|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ontheway, I just want to thank you for all the time you have taken to lay all this out in a way comprehensible to the average non-economist. You have delineated things very neatly, and responded to peoples' refutations thoroughly. |
Only he didn't.
I mentioned electric cars and the problems with their range and speed. He never mentioned how we should fix this, he said we should have never got into that situation in the first place (using gas-powered cars).
While that may or may not be true (that's for another thread) I was asking for solutions, not for a history lesson. It's no use saying that the socialists shouldn't have provided roads and "subsidized" the gas-powered vehicles. Maybe they shouldn't...but they did, so what do we do now?
Currently electric powered vehicles do not have the range or speed of gas-powered vehicles and they are still vastly unpopular with the general public (as opposed to gas-powered models. That is the problem which needs to be addressed.
Next I addressed a more general problem which was that we would have rebuild the manufacturing system of the U.S. He agreed and said that the transportation and energy systems would have to be rebuilt as well (which I also agree with). BUT and it's a big BUT, he never mentioned how this would come about, and how, (with America's economy depressed as it is, ) they would pay for it.
I then pointed out problems with the differing meteorological circumstances in America. He did partly address this, but it seems he would cram everybody into certain areas (no flood plains or hurricane-prone areas) and thus risk overcrowding and overuse of the resources in that area.
And as to not sound totally ungracious I do agree it was a very nicely delineated history lesson (I learned a couple of things from it)...but it wasn't what I asked for. |
I didn't deal directly with your question on range and speed. Sorry. This is actually part of the overall larger problem which I did address.
Most of the problems associated with range and speed can be eliminated by eliminating the need for cars altogether. By building cities the free market way instead of the socialist way we will eliminate the use of private cars in most daily transportation. This will take a long period of time which I mentioned as the necessary transition period.
Now, I know that you are thinking about how you can just replace each gasoline powered car with an electric car, but that is not an answer. We should look at the environmentalists' mantra: "reduce, reuse, recycle."
Our first priority is to reduce the need for transportation and for energy consumption at all. This can be done while raising living standards and making life better at all levels. It requires the use of rational market planning.
We can also take a hint for the computer industry. Computing speeds were increased and costs reduced in part by reducing the distances that electrons needed to travel. We need to reduce the distances that human beings and their goods need to travel.
A myriad penalties and subsidies (many of which I've deliniated previously) have encouraged urban sprawl and massive bad design and malinvestment. We must first elimate those. All roads and highways must be privatized and drivers charged for driving as they drive. The technology needed is already in use around the world with electronic readers attached to every car making automatic deductions from drivers' bank accounts, makes this easy. Who should own the roads will be an issue and it might be best to give shares to every American or State or local resident or allow each citizen in the appropriate area the option of subscribing to a limited number of shares. The important thing is to eliminate subsidies so as to encourage the most efficient conservation of resources, which is always handled best by a free market.
This first step in transition will encourage people, commuters, developers etc to look for cheaper alternatives. Cheaper will mean reduced travel distances. It will take years of transition to make the adjustments, but it took more than a century to create the problem.
We will need a massive eductional effort to explain to citizens, pols, developers, designers etc. exactly what needs to be done. Nearly everyone is clueless in this problem. It will take some new books written by visionaries.
We need to build denser, mixed use housing, schools, shops, businesses, but we need to convert areas already built. That requires repeal of all zoning laws, repeal of all property taxes and allowing the individuals actors the option of being creative. We will have to trust people instead of the failed government institutions.
It would help to privatize public schools at the same time, as smaller more efficient schools will be better able not only to educate, but to deal with a new local neighborhood model of living - "Small is Beautiful" will replace massive governmental institutionalization. However, the socialists will likely resist this needed reform to the last, so it will be imperative that governmental school boards be forced to cooperate.
