Why I love digital

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.

Nope, I want the system to have some rational standards for
determining the purpose of a vehicle, rather than leaving it up to the
companies, or not give breaks based on the supposed purpose. The
Hummer is not a commercial truck, giving it a series of breaks based
on it being a commercial truck, regardless of the origin of the rule,
distorts the market.

CAFE was a "rational standard."
It was also defective. You see that.
Now, you want more "rational standards."
When will your type understand we don't need more rules to fix what we
made wrong?
CAFE was wrong. Even you can admit that, since it begat what you hate:
SUVs and light trucks being marketed as cars.
Don't compound the error.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:


I wonder what your idea of "pure free market" is.

Usually the normal things, a large number of buyers and sellers,
essentially equivalent products, free flow of information regarding
the products and previous sales, a market that clears in market time,
etc. Also I would include in this case neutral government intervention
to distort the price. It is the current government distortion of the
price that I keep objecting to.

Let me take a particularly egregious example. Car companies have to
meet average gas mileage standards, the CAFE standards. The Hummer is
so large that it is not included in the average. Think of it, it is
such a guzzler that they leave it off the list. This significantly
lowers the cost of the vehicle to GM and so to the consumer.


You are making a false claim: when you say the Hummer is so large that
it is not included on the list, you are suggesting that the list was
designed to exclude the Hummer, when you know better.
The Hummer fits into a weight category that was excluded because that
category overwhelmingly included trucks used in commercial uses.
That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.


While the size and weight would seem to make the Hummer a 'commercial
vehicle', how many have you seen actually USED as such? They are bought
by private citizens who have more money than good sense and want to show
off. Let them pay.

Yes, they are.
So lets make more laws, and make them even more restrictive, so we can
all see more easily that laws that get more specific are easier to
circumvent.
We seem to be getting a common thread he some want more laws to try
to correct a situation made by a bad set of laws.
We're in the problem (vis-a-vis SUVs and light trucks) becasue of the
laws (CAFE). Let's not just say more laws will fix this, becasue they
won't. New laws to correct this would either be more inclusive (not
wanted, because of obvious needs of heavier vehicles), or more
specific (trying to control either specific models bad because a new
door handle would warrant a new model designation) or by intent of
purchaser (and we *never* want to go there)).

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:34:00 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:45:38 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Mine is pretty close to what we have now. The item is priced,and you
can buy it or not, as you see fit.
Yours seems to be something based on what something has to do with
societal cost as you see it. That's not free market at all, mush less
"pure" free market. It's social engineering.

Not at all. Suppose we have a product X which poisons the downstream
water supply when I use it. This is a cost to the society.

And her I though that such things are already coverd. Silly me.

You do understand the notion of an illustrative example, don't you?
Yes, it is an example of existing "social engineering", an example
that there is quite broad agreement on. (Not universal, look at what
has happened to much of the West wrt mining.)

Absent
government intervention X will cost less to me than its fully burdened
cost. Government action to include the societal cost to the price of X
(requiring me to clean up the water, for example) allows a fair price
for X.

As I said above, such dangers are already covered. What you seem to
want is already here.

I was giving an example of something that existed to show that there
was already that kind of government action in the marketplace. You
claim that I am calling for something new when I am not, I am calling
for something quite analogous to preventing poisoning of the water
supply. Call it social engineering if you want, I don't actually care.
If that is social engineering, then there is societal acceptance of
social engineering.

You *are* calling for something new. Proof? We don't have what you
want. If we did, you wouldn't see a need for it.

As I have said several times, I am quite willing to go with a
fair price for the SUVs, that is a non-subsidized price. As long as
they buyer pays all of the costs of the product that is fine. One of
the costs of such vehicles is the decrease in *my* security, an
increase in the chance that I will get killed.

Your idea of a "fair price" for SUVs should also be expanded to cover
such costs for any vehicle, no?
If not, why not?

Of course it should to the extent that they create that cost. In fact,
one of the functions of government is to regulate public costs and
public goods (in economic terms) so that the market fairly includes
those costs.

I have a copy of the Constitution. I don't see that in it at all.
Maybe you could point it out for me?
SUVs are simply a clear example of a problem. But I have
been in favor, for example, of a high gas/oil tax for quite some time.
If we had put in a $1 a gallon tax 30 years ago we would have a safer
better off country.

You haven't wanted a higher gas tax in this thread.
You've specifically saying you want a new morals-based pricing
structure for SUVs.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:59:25 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:57:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.

There are a lot of Hummer drivers around here. Often 5'4" - 5'7",
blonde, well dressed and apparently the hummer people made sure that
high heels would be no problem to operate the vehicle.

