be overcome with new technology. But I’m skeptical. Sure, there’s better safety technology today, but rigid standards can force engineers to make compromises, and every dollar invested in fuel economy is one less dollar to invest in safety. I think a gas tax is a far better way to save energy — quicker and more efficient — than rules mandating what kind of automobiles can be built.


Basically, these instances beg the question, "If the government can fuck up a washing machine, how badly will they fuck up cars?

This is a great article about complex markets and unintended consequences: http://www.econlib.org/library/Colum...tsmarkets.html

Relying on people to volunteer to reduce emissions is an ineffective way to encourage results. How much should I reduce them? What's the optimal amount? How do I trade off my own happiness against the amount I pollute? Should I ride my bike? Should I take the bus? If I'm realy trying to reduce my carbon footprint should I just kill myself? Or really help the environment and kill other people? Where do you draw the line? How much is too much?

Government should create an economic system (like carbon trading?) to discourage negative externalities like car emissions. That's the whole point of government anyway. We need to decide as a country or a world how much pollution we're willing to tolerate, legislate it, and then go about living our lives without needing to guess what size car is morally optimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

original article

---

Where do you stand on other government mandated car standards? Air bags, seatbelts, etc?

Did those fuck up cars? Or save lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Where do you stand on other government mandated car standards? Air bags, seatbelts, etc?

Did those fuck up cars? Or save lives?

---

the george bush republican party handbook clearly states no government intrusion on business practices no matter how many lives they may save. thats just the way it is.

heeheeheeeee, I told you so... (on Wolfowitz...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleHoar

How did that whole "gas-boycott" thing work out last tuesday??

---

I filled up Tuesday, and no sign-waving protesters tried to stop me.

I guess I messed it up for everybody, since the price didn't drop 25 cents/gallon. Sorry about that.

Has anybody else ever read "Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth Deffeyes? Good book on the prospects for future oil supplies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Where do you stand on other government mandated car standards? Air bags, seatbelts, etc?

Did those fuck up cars? Or save lives?

---

it is different. requiring safety belts and airbags on balance saves lives. these are indisputable facts.

Hybrid engines, ethanol, etc. are decidedly not more energy efficient. Ethanol especially which is government mandated and subsidized.


Buster, Wolfowitz resigned because he was trying to avoid a conflict of being his girlfriend's boss. he then got her a different job elsewhere with a pay raise commensurate to what she would have made at the World Bank. but I can see where you're coming from. the right thing to do would have been to keep her there and have every single one of her promotions get questioned for the rest of her career.

sadly he was actually making headway at the World Bank, an institution almost as corrupt as the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

it is different. requiring safety belts and airbags on balance saves lives. these are indisputable facts.

---

So would smaller more fuel efficient cars (that still run on gas).

Less mass, less damage when you hit something and thus less casulties.

Of course that would prolly make less of a man out of most US males, since they couldn't drive the penis extensions... whops ment to say SUVs/trucks:p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

So would smaller more fuel efficient cars (that still run on gas).

Less mass, less damage when you hit something and thus less casulties.

Of course that would prolly make less of a man out of most US males, since they couldn't drive the penis extensions... whops ment to say SUVs/trucks:p.

---

or we could just let people drive what they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

it is different. requiring safety belts and airbags on balance saves lives. these are indisputable facts.

Hybrid engines, ethanol, etc. are decidedly not more energy efficient. Ethanol especially which is government mandated and subsidized.

---

The article that you'd cut and pasted was attacking fuel efficiency standards not hybrids or ethanol :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

sadly he was actually making headway at the World Bank, an institution almost as corrupt as the UN.

---

Headway? Hamstringing it? Connecting bank policy and lending practices with celibacy and anti-anti-aids prevention? What he was doing for his girlfriend wasn't corrupt? The business of demanding a letter of reference before resigning wasn't extortion? I can only begin to imagine the outrage you'd have been spewing had the same situation arisen and he'd been a Clinton appointee or heaven forbid...... an un-American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

or we could just let people drive what they want.

---

Tanks? Dragsters? I'd like to commute by phony firetruck with siren blaring.

Fuck everyone else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Of course that would prolly make less of a man out of most US males, since they couldn't drive the penis extensions... whops ment to say SUVs/trucks:p.

---

Actually, it's now the women who are driving the Penis Extenders. They are all dropping the kids off at school in Escalades, Suburbans, and Expeditions.

Maybe they need these vehicles because their husbands are lacking in the 'man department'.

I'll take a pic one of these days at an elementary school near my house. It's literally 90% or more SUV's. Not little ones. But big spendy ones. Stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Tanks?

---

that's fuckin genius. not only would it address the safety issues with all these light cars on the road nowadays, also criminals wouldn't dare to threaten anyone if all law abiding citizens would ride one of these.