In large urban areas and cities:
Large, vertical condo developments built inside recreational green parks. All parking and transport and massive shopping below the parks and condos. Schools and rec facilities above. Outdoor walkways for fair weather, enclosed walkways integrated with shopping areas below for foul. Mass transit linking neighborhood units. Roads outside the living, working, shopping, neighborhood islands of green. This is a free market styled development that would obviate the need for most daily transport beyond walking and elevators. Moving sidewalks and other people movers could link the "green islands."
Not only would such developments be cheaper to construct in total due to the elimination of most roads and highways and the vehicles to travel on them, but the elimination of frustrating commutes for most people would increase family time, education time, recreation time and make people happier and healthier.
Smaller towns and rural communities:
There will be many interesting options for small towns, villages and rural communities. They could be designed in so many fascinating ways to eliminate the need for all cars in daily life that it will be truly an exciting time to participate in one's own community during the redesign and rebuilding process and to observe the creativity and variety of solutions. I know hundreds of potential models, but there is no limit.
Of course those individuals who choose to live alone in isolated areas, and farmers, will still need cars, trucks and roads. As a result, there will be fewer such people and a need for fewer roads and highways. Farms will move toward a new market size that is most efficient. Those that do so choose will have more choices in becoming self sufficient in energy, and their land will be tax free, and with improved communications available today will have better lives, although in some cases more expensive since they will have to pay their own way. Perhaps options such as internet education, banking, shopping and mail will make these options quite viable.
Other transitions:
During this transition period it will be essential and vital to eliminate all other subsidies such as government flood insurance and all other government disaster relief. The reconstruction of America will be futal and in vain if we don't at the same time get our communities rebuilt in safer zones. Yes, this will mean that many areas will end up being left as green parks along rivers and ocean fronts - but that surely cannot be seen as a negative. It will improve our environment, eliminate most storm and flood damage, increase GNP and lead to increased recreational opportunities and a chance to preserve wetlands and wildlife habitat by the free market in a way that will exceed the dreams of most greens and environmentalists.
Now, as this transition period takes place, we will need to gradually increase the penalties for polluting while driving. Road and highway owners will face increasing penalties, prior to a complete change to recognition of total property rights in air which will preclude pollution.
The road and highway owners will pass this cost on to their customers by charging higher usage rates per mile based on the pollution factor for each vehicle. As these rates become more burdensome, drivers will switch gradually to nonpolluting vehicles, along with moving to integrated communities which will make commuting unnecessary and eliminate the problem.
Range and Speed
Knowing that gasoline powered vehicles are doomed by becoming more and more expensive to operate due to pollution charges, and that they face eventual extinction when the free market is allowed to end the failed socialist system, manufacturers will be in a race to come up with better electric cars, improving range and speed. They will have years to make these improvements and every incentive to do so. The gasoline powered cars will face declining demand, eventually falling to zero, and any business not committed to the transition will be committing suicide.
There are many elements involved in that process, including the possible advantage of separation, in many cases, of vehicle access to particular roads and highways. Roads and highways reserved for small, light, electric cars, for example, might be a very profitable option for R&H operators. They would eliminate their pollution and thereby eliminate pollution penalties, and this would allow for very small, light cars to travel cleanly and safely as no heavy vehicles would be allowed. Manufacturers of such vehicles, where cities are built densely and only very small electrics are allowed could build much lighter vehicles which would be safer without the risk of large cars and trucks. These much lighter cars could be made immediately faster with larger ranges by virtue of the elimination of weight. This would occur at the same time that the need for all such transportation would be drastically reduced.
...
This is just a quick overview of what we have to do and what the free market can do. In a free market of course, we will have the advantage of millions of individual minds and all of their unleashed creativity solving these problems, so I wouldn't have to provide all of the solutions, which is what you seem to be asking.
