Business laws/Regulations create jobs.

reply to post by poet1b


What are you going to demand from our trading partner China? They are Communists and will do as they please. Do not be so naive to think w can demand them or anyone to obey the U.S. regulations which are stiffling our economy.
It is no wonder why companies flee the U.S. because of their cumbersome regulations and high taxes.
Add in expected wages and compensation packages(Healthcare). we will keep going down the tubes all created by our own government.

reply to post by Aim64C

many of the methods forced upon companies are horribly out of date and have since been succeeded by technologies and methods that are simply better. The issue is that mandates mandate equipment that is substandard - which prevents the development of other markets.

Baloney, the laws don't tell them how to meet the regs, only that they must meet the regs. I work with reg requirements all the time. These corporations waste more money trying to out maneuver requirements than they do meeting those requirements.

You cannot use the government to mandate how a business spends its money.

Nobody is telling corporations how to spend their money, only that they don't have the right to poison our air and water. If one company can't do it, and make money, than another will. That is how the economy is supposed to work.

You talk big about business, but you clearly don't believe in the market system.

Again, the historical evidence proves that with proper business law enforcement, and reasonable trade agreements, our economy can function far better than it is now.

When businesses aren't busy breaking the law, than the government doesn't need to get involved, but the ICs have consistently proven, when given the opportunity, they will do horrible things to people for profit. Visit any third world manufacturing center if you want proof.

Big corporations aren't lacking in money. They don't actually start any new businesses these days. The start up are indeed harassed by local officials on the pay roll of the giant ICs, who don't want any competition. As long as they can force start ups into debt, it assurance the ICs will be able to swoop in an buy up anything of value, should it get produced.

It is free market principles that you support that has made it harder and harder for new start ups. Even with all the destruction of the scams of the last decade, you still support a system that works for the crooks and against honest businessmen.

SOMR regulations are needed. However, the degree of laws and regulations on businesses...especially small business is detrimental. Where a corporation canhire a room full of lawyers to wade through the regulations and figure out ways to distort them to their advantage, a small business simply doesn't have the resources to do so.

And the more people you hire, the paper work load grows exponentially.

Case in point...anecdotal but true... Knew a fella that worked on cars...a really good mechanic. After a few years of working on cars, he decided to make it all legal. So he formed a business...hired him an assistant to do the little stuff...oil changes, tune ups, brakes and such. The paperwork was killer. He spent every Monday...almost all day doing paperwork...and the regulations and taxes and payroll management just for one other person was intense.

After one year, he looked at his earnings verses the headaches of being an "official" business and closed up. The assistant became unemployed.... and my buddy went back to doing cars under the table...made more money and no paperwork... all cash.

You have your theories and textbook terms down pat...Have you ever managed a business? Have you ever managed payroll...looked at the regulations and restraints that some of these regulations put on doing business and the costs...many of which are passed on to the consumer?

Another anecdotal story...recently got back from Mexico. Was amazed by these little pick up trucks...the Ford Courier and Chevy Tornado. I was like "Where can I get one of those?"

You can't...won't meet the safety REGULATIONS here in the USA. Neat little trucks that would be ideal for light service work, delivery, or just for a ride into town to pickup parts or some feed for my farm...good on gas mileage and cute as hey...but no. Had a decent price point too. they were about the size of the old Chevy Luv.

I could go on...but I digress. Some regulation is good to protect the consumer...foods, chemicals, etc... but some regulations really hamper business.... for instance. In NC and a lot of other states, a 16 year old can drive an auto at 55mph on the road with other traffic. But the same 16 year old can not operate a baler...a slow moving multi safety featured card board baler...you really got to be an idiot to get hurt using a baler.

So...while I agree to a degree... in practical everyday experience...regulations hamper business... especially small business... wait until they start trying to get farmers to get a CDL for driving a tractor on the road.... I personally know 12-13 year old boys that drive Farmalls pulling tobbacco trailers or "sleds" across a field and down the road to the next field or bulk barn... that has been a way of life for generations and I really and honestly don't recall any accidents or tragedies involving tractors and 13 yr old boys....so, hell, let's regulate it.

reply to post by mugger


Easy, we slap them with high tariffs for failing to stop polluting the environment, and treating their workers like slaves.

And should they try to crash our currency, they will only be slicing their own throats, and the throats of their business partners, the ICs, Fed Res, and such.