Handful of corrections ...

Hybrids are more fuel efficient.

It was a NAS report, not the NRC. Read it instead of parrotting what you're fed. Dittohead.

The report repeatedly pointed out that both the question and the answer that they knew would be trumpeted by the carmakers were absurd, and that - if Congress & the carmakers genuinely gave a rat's ass about safety - there are a dozen better ways to obtain it.

Regarding vehicle mass - the most effective killers are the biggest pickup trucks - e.g. Dodge Ram 350. They're not even very safe for the drivers & occupants. The safest vehicles on the road, for occupants and others, are minivans.

Regarding appeals to the authority of the CEI and its flacks - heeheehee.

The age of oil is over by 2020. We're feeling the early effects of that switch already.

Not that big a deal - gas prices effectively drop by half when you double your MPG by replacing your worn-out guzzler with a small hybrid. They halve again when you start carpooling, or bike half the time. And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Actually, it's now the women who are driving the Penis Extenders. They are all dropping the kids off at school in Escalades, Suburbans, and Expeditions.

---

Damn... Most of the males must be really lacking...

Or mebbe the roles are reversed, and the "man" of the family drives the big car and calls the shots:biggrin:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Damn... Most of the males must be really lacking...

Or mebbe the roles are reversed, and the "man" of the family drives the big car and calls the shots:biggrin:.

---

Hey, I resemble that remark. I've got the beater Subaru while the wife's got the K2500 :tdo13:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greg

that's fuckin genius. not only would it address the safety issues with all these light cars on the road nowadays, also criminals wouldn't dare to threaten anyone if all law abiding citizens would ride one of these.

---

Also we'll all be able to fight the terrorists when they follow us home from Iraq ;)

Just bought an 80mpg bike. Same day I got word my shoulder is f-ed and i can't ride for 12 weeks.:tdo13:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Where do you stand on other government mandated car standards? Air bags, seatbelts, etc?

Did those fuck up cars? Or save lives?

---

- Do seatbelts and airbags decrease the chance that people will get hurt and killed when they're in crashes? Yes.
- Do seatbelts and airbags (and the safety of large SUVs) make people drive more recklessly than they otherwise might, leading to some amount of additional accidents? Probably.
- On net, are people safer? Most likely. Cars have been getting consistently safer regardless of government mandates.

The real issue is: people like driving safe cars, and car companies would have rolled out air bags and seatbelts regardless just to please customers. The government doesn't need to design and mandate safety systems; the market does that fine. Look at Lexus' "Actively Safe" advertising campaign right now - they're not doing that because the government is making them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

I'll take a pic one of these days at an elementary school near my house. It's literally 90% or more SUV's. Not little ones. But big spendy ones. Stupid.

---

thats the LDS BMW aka Big Mormon Wagon. Im surprised they dont drive school busses with all the kids they cart around.

I drive the Land Cruiser.
At 16mpg's it's my economy car.

And it's paid for.
I figured out once that for me to justify buying a new TDI Jetta gas would have to hit $15 per gallon.

I have been in the marked for an older Mercedes-Benz 300D to run on Biodiesel though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Regarding vehicle mass - the most effective killers are the biggest pickup trucks - e.g. Dodge Ram 350. They're not even very safe for the drivers & occupants. The safest vehicles on the road, for occupants and others, are minivans.

---

I think you're twisting words. Do you even know what a Dodge 350 is? They quit making them a looong time ago.

Effective killers? I'd much rather be in my Dodge 3500 diesel, when I get in a wreck with you in your minivan.....which isn't any safer. I'm pretty sure you'd get hurt more than I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

The article that you'd cut and pasted was attacking fuel efficientcy standards not hybrids or ethanol :confused:



Headway? Hamstringing it? Connecting bank policy and lending practices with celibacy and anti-anti-aids prevention? What he was doing for his girlfriend wasn't corrupt? The business of demanding a letter of reference before resigning wasn't extortion? I can only begin to imagine the outrage you'd have been spewing had the same situation arisen and he'd been a Clinton appointee or heaven forbid...... an un-American.



Tanks? Dragsters? I'd like to commute by phoney firetruck with siren blaring.

Fuck everyone else!

---

it was attacking the bill that helped subsidize things like Hybrids, ethanol burning engines, and ethanol mix in petrol. but whatever.

regarding Wolfowitz.

I guess this from the Financial Times, that noted Bush mouthpiece, sums it up better than I can.

The World Bank’s ethics committee should have a sign on the door warning: “Caveat emptor –don’t rely on us.”

The absurd controversy over the tenure of Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank president, whose longstanding romantic partner was at the bank years before he was, can be traced to that committee’s incoherent advice.