This, of course, is the final undoing of socialism and why it always fails: Socialism, by restricting decisions to those made by a government, eliminates all but a handful of people from creating solutions to problems and in finding the most efficient solutions. Further, since most socialistic decisions are made by some form of committee, it comes down to a failed group method of arriving at a single answer where hundreds of millions of individuals choosing can make much better choices. Socialism is an attempt to impose simple answers to complex problems. Not only do such simple answers not work, they make the problems more complex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds good in theory, but fails in practise. Americans (actually most people that live in societies that mass produce automobiles) love their cars.
Any politician even hinting at such a thing would be voted out of office.
And as for reducing the distance goods need to travel...the U.S still needs oil and rare earths and many imported goods. Stuff that just wouldn't be practical to transport except in bulk...which means big ships, big containers, big trucks.
People have gotten used to their creature comforts and are not going to give them up that easily. They'll simply vote en masse for any populist politician who promises to repeal any such unpopular laws which would need to be in place for this society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sounds good in theory, but fails in practise |
Also ironically describes Communism. Kim Jung Il should be sharing everything he has with all his comrades. Instead, only the priveleged military elite get to share. Same story in every other Communist country, which is partly why the former Soviet Union collapsed.
It's human nature to be greedy, regardless of political ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Sounds good in theory, but fails in practise. Americans (actually most people that live in societies that mass produce automobiles) love their cars.
Any politician even hinting at such a thing would be voted out of office.
And as for reducing the distance goods need to travel...the U.S still needs oil and rare earths and many imported goods. Stuff that just wouldn't be practical to transport except in bulk...which means big ships, big containers, big trucks.
People have gotten used to their creature comforts and are not going to give them up that easily. They'll simply vote en masse for any populist politician who promises to repeal any such unpopular laws which would need to be in place for this society. |
1. Americans love their cars, but every time the price of gasoline jumps, they move to smaller more energy efficient models for a time. This means that Americans are also quite cost sensitive. In a free market the drivers would have to pay the actual cost of the roads and highways as they drive, along with the full cost of fuel without polluting. Most Americans will look for cheaper alternatives quite rapidly. Those few who actually "love" driving, and I believe it is actually a small percentage, will still be able to pay the cost and do so.
2. Any politician promoting this plan will have to be elected into office. Since we can see the socialist system collapsing around us right now with the current 2nd Great Depression and the coming collapse of the dollar and failure of Social Security around the corner, plus the advent of climate change which will eventually become an undeniable reality, scarce energy resources and pollution caused by socialism, and if the Dems are stupid enough to pass national health care, the collapse of the health care system, ... There will be ample reason for voters to abandon the Ds and Rs and let those two parties die completely ... replaced by the Gs and Ls.
3. Some goods do need to travel great distances, and this can be accomplished very well most of the time by water and rail, so we won't need most of the big trucks. However, a lot of local production can be shipped in much more efficient ways, especially when we have efficiently designed urban communities. An underground containerized, computerized shipping system - a modern and more efficient version of one once in use in Chicago in days long ago - could handle most local and regional shipping within dense urban areas.
4. Yes, the socialists will try to make a populist comeback eventually. First we will witness the coming collapse. There will be an electoral revolt ditching the socialists in all forms. The new free market system, new money etc. will be installed, and the economy will rebound, health care will be available to all and much cheaper in a free market, pollution will be a distant memory, the country will be at peace and the troops will be home at last. Then, the socialists will try again with the lies and promises of goodies paid for by other people. Hopefully everyone will remember that the socialists have caused all of our social problems, recessions, depressions, wars, pollution and unemployment in the past and finally learn to reject the socialist nonsense forever.
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance against the evils of socialists and other statist kleptocratic thugs and scumbags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ontheway, you need to write a book.
Or how about I collect your writings in these threads and edit them into one for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Ontheway, you need to write a book.
Or how about I collect your writings in these threads and edit them into one for you? |
Yeah I heard the comedy section at Kyobo is a bit light these days.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And thank you, ontheway, for continuing to cast so many pearls, even if many of them land before swine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: Socialists |
|
|
Is this mutual admiration society exclusive, or can anyone join? I take it that evil Socialists need not apply. 