Fact is, they all need the U.S. middle class more than we need them.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


I know exactly what you are talking about. I would like to start my own business, but the current business environment makes it unrealistic. That isn't any accident. This is the way the ICs want things to be. Notice how during the periods of control by the people preaching for deregulation and free markets, small businesses have been hit with more regs, more hidden tax costs, and more abusive policies. It isn't just government that is the problem, the banks and insurance companies take as big huge chunk out of revenue.

The same lobbyists who work to reduce regs on ICs, also work to increase regs on small businesses.

Most of the problems for small businesses and start ups comes from local officials.

Our taxes shouldn't be this complicated. Who does that favor?

What is our tax money going for anyway? Used to be the fed sent a lot of money back to the states, but Reagan stopped that. Under current tax rates, we get nothing back for what we pay in income tax. All the benefit goes to the super rich in promoting global IC empires. A local business shouldn't pay any federal taxes, except what goes to FICA, and that goes for workers as well.

Without the federal government enforcing laws against corrupt business practices, everything gets more costly, and bigger and bigger barriers are built up against new start ups.

Missed this one.

Another anecdotal story...recently got back from Mexico. Was amazed by these little pick up trucks...the Ford Courier and Chevy Tornado. I was like "Where can I get one of those?"

You can't...won't meet the safety REGULATIONS here in the USA. Neat little trucks that would be ideal for light service work, delivery, or just for a ride into town to pickup parts or some feed for my farm...good on gas mileage and cute as hey...but no. Had a decent price point too. they were about the size of the old Chevy Luv.

Exactly! And who do those "safety rules" help? Small U.S. businesses or giant ICs, banks, car makers, oil companies, and even insurers?

How about all those big contractor companies. Smaller more efficient trucks would reduce start up costs, and allow more guys to start doing service jobs on their own. The same problem comes with dealing with building permits. Local officials can tie you up until you go broke simply refusing to process a permit application.

A great many new technologies get suppressed, mostly at the local level, because they threaten the local establishment. For example, using ozone instead of chemicals for water purification.

reply to post by poet1b


I'm glad we agree...however, I thought the premise of your thread was that these regulations were good for business and the economy? If regulations are putting a strangle hold on small businesses and the majority of jobs in America come from small businesses...then regulations that cut into the creation of jobs are bad for the economy.

Thus, regulations and more regulations are bad for job growth, new business start ups, and the economy.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


That is a good point to make, turning this into a interesting discussion.

Regulations are good for our economy, and do help to create jobs, but that doesn't mean that the system can't be abused, or turned around to to the opposite of intended purposes.

When federal regulations are not enforced, then giant corporations quickly stop doing things they should be doing, and start engaging in environmental abuse, fraud, all that. They cut back on the work force, stop spending that supports many small businesses. State and local governments become strapped for money and start going after the easy sources, which are small businesses.

The swollen bank accounts of the large corporations gives them new power and therefore control over the states and smaller governments. Notice how free market policies are always followed by a decline in small businesses and start ups.

More importantly, the decline of workers earning decent money hurts small business the hardest.

A decline in federal enforcement of law allows the big dogs, with their armies of lawyers, to run roughshod over everyone else. Laws/Regulations put them in check, create a healthier environment for small business to succeed.

reply to post by poet1b

Baloney, the laws don't tell them how to meet the regs, only that they must meet the regs. I work with reg requirements all the time. These corporations waste more money trying to out maneuver requirements than they do meeting those requirements.

Working with and having a competent understanding of are two completely different things, let me assure you.

I'll just scratch the surface and dig in deeper only if you prove to be unaware of your own shortcomings.

en.wikipedia.org...

Acid deposition, in the form of acid rain and dry deposition, is the result of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide being emitted into the air, traveling and landing in a different place, and changing the acidity of the water or land on which the chemicals fall. Acid deposition in the Northeast United States from the burning of coal and in the West United States from utilities and motor vehicles caused a number of problems, and was partially exacerbated by the Clean Air Act, which forced coal power plants to use taller smoke stacks, resulting in farther transmission of sulfur dioxide in the air.

. . . Four years later, the EPA and FDA banned CFCs in aerosol cans. As research in the 1980s indicated that the problem was worse than before, and revealed a controversial massive hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, three international agreements were made to reduce the ozone-damaging substances- the Vienna Convention, the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and a third agreement in 1990 in London. In the United States, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments phased out production of CFCs and required recycling of CFC products.