Do you know what the original Hummer was designed for?
Hint: they didn't wear high heels.

So was the original jeep. SFW?

Give me a break. These monsters are marketing successes and
environmental disasters.

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

Not me, just adequately paid for. I don't want to subsidize them.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:04:32 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

No, I am saying that the system makes the price of the Hummer cheaper.
I was not suggesting what you claim. In fact I have made it pretty
clear otherwise. As I have said several time SUVs exist in a large
part because companies have exploited the rules to sell trucks as cars
when trucks had different taxes and standards. I understand that they
took advantage of existing rules. Nothing particularly wrong with that
except that I don't like the results and would change the rules to
eliminate the loopholes.

You seem to be claiming that the Hummer was designed to get around
CAFE. You know better than that.

You seem to claim that the Hummer sold by GM to the general public is
the same as the one AM General made for the military. You know better
than that.

You should also know that SUVs and light trucks are what they are.

And what is a light truck? That is, who gets to decide what is a truck
and what is a car for tax purposes?

CAFE rules are what they are.

So profound.

SUVs and light trucks were not designed to be sold as cars until
peolle began buying them in large numbers *becasue of CAFE*. CAFE
created what SUVs and light trucks have become. Not the other way
around.
Stop and think about that for a few minutes. Why did SUVs and light
trucks become what they are?

Because they were *cheaper* due to the CAFE standards.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:12:29 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:


I wonder what your idea of "pure free market" is.

Usually the normal things, a large number of buyers and sellers,
essentially equivalent products, free flow of information regarding
the products and previous sales, a market that clears in market time,
etc. Also I would include in this case neutral government intervention
to distort the price. It is the current government distortion of the
price that I keep objecting to.

Let me take a particularly egregious example. Car companies have to
meet average gas mileage standards, the CAFE standards. The Hummer is
so large that it is not included in the average. Think of it, it is
such a guzzler that they leave it off the list. This significantly
lowers the cost of the vehicle to GM and so to the consumer.


You are making a false claim: when you say the Hummer is so large that
it is not included on the list, you are suggesting that the list was
designed to exclude the Hummer, when you know better.
The Hummer fits into a weight category that was excluded because that
category overwhelmingly included trucks used in commercial uses.
That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.


While the size and weight would seem to make the Hummer a 'commercial
vehicle', how many have you seen actually USED as such? They are bought
by private citizens who have more money than good sense and want to show
off. Let them pay.

Yes, they are.
So lets make more laws, and make them even more restrictive, so we can
all see more easily that laws that get more specific are easier to
circumvent.
We seem to be getting a common thread he some want more laws to try
to correct a situation made by a bad set of laws.

The common thread I see is your insisting on calling a change an
addition.

We're in the problem (vis-a-vis SUVs and light trucks) becasue of the
laws (CAFE). Let's not just say more laws will fix this, becasue they
won't.

Laws get changed all the time as conditions change.

New laws to correct this would either be more inclusive (not
wanted, because of obvious needs of heavier vehicles), or more
specific (trying to control either specific models bad because a new
door handle would warrant a new model designation) or by intent of
purchaser (and we *never* want to go there)).

Why not by the intent? We already tax things different based on how
they are used. Why have a rule that is suppose to judge intent but not
actually look at intent? Or toss it out and just tax them all the
same?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:15:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:34:00 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:45:38 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Mine is pretty close to what we have now. The item is priced,and you
can buy it or not, as you see fit.
Yours seems to be something based on what something has to do with
societal cost as you see it. That's not free market at all, mush less
"pure" free market. It's social engineering.

Not at all. Suppose we have a product X which poisons the downstream
water supply when I use it. This is a cost to the society.

And her I though that such things are already coverd. Silly me.

You do understand the notion of an illustrative example, don't you?
Yes, it is an example of existing "social engineering", an example
that there is quite broad agreement on. (Not universal, look at what
has happened to much of the West wrt mining.)

Absent
government intervention X will cost less to me than its fully burdened
cost. Government action to include the societal cost to the price of X
(requiring me to clean up the water, for example) allows a fair price
for X.

As I said above, such dangers are already covered. What you seem to
want is already here.

I was giving an example of something that existed to show that there
was already that kind of government action in the marketplace. You
claim that I am calling for something new when I am not, I am calling
for something quite analogous to preventing poisoning of the water
supply. Call it social engineering if you want, I don't actually care.
If that is social engineering, then there is societal acceptance of
social engineering.

You *are* calling for something new. Proof? We don't have what you
want. If we did, you wouldn't see a need for it.

A change in standards is not a new standard.