Last edited by chris_J2 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:38 am Post subject: Re: Socialists |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| Is this mutual admiration society exclusive, or can anyone join? I take it that evil Socialists are not welcome to join. |
You know what they say:
| Quote: |
| Great minds think alike! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Socialists |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| Is this mutual admiration society exclusive, or can anyone join? I take it that evil Socialists are not welcome to join. |
You know what they say:
| Quote: |
| Great minds think alike! |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ...the fat baby could be covered, at the appropriate cost. |
You fail to understand why socialized medicine exists - to cover those who can't afford it. You may think they shouldn't get it if they're poor - if you do you're heartless. |
You're missing the point. Which is that socialism impoverishes people, makes them dependent on the state, and then you feel lucky to take what you can get. |
No the point is that letting poor people die in order to ensure that insurance companies maximize profits is criminal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old Gil wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ...the fat baby could be covered, at the appropriate cost. |
You fail to understand why socialized medicine exists - to cover those who can't afford it. You may think they shouldn't get it if they're poor - if you do you're heartless. |
You're missing the point. Which is that socialism impoverishes people, makes them dependent on the state, and then you feel lucky to take what you can get. |
No the point is that letting poor people die in order to ensure that insurance companies maximize profits is criminal. |
In a free market, poor people are not "left to die"; they are either given free care (not turned away by doctors, even if they have no money), or helped out by charity organizations. In free communities people look after each other- it's quite natural doncha know?
The government on the other hand, doesn't give a rat's ass about you. Quite the opposite, if you read what the current science czar and others have to say about it, they consider you superfluous at best, and at worst would consider you better off dead...
There are plenty of obvious reasons as to why government controlled health care is very undesirable. The most obvious reason is that the health insurance cartel is actually enabled by the government in the first place. The insurance companies want to see the new Obama legislation passed, because government regulation will force minimum standards on people who don't even want them, which means more money spent on insurance (while quality of treatment will most likely decline as a result of regulation and rationing, not that they care about that). The public option (which is quite meager anyway) will then enable the private insurers to shuffle higher risk clients over to the second rate government program (all paid for by the taxpayer) while keeping the fitter, more profitable clients to themselves. Finally, the private insurers will probably receive subsidies (since they are subject to regulation, and considered essential), and if they or the public program run into trouble, they will have to be bailed out a la Fannie/Freddie and other government run insurance programs, wasting even more taxpayer money.
In short, the insurance cartel monopoly will be sustained, with government support, and even more people will be forced to pay for insurance than before - and behind the scenes it will be the insurance companies who are running it, the same way the pharmaceutical companies and Monsanto run the FDA. In a free market, we could all just choose not pay the insurance companies (which really are just parasites for the most part).
Lastly, it is worth pointing out that the insurance companies appear to be complaining about this bill the same way the money trust (big NY banks) complained about the Federal Reserve Act way back in the day: to trick the public into believing these acts would work against the cartels, when in fact it's the opposite. What we see is just good old fashioned reverse-psychology pushed by the media, and the public naively buys into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewz
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Not that it's particularly feasible, but one solar power station the size of Manhattan in orbit could power the entire planet for the foreseeable future. |
All we need is the sun to power the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewz
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| WE MUST ABOLISH ALL FORMS OF SOCIALISM as quickly as possible and forever in order to ensure the prosperity and survival of mankind, the end of war, poverty, pollution, and unemployment, and to allow every individual on Earth the opportunity to live a free, healthy and prosperous life. |
Okay okay....End of war? That will never happen. Humans will always have wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
In a free market, poor people are not "left to die"; they are either given free care (not turned away by doctors, even if they have no money), or helped out by charity organizations. In free communities people look after each other- it's quite natural doncha know?
|
Oh really? Would you like to show me some numbers behind this ridiculous claim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