Same with Freon.

Look - you don't just say "you need to reduce your y emissions by x." That's not how government regulation works. Conceptually, that is the goal. Realistically, it turns into a game of lobbyists putting forth methods for reducing emissions and politicians agreeing to mandate those methods.

Nobody is telling corporations how to spend their money, only that they don't have the right to poison our air and water. If one company can't do it, and make money, than another will. That is how the economy is supposed to work.

The thing is, however, that there's no need to involve the federal government unless you are dealing with specific cases of cross-state contamination where the federal government is required as a mediator between states.

Again, the historical evidence proves that with proper business law enforcement, and reasonable trade agreements, our economy can function far better than it is now.

Strange... we've only increased regulation on businesses since the 20s, and things did get better for a bit (though market trends were already shifting away from orphan/slave labor)... then we slapped a vice on in the 30s and have been cranking it down tighter ever since.... and have seen our industry continually suffer because of it.

When businesses aren't busy breaking the law, than the government doesn't need to get involved, but the ICs have consistently proven, when given the opportunity, they will do horrible things to people for profit. Visit any third world manufacturing center if you want proof.

Business is about making money. There is nothing wrong with a profit. There is also nothing wrong with contracting a job to be done at a negotiated wage. If the price is not right for you to provide your services to the contracting entity - then you have the option to seek other contracts or to profit from your own private endeavors.

Big corporations aren't lacking in money.

The vast majority of -real- industry in this nation has between a 2 and 5% profit margin. It's only when you get into things like beverages (the revered alcoholic beverage providers) and information technology that you start seeing 30+% profit margins.

It is free market principles that you support that has made it harder and harder for new start ups. Even with all the destruction of the scams of the last decade, you still support a system that works for the crooks and against honest businessmen.

The problem is that the government is being used by large businesses because dumb people thought they were smart; using government regulation to place controls on businesses. Then you factor in Lobbyists - who are further empowered by the precedent that government can regulate any and every business/industry function. Removing the government's ability to regulate every facet of business removes the power of lobbyists purchased by large businesses to secure their own future.

I saw some chicken-necked so-called "academic" in a red/yellow bow-tie (shows how smart he is) touting this BS on MSNBC the other day. Claims the government creates jobs when it fills positions for regulators. Funny, because as it turns out, this guy is or at least was at some point a regulator himself. And most bipartisan, independent, and even government research studies have shown that on average, when it comes to regulations, for every 1 job the govt. creates, 3-4 private sector jobs are lost (probably outsourced).

Moral of the story: I shouldn't have been watching MSNBC.

reply to post by Aim64C


First of all, wiki isn't a credible source. If a credible source is provided by wiki, then you should use that.

Second, nothing in what you quote backs up your claim, and I don't think you know anything about industry.

The tall smoke stack solution was an industry choice. we have clean burning coal technology, but for some reason it isn't being used. Hidden influences (big oil) have worked behind the scene to keep excess electrical power from being produced for industry based (profit) reasons.

Regs controlling refrigerants and aerosols did in fact fix the ozone hole problem.

You continue to post nonsense.

Business is about profit, the market system is about the exchange of goods and services. Therein lies the real conflict.

Most of the super rich know nothing about technology. They earned their fortunes mainly by hook and crook, and when you look into how they got their money, that is the real story you find. Carnegie knew nothing about the process of making steel.

reply to post by soma100


And the rubes bought the dog and pony show clown act, hook line and sinker, proving once again how easily people can be suckered.

Second line.

reply to post by poet1b

First of all, wiki isn't a credible source. If a credible source is provided by wiki, then you should use that.

It's called expedience. You're simply not worth much in terms of effort.

Second, nothing in what you quote backs up your claim, and I don't think you know anything about industry.

The tall smoke stack solution was an industry choice. we have clean burning coal technology, but for some reason it isn't being used. Hidden influences (big oil) have worked behind the scene to keep excess electrical power from being produced for industry based (profit) reasons.

Right - "hidden influences."

The fact is that government mandated the use of equipment and materials.

We'll start more big-picture.

www.cato.org...

These examples are undoubtedly true. The companies
mentioned are making money from pollution control or
material reduction. It should not surprise us. The profit
motive has long led to increasingly efficient use of material
resources. Every 1 percent reduction in the aluminum
needed to make a beverage can saves beverage can manufacturers
$20 million a year. Similarly, air pollution declined
for decades long before the passage of the Clean Air Act
because engineers strove to improve the efficiency of burning
fuel. The profit motive has been a steady contributor to
cleaner industry.

