less cars : roll on $2 per litre

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-08-21, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-08-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
[the Prius]
>> I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
>> effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by ten
>> added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel that
> ^------ (and the cost of the electricity)
>> could have been bought instead.
>
> How much electricity would it require? Lets say it draws 10 amps for
> a few hours each night after coming home. That's like running a stove
> for a few hours. That's a dollar per 4 hours at current electricity
> rates.

No. You're confusing two ideas here: the idea of an electric car, and
the idea of a hybrid.

An electric car does exactly what you've described: draws power from the
mains to charge up, then travels solely on that power from point A to
point B. A hybrid, on the other hand, is a different beast. Its fuel is
petrol, pure and simple (or diesel, or ethanol, take your pick.) The
electric part of a hybrid is there to improve its fuel efficiency:
regenerative braking, and using the power of the petrol engine at idle
to charge the batteries. It doesn't hook into the mains at all.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[vaudegiant]

Communism started out as a very scientific theory of economics. The theory was that experts, armed with all the relevant data and imposing
"for the good of the society" ethical principles, would do a better job
of setting prices than a completely uncontrolled economy where the only
thing setting prices was the mutual agreement of a buyer and seller to
exchange goods at a price that both thought reasonable.

As we know, this turned out to be a disaster. It resulted in massive
misallocation of resources, lack of sufficient allowance for the needs
of individuals instead of society etc The whole thing collapsed.

The problem was that "experts" did an inferior job of allocating
resources than markets. The profit motive turns out to be a far more
subtle and effective way of adjusting production to meet demand and
incentivising innovation than anything else.

The free market and the profit motive is effective, only for the reason that the true 'cost' of market activities is rarely factored into the cost of a good or service. Many negative impacts are not costed into the value of a product of or activity, thus skewing the true 'cost'. If all features and effects were considered, much of the free markets activities would need to be reconsideredl.

In fact, the fertility rate has dropped dramatically. Demographics
show that in many parts of the world there is actually negative growth
projected. It isn't necessarily going to be an economic disaster if
the population does decrease, but at the same time the balance of risks
at the moment is not tilted toward overpopulation.

Some western nations are experiencing low or negative fertility growth (not to be confused with population rates). In most other parts of the world, population growth is significant. World wide, population growth continues, and as India/China strive for western lifestyles in a resource finite world, overpopulation is not just a risk, but a problem


Pat

 

[Theo Bekkers]

"TimC" wrote
> Theo Bekkerswrote

>> I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
>> effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by
>> ten
>> added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel
>> that
> ^------ (and the cost of the electricity)
>> could have been bought instead.

The Prius has a petrol engine and charges it's own batteries.

> How much electricity would it require? Lets say it draws 10 amps for
> a few hours each night after coming home. That's like running a stove
> for a few hours. That's a dollar per 4 hours at current electricity
> rates.

10 amps = 2.5KWh. four hours would get you 10KWh, so you could presumably
draw 10Kw for an hour. How far will that get you?
10KWh will cost you only $1.70 in Perth. If you have a Smart meter and
charge your batteries overnight the same amount of electricity will only
cost you $0.50.

Theo

 

[cfsmtb]

You can't argue against
free markets by citing examples of non-free markets, just as you can't
argue against globalisation (i.e. free trade across international
borders) by citing examples of tarrifs etc, like European farm
subsidies.

Windfarms use carbon fibre materials in rotor blades for the turbine generators. Windfarms and the new Air buses are apparently the cause of the world-wide CF shortage.

Therefore globalisation is *bad*.

Anyway, for some cyclists.

 

[[email protected]]

Travis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 1. With the break down in trade barriers we now have the situation
> > where local producers have to conform to our laws regarding pay,
> > working conditions, use of pesticides etc while competitors in
> > other countries are not subject to these rules. This is referred to
> > as a "level playing field". Presumably we could fix this problem by
> > reducing government interference (ie no minimum pay, no minimum
> > working conditions, no restrictions on chemicals)
>
> How would you have it?
>
> The subject of tarrifs etc is another perpetual "debate" which
> economists figured out long ago, but every generation screws up anew.
>
> The Chinese (for example) are producing stuff for less than we can
> produce it for. If we try to "protect" Australian industry then there
> is some benefit to the local producer, but everyone else is worse off.

