Why I love digital

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:26:19 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:32:03 GMT, wrote:

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.

Why those, those sputter CAPITALISTS!
How dare they even *THINK* of their bottom line!
That's UnAmerican!

Thank you for your heroic essay n social and environmental
responsibility. Sometimes, when there's little actual benefit to the
bottom line, it would be nice to consider other issues. Unless you
think think ten cents to the bottom line is worth more than anything
else on earth.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:37:57 -0700, Big Bill wrote:


"I guess all that use of "market" was anti-choice. Choice is a moral
issue, not an economic one. Choices are not inherently better or worse
from an economic perspective. A free and fair market

Show me one that hasn't been hijacked by those with the
greatest economic interest and power. Free market is a myth. Unless
you consider one bent to benefit the wishes of a particular group to
still be free.

allows efficient
price setting and so efficient allocation. From a moral perspective
choice is one of many qualities to be maximized, but not the only
one."

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.

Big Bill wrote:

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

"The output of the nation's factories fell for the first time in six
months, manufacturing in bellwether New York state grew at the slowest
pace in two years and consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in a
year and a half, today's economic statistics showed. Those reports
compounded the concerns raised earlier by weak retail sales and a
growing crisis in the auto industry -- both blamed on high energy prices."
Wash Post 2005.04.15

"Shares of General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler all fell again today
as investors continue to desert Detroit. GM bonds were trading for
between 75 and 80 cents on the dollar because investors were reluctant
to make long-term bets on the future of the Big Three."
Wash Post 2005.04.15

"While the price of crude oil has fallen back close to $50 a barrel,
gasoline prices are reaching record highs and consumers seem to be
feeling the impact and curtailing spending, according to some economists."
NYT 2005.04.15


"The question is who will pay for the cleanup. United Water, a
subsidiary of Suez S.A., has sued the manufacturers of MTBE to recover
its costs. And as hundreds of communities from coast to coast are
finding the additive in their water systems, the issue of paying for the
cleanup is becoming increasingly contentious.

If oil and chemical companies have their way, a majority of lawsuits
like United Water's will be thrown out by Congress as part of the energy
bill backed by the Bush administration. The bill, which won easy
approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Wednesday,
includes a waiver that would protect the chemical makers, which are some
of the biggest oil giants in the United States, from all MTBE liability
lawsuits filed since September 2003."
NYT 2005.04.15

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:22:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And, of course, you are willing to visit the higher prices on commerce
this would require on everyone, not just yourself.
Sure, this is workable. In a police state, certainly not in the US.


And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:46:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

"The output of the nation's factories fell for the first time in six
months, manufacturing in bellwether New York state grew at the slowest
pace in two years and consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in a
year and a half, today's economic statistics showed. Those reports
compounded the concerns raised earlier by weak retail sales and a
growing crisis in the auto industry -- both blamed on high energy prices."
Wash Post 2005.04.15

"Shares of General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler all fell again today
as investors continue to desert Detroit. GM bonds were trading for
between 75 and 80 cents on the dollar because investors were reluctant
to make long-term bets on the future of the Big Three."
Wash Post 2005.04.15

"While the price of crude oil has fallen back close to $50 a barrel,
gasoline prices are reaching record highs and consumers seem to be
feeling the impact and curtailing spending, according to some economists."
NYT 2005.04.15


"The question is who will pay for the cleanup. United Water, a
subsidiary of Suez S.A., has sued the manufacturers of MTBE to recover
its costs. And as hundreds of communities from coast to coast are
finding the additive in their water systems, the issue of paying for the
cleanup is becoming increasingly contentious.

If oil and chemical companies have their way, a majority of lawsuits
like United Water's will be thrown out by Congress as part of the energy
bill backed by the Bush administration. The bill, which won easy
approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Wednesday,
includes a waiver that would protect the chemical makers, which are some
of the biggest oil giants in the United States, from all MTBE liability
lawsuits filed since September 2003."
NYT 2005.04.15

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...

And you want to make it worse.

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:11:41 GMT, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:26:19 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:32:03 GMT, wrote:

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.

Why those, those sputter CAPITALISTS!
How dare they even *THINK* of their bottom line!
That's UnAmerican!

Thank you for your heroic essay n social and environmental
responsibility. Sometimes, when there's little actual benefit to the
bottom line, it would be nice to consider other issues. Unless you
think think ten cents to the bottom line is worth more than anything
else on earth.

I don't think you understand.
Businesses don't run on morals, they run on money.
I kno wyou'd like them to run on your morals, but I sugest you start
your own business and rival the big boys, and see how well that works.
Idealism makes for wondefful discussions, but when you start to think
that ideals run business, you just don't understand reality.
Amnd that's your problem he you want your ideals to be the basis of
business (everyone's business) and it just won't happen.

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:19:27 GMT, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:37:57 -0700, Big Bill wrote:


"I guess all that use of "market" was anti-choice. Choice is a moral
issue, not an economic one. Choices are not inherently better or worse
from an economic perspective. A free and fair market

Show me one that hasn't been hijacked by those with the
greatest economic interest and power. Free market is a myth. Unless
you consider one bent to benefit the wishes of a particular group to
still be free.

The market as it exists in the US (and many other countries) is as
free as it gets. You have a choice of products, and a choice of
prices,and a choice of whether to buy any or none as you wish.
Your idea of a free market includes far more governmental intrusion,
less choice,and much higher prices. That's not a free market, but it's
obviously what you want.

allows efficient
price setting and so efficient allocation. From a moral perspective
choice is one of many qualities to be maximized, but not the only
one."

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

Big Bill wrote:


And you want to make it worse.

No. Any stress on an economic system will ultimately make it worse.
Balance is needed to remove stress. Consumption at current rates is a
stress on the economy, mid east tension, the environment, etc.

Greedy idiots went out of control in the interest of profits. It is
inevitable that the house of cards will collapse and you can be sure
that the greedy idiots won't help clean up the mess, be it environmental
or economic.

In the quotes from the newspapers I provided you can see the heavy hand
of special interests trying to get their responsibilty for cleanup
removed by their stooges in the US Congress. It is sad that "We the
people" elect these representatives, but "We the greenback" tells those
reps what to do when they get there... In the US, you are being raped
be big money special interests. And you tax dollar is subsidizing their
greed.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:07:49 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:22:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And, of course, you are willing to visit the higher prices on commerce
this would require on everyone, not just yourself.
Sure, this is workable. In a police state, certainly not in the US.

Lessee -- DNA sample taken at time of arrest in CA, not after
conviction; audio/video surveillance (2 video; 4 audio) on all San
Francisco municipal buses and streetcars; 2 video pickups on BART
cars; bureaucrat says the tapes will be kept for 7 years; immediately
available to police; 4-way video cameras at any intersection worth
noticing; video every half mile or less on freeways.

Jeez, I can hardly wait for the real police state to arrive.




And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.