Porter and van der Linde’s claim, however, is that environmental
regulation is necessary, for the most part, to
spur the innovation that will add to profits. They argue that
because of poor information and management incentives
in many companies today, there are “$10 bills” lying around
that have not been picked up—innovations just waiting to
be made. And regulation is the way to make executives
start looking for them.

In addition, they reported that they had communicated
with officials of firms, including some mentioned by
Porter and van der Linde. Each official “said quite emphatically
that, on the whole, environmental regulation amounted
to a significant net cost to his company.” The economists
cited a Bureau of Economic Analysis study showing
that industry spent $102 billion in 1992 on pollution control,
of which $17 billion (less than 2 percent) was offset by
innovation. And they pointed out that whatever the successes,
concentration on environmental innovation meant
“other opportunities forgone” for these companies.

sanityinjection.wordpress.com...

California is now taking that process a step further by requiring all gas stations in the state to install a new generation of vapor recovery equipment.

So what’s the problem? The equipment is expensive, and the state is not chipping in anything to pay for it. Which means gas station owners will be forced to pay for it themselves, to the tune of some $35,000 in capital outlay. As a result, about 2.5% of gas stations in California are expected to go out of business rather than comply with the new regs.

The kicker?

You might argue that this is a necessary price to pay for cleaner air. But consider: In California at present, 2,322 tons of gasoline vapor emissions are produced each day. Once these new regulations are in effect and all gas stations have the new equipment, that number will be reduced by a total of – 7 tons. Do the math – that is a reduction of 0.3%!

Good job!

Most of the super rich know nothing about technology. They earned their fortunes mainly by hook and crook, and when you look into how they got their money, that is the real story you find. Carnegie knew nothing about the process of making steel.

And governments know nothing about vapor emissions. The difference? In order to succeed in a market you know little about, it is often best to surround yourself with people who -do- know. In government, you simply have to know how to sound like you know what you are talking about to succeed.

You have a career in politics, my friend. I'd give up the real job.

We'll continue after your next irrelevant post. The examples only continue from there as we get into the automotive industry and the efforts to 'clean up' automotive engines (as well as keep everyone inside the thing safe). And how far that's gone.

I would like to hear from one business owner on ATS that can explain how getting rid of regulations and taxes will create jobs.
Just one business owner tell me that without more customers to support, you will hire people to stand around just because you are regulated and taxed less.

Anyone?

reply to post by Aim64C


You are funny. Can't find a link to back up your claims, so you spout more nonsense. Then you post a link to some CATO institute straw man argument, as if the CATO institute has any credibility outside of the extreme right.

You might as well be quoting the Catholic church on evolution.

reply to post by poet1b

You are funny. Can't find a link to back up your claims, so you spout more nonsense. Then you post a link to some CATO institute straw man argument, as if the CATO institute has any credibility outside of the extreme right.

Yes, quite funny. Would you like some irony with your hypocrisy?

I've yet to see any evidence that supports environmental regulations creating jobs.

You might as well be quoting the Catholic church on evolution.

Right.

Since I don't even consider you to be sentient - I suppose there's no harm in telling you that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. What matters to me is what limited amounts of knowledge you do posses. It's obviously being mismanaged.

Let's move on to the automotive industry - the central arm of enforcement for "big oil" - according to green activists.

www.autotropolis.com...

The end effect of this type of emissions legislation on consumers has been mixed. While drivers do get to enjoy the benefits of vehicles which have better overall fuel economy than previous models, and the air quality of major cities has not continued to degrade quite as rapidly as was feared in the past, there is a significant dollar cost associated with these improvements. The technology required to continually increase the efficiency of gasoline and diesel engines is expensive to develop, as are the pollution controls necessary to keep emissions at an acceptable level. These costs are directly passed on to the consumer, and many car companies claim that stricter regulations could lead to car prices that the market is unwilling to bear.

www.postandcourier.com...

Alarmingly, that is not all. Dean Drake, president of the Dufour consulting firm, has analyzed the impact of the EPA’s proposed 2017-25 model year fuel economy standards to reflect actual consumer behavior. “We found that even in the most favorable case of high oil prices and the lowest fuel economy target of 47 mpg, consumers still would not buy enough high-mileage vehicles to support the standard.”

s3.amazonaws.com...