The ethics chairman who proffered advice to Mr Wolfowitz when he joined the bank is now backpedalling furiously. In loosing the hounds to bay after Mr Wolfowitz and his friend, the institution has set in train a process that will inevitably draw attention to the varied personal relationships and salary levels of other bank administrators and directors.

In 2005, the ethics committee rejected Mr Wolfowitz’s workable proposal to recuse himself on all personnel matters concerning his friend. Instead, it ruled that she would have to leave the bank altogether, disrupting her career and making her forgo a promotion for which she had been shortlisted.

It was an extraordinary decision, raising important questions of gender equity at the bank.

Some have mistakenly supposed that the “advice” was a reflection of settled bank rules. But, in fact, it was quite different from the treatment accorded to some other couples who work there.

Mr Wolfowitz’s friend, Shaha Riza, whose dignity and reticence have been trampled by the bank, testified last week before an ad hoc investigating committee of the bank board of executive directors. Ms Riza said: “I could not understand at the time or now why I was being singled out for this treatment when the then managing director Shengman Zhang’s spouse . . . was working at the bank and before her . . . Caio Koch-Weser’s spouse, when he was managing director. Neither wife was asked to leave the institution.”

Mr Zhang, a Citigroup vice-president who formerly served as the second highest ranking official at the World Bank, has suggested that the analogy is unfair, arguing that wives and husbands have more latitude to work together under “circumscribed conditions” than do persons in less traditional relationships.

But the bank’s staff manual states, in rule 4.01, paragraph 5.2, that spouses and registered domestic partners are forbidden from working in any situation where one “supervises the other, directly or indirectly”, or where they will be brought by their duties into “routine professional contact”. This might seem to apply to Mr Zhang. What is more, rule 3.01, paragraph 4.02, says in the case of more informal relationships, such as that of Mr Wolfowitz and Ms Riza, simply that the supervisor “shall be responsible for seeking a resolution of the conflict of interest”.

But if the bank’s former number two manager cannot recall the rules and exceptions that actually applied to him, how can anyone else be expected to know what they mean?

With perverse illogic, after insisting that Ms Riza must leave the bank, the ethics committee directed that Mr Wolfowitz himself must take care of the terms of her departure, including appropriate compensation for career damage. It mandated the very conflict that Mr Wolfowitz had aimed to avoid yet gave no instructions on how to carry this out. He took the matter to the human resources department, and the ethics committee later issued two reports pronouncing itself satisfied with the outcome.

Ad Melkert, former ethics committee chairman, now creates the impression that the matter was handled under the table, but he ignores the plain language of his committee’s reports. Ms Riza testified that “during my negotiations with [the bank vice-president of human resources], neither he nor anyone else ever suggested to me that my compensation package might violate bank policy in any way.”

If the ethics committee was not “consulted” beforehand on the terms of the Riza negotiation, it is because Mr Melkert refused to deal directly with Ms Riza or consult the head of human resources on what to do in order to give Ms Riza an adequate, yet not excessive, buy-out. If he was unaware of terms of the compensation package, it was because he washed his hands of the matter. His complaints today are opportunistic and smack of a political agenda.

Why such animus against Mr Wolfowitz? Some say it reflects hostility to reforms and others point to the interest of European contributors in a chance at the bank presidency.

Whatever the case, the board is frothing, with many directors apparently seeking any excuse to fire the boss. Its ad hoc investigative report is due at any moment.

But the facts before the board show that the real scandal does not centre on Mr Wolfowitz. The real scandal is the arbitrariness of an ethics committee and its muddled advice, and the astonishing way in which that committee’s failures have metastasised into an ethically dubious venture to bring down the president. None of this speaks well of the bank’s internal processes, or the likelihood of effective internal reforms that would enable the bank to carry forward its important work.

The writer is a law professor at American University and a research fellow of the Hoover Institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

regarding Wolfowitz.... lots of probably factual information

---

what the article and you fail to understand is that Wolfowitz got whacked not because of his relationship, but because he is a dickhead and went around rubbing peoples nose in shit. the euros decided it was time for him to go when they found a semi legit reason to rake him over the coals. when people play hardball, it shouldnt come as a surprise when it gets thrown back at them just as hard.

btw, do you realize how predictable your responses are? from now on when you hit reply, just type "typical bush adminstration explanation" and spare us the banwidth.

close the damn thing, and get the worlds filthy and ungrateful hands OUT OF OUR POCKETS !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I think ...

---

I see no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I'm pretty sure you'd get hurt more than I.

---

With moral reasoning abilities like that, you should shill for the CEI.

Find someone who can read & ask them to tell you what Chapter 5 is about.

Or an easier read here.