The Slow Death of the Internal Combustion Engine

[redpoint5]

You're essentially blaming taxation as an ineffective strategy to reduce fossil fuel consumption on the fact that electricity is taxed too heavily. That's still a problem with not achieving the proper levels of taxation and does not undermine any of my arguments.

In other words, the current "failure" of the tax code to achieve defined targets is evidence that the tax code needs improvement, not that it is ineffective.

In the US, inflation is controlled by continuously adjusting the monetary policy, and it's generally very effective. Likewise, the consumption of anything can be tightly regulated simply by tweaking the tax rate on the good.

[freebeard]

Politics is a slimy business on all sides, and people deserve the stupid people/policies they grant power to due to their simplistic and tribalistic nature (geez, I sound like Alldarc now).

Donate $1-5 to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. If enough people do she will get onto the debate stage.

..... I have no delusions that I'm (or any other person or group) is the all-knowing wise king that makes perfect decisions despite their imperfect understanding of an infinitely complex market and rapidly developing technology.

Sounds like a call to inaction. What they taught me as a 2nd Lieutenant was "Do something, even if it's wrong."

Scott Adams is saying today that the recently concluded battle was between the main-stream press and the Founding Fathers. If the press won't educate the public about 4th Gen nuclear we will 'all be dead in twelve years'.

Hot box or ice age, nuclear power would support the conversion to EVs.

[redpoint5]

My point is that it's impossible for me or any other group to make better decisions than the invisible hand. If you set the parameters correctly and enforce rule of law, the market will come up with a better solution than the smartest person can dictate.

I don't know what Tulsi is about. Don't follow news or politics, but in all my free time I might look her up. Still won't change the fact that I don't vote (I've got an economist mindset).

The problem isn't finding smart and wise people so much as them being recognized by ignorant and blind sheeple.

[RedDevil]

The fault is not with taxation as a principle, but the way it is implemented.

How can a performance car be taxed more than its total purchase price while a comparable car that is 10% more efficient is only affected for say 25%?
The few hundred gallons the first burns more are in no way in proportion to the tens of thousands in added tax...

Let alone that the really expensive sports cars, where taxes can exceed a million, will likely burn very little fuel at all as they hardly get used.
You are taxed for possession of a certain type of vehicle, not for the CO2 it actually causes.
It just isn't fair.

Now they want to make people pay per mile. Because that's 'fair' - you drive more, you pay more. It does not matter how you drive; whether you get 5 mpg or 500 mpg, you just pay the same.
Oh yeah, that's really going to help.

In my eyes the only real and direct approach can be to tax fuel in such a way that it reflects the CO2 and eventually other pollutants it causes by getting burned. So the amount of fuel consumed drives the cost.
Fuel would be more expensive, but other costs would go down.
That motivates people to drive more economically. Exceptionally dirty cars (e.g. creating more pollutants from the same amount of fuel as other cars do) could be taxed on top of that, but it has to be proportional..
Only then will the interests of economy and ecology align, and will your invisible hand really pull in the right direction.

[redpoint5]

That is exactly what I've been saying; that taxation is the proper way to manipulate a market and affect necessary changes, and the closer to the root problem you target the taxation, the more effective it will be.

As you point out, it isn't the miles that cause the pollution. It isn't even necessarily the highly inefficient vehicles that cause the pollution if they aren't being driven.

So why do people still try to dance around the problem without looking at it directly? Why do the politicians with the most idiotic ideas even get 1 second of notice? It's like people are mesmerized by Rube Goldberg solutions to a problem, but not the simple and reliable methods.

As I said in another forum:

EV subsidies are stupid, corrupt, and pointless. It's like trying to get a guy to stop beating you with a baseball bat by promoting the sale of wiffle ball.

[freebeard]

My point is that it's impossible for me or any other group to make better decisions than the invisible hand. If you set the parameters correctly and enforce rule of law, the market will come up with a better solution than the smartest person can dictate.

Adam Smith: "None of us is as smart as all of us"

I don't know what Tulsi is about. Don't follow news or politics, but in all my free time I might look her up. Still won't change the fact that I don't vote (I've got an economist mindset).

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tulsi+dore

She has a calm, serene air that no-one else can match (among declared 2020 candidates). Potentially our first Hindu war veteran President. Donating to a campaign is more economic than voting.

Originally Posted by RedDevil

In my eyes the only real and direct approach can be to tax fuel in such a way that it reflects the CO2 and eventually other pollutants it causes by getting burned....
Only then will the interests of economy and ecology align, and will your invisible hand really pull in the right direction.

Electricity is the interesting case, because the source might be (at any moment) carbon-free or grossly polluting.

[redpoint5]

I don't give money to campaigns for the same reason I don't give beggars money; I don't want to enable destructive behavior.

I'm more about getting behind specific ideas, not particular people. That said, if someone really stood out as someone I would like to support, I'd contribute in some more substantial way than a cash payment.

...or, I might contribute twice the legal limit just to spite the stupid government.

[freebeard]

I don't give money to campaigns for the same reason I don't give beggars money; I don't want to enable destructive behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zfBwMLext8

I'd throw down five, if I can find a way to it with cash. It would be a first.

I'm more about getting behind specific ideas, not particular people.

How about peace? Peace in your heart, peace in the world.

We just dodged a civil war over collusion, and their already trying to start a new one. But what I learned yesterday was that in Hanoi, the commies close the city streets to cars (on-topic!) so the teenagers can drink beer and dance in the streets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDmlYntnwSs

It's a strange world, is it not?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Donate $1-5 to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. If enough people do she will get onto the debate stage...

She isn't qualified to be president. (Most running aren't)

Anyone running for president needs Executive branch experience. A governor or mayor of a large city.

Booker, Castro, Hickenlooper, Inslee and Weld are the only candidates with relevant experience.

[Xist]

I saw the mayor of South Bend on a late show. At least he did not sound like an idiot in his few minutes on the screen.

Weld sounds familiar. Hickenlooper too, I think.

I must be thinking of a different Castro.