Even the Environmental Protection Agency1 (EPA) projects increased costs of $2,100 to $2,500 per vehicle by 2025 in addition to the $950 per vehicle increase associated with the model years 2012-2016 standards.
More likely, new standards will increase the cost per vehicle by $5720 to $6714 by 2025.
Even with the savings pocketed from increased efficiency, the 56 mpg standard would result in a net monetary loss for consumers - sticker price increase minus fuel savings - of $2,858 over five years for car owners.
The US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2011 Annual Energy Outlook2 finds that no new cars under $15,000 would be available to car buyers in 2025.

I can see, now, why it would be in the Democrat's best interest to create policies that increase the price of fuel. An extra $3/gallon in fuel costs ought to make $20,000 economy cars look reasonable.

reason.com...

But to the extent that carmakers have complied with CAFE, it is less through radical innovation and more by simply slashing vehicle weight. In the 15 years after CAFE standards were first introduced in 1974, vehicle weight diminished by 23 percent. But every 100-pound weight reduction results in a 4.7 to 5.6 percent increase in the fatality rate. A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that CAFE's downsizing effect contributed to between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths in a single representative year, and to 10 times that many serious injuries.

Likewise, the Obama CAFE standards will drive out pickups and other large vehicles, American automakers’ biggest profit makers, and usher in hybrids—their biggest money losers. That’s because pickups that are CAFE-compliant will be have to be constructed from aluminum or some equally light material, something that will bump their cost upwards of $80,000 per vehicle while rendering them useless for towing.

Indeed, Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research, notes that it is technologically impossible to squeeze anything beyond 45 mpg in fuel economy from current vehicles. That’s why Europe’s fuel economy has plateaued at that level, despite $8 per gallon gas. The 56-mpg-mandate will require a total, top-to-bottom overhaul of cars. Every part of a vehicle from its transmission to its engine would have to be replaced. “Even a vehicle’s screws and fasteners would have to be secured with epoxy glue,” McAlinden maintains.

"But Aim! That will create new jobs!"

I'm not buying a $30,000 2016 Corolla. Anyone who does is probably going to pass up on a new TV, computer, etc for several years.

How does stripping away at government regulations and taxes create jobs? I saw someone ask this somewhere in the thread. My response is that it's a very complicated question, because there are many factors at play, the biggest being globalization, and I'll d my best to explain it to you from my perspective.

Since the late 1970's, our country has been in a global resource/labor pool competing against other countries' labor, resources, and business climates. In the business climate, you find things like regulations, laws, and taxes, or lackthereof in some cases, and what the business climate essentially determines is any business's or industry's ability/incentive to make profit -- as well as the range of profit it can make.

Now, as you know, profit is the difference between a business's total revenue and its costs, with the general strategy being to make costs as low as possible so as to increase the amount of profit. In relation to government regulations and laws, there is something called "cost of compliance". This is what it might cost a company additionally to meet the standards of a given regulation or law. And of course, taxes are thrown into cost as well.

Basically... the higher the cost, the lower the profit.

But then you might suggest "Why not just increase the price of the product then? Pass the costs on down to the consumer?"

Here's where I return to globalization or globalism, or whatever the hell you want to call it...

You have places like Wal-Mart and others, who outsource to countries like China, where there are virtually no regulations and very few taxes on businesses, so as to give foreign companies incentive to invest in that country's infrastructure and economy. In these countries, because there are very few regulations, there is also very little cost of compliance to deal with and the same goes for taxes. Hence, lower cost. Hence, bigger profit margin.

Not only that, they're able to price their products cheaper, which then forces other companies (perhaps based in a more regulated country like the US) to lower their own prices, in order to compete.

But WAIT, these companies are based in the US where there's a higher cost even as the total revenues are relatively locked in by their outsourcing competitor. So as a US based company, I have to ask myself how do I continue making the same profit margins I was making before so that I can keep my investors happy? Hmm... Maybe I should outsource, too!

I think it's misleading to say that getting rid of regulations and lowering taxes creates jobs. It's more accurate to say that... increasing regulations and taxes loses jobs. Because even though you may hire a regulator, that one job is not going to replace the 3 or 4 or more other jobs that may then be outsourced.