As I have said several times, I am quite willing to go with a
fair price for the SUVs, that is a non-subsidized price. As long as
they buyer pays all of the costs of the product that is fine. One of
the costs of such vehicles is the decrease in *my* security, an
increase in the chance that I will get killed.

Your idea of a "fair price" for SUVs should also be expanded to cover
such costs for any vehicle, no?
If not, why not?

Of course it should to the extent that they create that cost. In fact,
one of the functions of government is to regulate public costs and
public goods (in economic terms) so that the market fairly includes
those costs.

I have a copy of the Constitution. I don't see that in it at all.
Maybe you could point it out for me?
SUVs are simply a clear example of a problem. But I have
been in favor, for example, of a high gas/oil tax for quite some time.
If we had put in a $1 a gallon tax 30 years ago we would have a safer
better off country.

You haven't wanted a higher gas tax in this thread.
You've specifically saying you want a new morals-based pricing
structure for SUVs.

No, actually, I don't. I have explicitly said I don't. You insistence
on your misunderstanding over my statements does not change that
reality. I want to remove the structure that makes SUVs cheaper, I
want the government to stop subsidizing them, I want the
"morals-based", if you insist, removed from the system.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:59:25 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:57:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.

There are a lot of Hummer drivers around here. Often 5'4" - 5'7",
blonde, well dressed and apparently the hummer people made sure that
high heels would be no problem to operate the vehicle.

Do you know what the original Hummer was designed for?
Hint: they didn't wear high heels.

Until Arnold Schwartzenneger saw to it that anyone with lots
of bucks and no need could have one of the crapwagons. Now they're two
generations down into Hummettes (for those unable to handle the
original) with no end in sight.


Give me a break. These monsters are marketing successes and
environmental disasters.

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:25 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

I wonder what your idea of "pure free market" is.

Usually the normal things, a large number of buyers and sellers,
essentially equivalent products, free flow of information regarding
the products and previous sales, a market that clears in market time,
etc. Also I would include in this case neutral government intervention
to distort the price. It is the current government distortion of the
price that I keep objecting to.

Let me take a particularly egregious example. Car companies have to
meet average gas mileage standards, the CAFE standards.

... which has been essentially gutted long since.

The Hummer is
so large that it is not included in the average. Think of it, it is
such a guzzler that they leave it off the list. This significantly
lowers the cost of the vehicle to GM and so to the consumer.

You are making a false claim: when you say the Hummer is so large that
it is not included on the list, you are suggesting that the list was
designed to exclude the Hummer, when you know better.

No, I am saying that the system makes the price of the Hummer cheaper.
I was not suggesting what you claim. In fact I have made it pretty
clear otherwise. As I have said several time SUVs exist in a large
part because companies have exploited the rules to sell trucks as cars
when trucks had different taxes and standards. I understand that they
took advantage of existing rules. Nothing particularly wrong with that
except that I don't like the results and would change the rules to
eliminate the loopholes.

Similarly, I have know of a company which, when fuel was being
switched to unleaded, cancelled their plans to buy a fleet of half-ton
vans in favor of totally unneeded full-ton vans because the larger
vehicles were still allowed to use the slightly cheaper leaded fuel.

Damn the environment -- full business ahead.




The Hummer fits into a weight category that was excluded because that
category overwhelmingly included trucks used in commercial uses.

And they did what you call social engineering saying that commercial
trucks should have a lower standard. As I said, I want the distortion
removed from the market.

That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.

Nope, I want the system to have some rational standards for
determining the purpose of a vehicle, rather than leaving it up to the
companies, or not give breaks based on the supposed purpose. The
Hummer is not a commercial truck, giving it a series of breaks based
on it being a commercial truck, regardless of the origin of the rule,
distorts the market.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:04:32 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

No, I am saying that the system makes the price of the Hummer cheaper.
I was not suggesting what you claim. In fact I have made it pretty
clear otherwise. As I have said several time SUVs exist in a large
part because companies have exploited the rules to sell trucks as cars
when trucks had different taxes and standards. I understand that they
took advantage of existing rules. Nothing particularly wrong with that
except that I don't like the results and would change the rules to
eliminate the loopholes.

You seem to be claiming that the Hummer was designed to get around
CAFE. You know better than that.
You should also know that SUVs and light trucks are what they are.
CAFE rules are what they are.

The auto manufacturers and dealers have firmly ensured that
the CAFE rules have been watered down to meaninglessness to meet
their marleting and profit needs.

SUVs and light trucks were not designed to be sold as cars until
peolle began buying them in large numbers *becasue of CAFE*. CAFE
created what SUVs and light trucks have become. Not the other way
around.

See above.

Stop and think about that for a few minutes. Why did SUVs and light
trucks become what they are?

See it again.