Consider this... Say you pass a hefty regulation on an energy producing industry like coal, gas, or something else. While they may not outsource, they do pass the additional cost of compliance down to the consumers -- many of the consumers are businesses themselves, and many of them are small businesses, and many of them are struggling to stay afloat in this terrible economy. A mere 15-24% increase in their monthly energy bill (like what we're dealing with where I'm at) may be just enough to throw them over the edge. They may have to lay off a couple of workers in order to keep the business operating at a rate that makes operating the business worth the time and effort to operate it in the first place. Because it's a lot of stressful work, believe it or not.

There are huge ripple effects. Even though a regulation may target only one industry, there are economic effects felt by dozens of others.

All the above being said, I'm not against the existence of the EPA or most other regulatory agencies. In fact, I enjoy knowing my drinking water and the air I breathe is guaranteed some halfway decent level of quality. But, of course, there is a difference between fair regulation and excessive regulation. And what's been happening over the last two decades is small minorities of paranoid special interests have hijacked government agencies at the expense of the tax payers, whether they be consumers, businesses, or union workers. And yes, if you're in a union you get just as screwed by this as anyone else. Why? Because if a business can just outsource to sweatshops in Asia, why the hell are they going to pay you $25/hr with benefits? Notice how much power unions have lost over the last few decades? Think about it.

Globalism = the real problem here. Fair trade isn't fair. We need tariffs of some kind to level the playing field for business that want to keep producing here in the states. Because real jobs exist in the private sector, and are based largely in industry, manufacturing, and creating actual goods and services. Big government as an employer is unsustainable when you don't have these. Just look at Europe right now.

My 2 cents.

reply to post by poet1b


I agree. A place I used to work had a security department to protect them for certain liability. Well, tort reform came around and they did away with the security. When there is a $250,000 cap to any incident and most people are insured for $5 Million per incident then you can see why they didn't need anyone to make sure it was safe.

reply to post by Aim64C


Once again all you post are opinion pieces without any factual basis.

A decade ago, they were producing cars that were getting 60 and seventy miles an hour, now nothing gets that good of gas mileage, because republicans in congress wrote laws that stopped all advancement in most technology.

I you were paying attention, almost all technological advancement as crawled to a stop. This is what happens when banks take over complete control of the U.S. economy through the free market con job. You continue to prove yourself so completely clueless, it is actually entertaining.

Don't worry, the Sauds, and the rest of the Middle East, are running out of oil. World oil production peaked in 2008. In the next five years, gas prices will double, and then double again in a few years later. It will no longer be feasible to manufacture in one part of the world and ship to the other. Combustion engines will mainly become museum pieces. Pneumatic electric hybrids are the wave of the future. The tech is already in place.

The biggest problem conservatives have, it they hate change, and technological advancement, and while their obsession with power gets them to the top, their lack of foresight results in a quick tumble.

reply to post by poet1b

A decade ago, they were producing cars that were getting 60 and seventy miles an hour, now nothing gets that good of gas mileage, because republicans in congress wrote laws that stopped all advancement in most technology.

This baloney needs some sauce.

60/70 MPG is not possible out of the internal combustion engine. Not in anything we recognize as a car.

I you were paying attention, almost all technological advancement as crawled to a stop. This is what happens when banks take over complete control of the U.S. economy through the free market con job.

What are you talking about? What are you using to post your comments on these forums?

The most heavily regulated market out there is the automotive industry - mostly in the form of safety and environmental regulations. Most other markets that are relatively unregulated have seen improvement by orders of magnitude.

You continue to prove yourself so completely clueless, it is actually entertaining.

What can I say, I enjoy feeding trolls.

Don't worry, the Sauds, and the rest of the Middle East, are running out of oil. World oil production peaked in 2008.

Production and availability are two completely different things. We've been at "peak oil" since I was in diapers. I recall a documentary we watched in elementary school titled: "at the bottom of the barrel." That was a good 15 years ago, and there's only been increasing estimates of the world's oil reserves.

In the next five years, gas prices will double, and then double again in a few years later.

Source?

For a guy who likes to claim economic articles are "baseless opinions" (when they cite the EPA's own analysis) - you sure have enough of your own.

The only threats to increasing fuel prices come from a reliance on oil from trading powers like the UAE and the lack of new refinery construction in the U.S.

Oh, and federally imposed gasoline taxes.

It will no longer be feasible to manufacture in one part of the world and ship to the other.

You clearly are not very well informed. This has been done since the days of sailing vessels. Some mythical collapse of combustion engines will not suddenly keep it from happening. Though it will not be done on the same scale as it is, today.

Combustion engines will mainly become museum pieces. Pneumatic electric hybrids are the wave of the future. The tech is already in place.

Uh-huh... and where does this compressed air come from?

I raise some issues with the cost-effectiveness of the physics involved, as well as the practicality.

But that is to be expected. You are merely human.

The biggest problem conservatives have, it they hate change, and technological advancement, and while their obsession with power gets them to the top, their lack of foresight results in a quick tumble.

Oh?

You're obviously not aware of the company you are in. Perhaps you should look up a number of my posts in the science and technology forum. You'll find I'm an engineer - a perfectionist, at that - and am never done re-inventing the wheel (because I can find a way of doing it better... or so I like to think).

The problem is that you don't really know what innovation is. When you ask me to build you a house, and I stick your ass under ground, you'll look at me like I shorted you until the height of summer when your house is a comfortable 65-70 degrees and your electric bill barely phased, tornadoes pass over inconsequentially, and in the depths of winter when icy trees are falling on people's roofs and your house is still a comfortable 65-70 degrees with barely any change in your electric/gas bill.

That's where most people should be building homes - it's far more economical and practical for the common man. You can even have ducts that capture sunlight and channel it into diffusers through the house - so you get natural daylight.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Aim64C

 

A decade ago, they were producing cars that were getting 60 and seventy miles an hour, now nothing gets that good of gas mileage, because republicans in congress wrote laws that stopped all advancement in most technology.

Sorry, friend, but you're off on this by 10-20 mpg. The closest thing you will find from over the last 25 years to what you're talking about is the 2010 Toyota Prius, which gets an EPA-rated 50 MPG (averaged out CITY & HWY mileage) but of course this only came into being a little more than a year ago.

So you're next best bet would be the '86 Chevy Sprint ER which managed to obtain an EPA-rated 48 MPG all the way 25 years ago. The problem with the ultra light weight vehicle and its tiny 1.0-liter 3-cylinder engine was that once safety features were applied and additional weight was put on, the vehicle wasn't able to carry through on its promised 48 MPG -- a problem that's seen across the board with electric/hybrid vehicles to this very day. They can't bear heavy loads for sh*t, which may not be so unbearable for small eco-conscious families and/or individuals, but when it comes to shipping and delivery? Don't expect to see electric or hybrid semi-trucks anytime in the near future.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Aim64C

 

I you were paying attention, almost all technological advancement as crawled to a stop. This is what happens when banks take over complete control of the U.S. economy through the free market con job. You continue to prove yourself so completely clueless, it is actually entertaining.

Don't worry, the Sauds, and the rest of the Middle East, are running out of oil. World oil production peaked in 2008. In the next five years, gas prices will double, and then double again in a few years later. It will no longer be feasible to manufacture in one part of the world and ship to the other. Combustion engines will mainly become museum pieces. Pneumatic electric hybrids are the wave of the future. The tech is already in place.

Hybrids may very well be the wave of future for consumer travel, but as I stated above, you can forget about shipping/delivery, a huge chunk of the travel that takes place on roads across the country. So the combustion engine has at least a few more decades of life left in it.

As far as peak oil goes -- that was actually a business strategy employed by the very oil companies you're protesting against (I'm not taking their side, I'm just proving the flaw in your argument) to create artificial scarcity and drive prices up. The fact is we're sitting on tons of oil here at home in the US and there's even more in Canada, and even more offshore. The problem is no one is being allowed to tap into it, for both reasonable and unreasonable environmental concerns -- I'm not totally for drilling in every nook and cranny to get at black gold, but there does need to be more excavation in the states.

Alaska should serve as a fairly positive example -- through taxing the oil companies there, the state has the lowest tax burden in the country. Now, of course, they have a very low population to resource ratio, which is a luxury not every other state has, but petroleum and other resource revenues unquestionably put more extra money into public coffers.

Also realize that there's a lot of oil out there we aren't tapping specifically because the technology hasn't quite caught up to make it cost-effective enough to go after. Of course, that's the official story. I, myself, suspect the oil companies already have this tech at their disposal. They're simply waiting in the wings to unveil it, as the current artificial scarcity gravy train is too profitable to pass up. So there definitely is a lot of criminality at work, especially when you get into OPEC, but that's a whole 'nuther story...