You are absolutely correct. In the face of competition from companies
that
operate in a manner that would be illegal here, we have two long term
options:

a) make these workplace conditions legal in Australia (ie reduced
safety,
lower pay, longer hours)

or b) get out of the industry.

We chose b). When was the last time you saw a shirt labelled "made in
Australia"? I guess we just need to be more agile, finding new
industries
and then dumping them once foreign industry start to push the price
down.
The problem does not just apply to manufacturing. A similar situation
exists with respect to food production, software engineering, call
centers
etc.

I don't know what the answer is. Just seems like a depressing outlook.

 

[deejbah]

The notion that Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky intended to bring about an egalitarian social change is 'interesting', given that it was probably discredited by 1921 if it ever indeed existed. By this time the dismantling of any directly democratic control of the economy was almost finished. Most of Lenin's revolutionary rhetoric was stolen from other groups in what was perhaps the best piece of spin doctoring of the 20th century, seeing as it was swallowed and continues to be swallowed by people across the political spectrum. You could say that the troika 'wanted' democratic control of the economy almost as much as capitalists 'want' competition, though that may be hard upon some small and medium sized business owners.

 

[Terryc]

vaudegiant wrote:
>
> The free market and the profit motive is effective, only for the reason
> that the true 'cost' of market activities is rarely factored into the
> cost of a good or service. Many negative impacts are not costed into
> the value of a product of or activity, thus skewing the true 'cost'. If
> all features and effects were considered, much of the free markets
> activities would need to be reconsideredl.

Plus, there are very few, if any "free markets".

 

[Terryc]

Travis wrote:
> Terryc wrote:
>
>>Your might like to find that out yourself. Then you will appreciate the
>>information. Easy to find. Just broaden your reading.
>
> Come on Terryc, that's a bloody poor effort and you know it.
Nope, it is simply a case of stating that if you really need this
pointed out to you, then it is a waste of my time to do so as by the
time you look at it through your rose coloured, blinkered glasses, you
still won't get it. There are bits in the newspaper occassionally, but
you really need to read other non-business "newspapers" and ask "why is
it so"

> Its the easiest thing in the world to make a grand sweeping claim,
> its much harder to prove it.

Gee, describes economist for decades.

> For example:
>
> "Scientists have known for decades that quantum mechanics is wrong.

lol, naaah, it meets the scientific criteria of testability, provided
you understand the boundary conditions, which is something economists dont.

> Just do the math
> yourself. I can't be bothered posting it for you right now though, if
> you are smart enough you'll be able to prove it yourself."

I have done the maths {. It works.
>
> "Aliens have been visiting Earth for many years,

Yep.

> and there has been high level contact between
> the US government and these aliens.

Lol, that is the funny bit. Wishful thinking. It would have to be stupid
aliens that did this.

> So there are no examples of the most efficient producer of items that
> the market most desires making the biggest profits? And in fact there
> are many examples of highly inefficient producers of items nobody wants
> to buy making huge money?

Lol, this is what I mean. There are none of the first and plenty of the
later because the "principles of economics" only work in very restricted
facits.. If you look at the overall picture, you can find as many
counter examples.


> Name a few such companies.

Err, SMH, sat, business section. Read it. Of course, you will have to
know some of the history of certain companies.


> So, they provided either free or cheap finance and other incentives to
> companies to build chip factories.

Oooooh, so it wasn't free market then?

> And the result of that is massive overcapacity around the world, with
> chip manufacturing reduced to a low or negative profit margin basic
> contract business.

Overcapacity is good, for consumers {

> Silicon has a little more glamour still than tin, because of the clean
> rooms and white coats and everything, but the overcapacity brought
> about by political forces has turned the economics of the industry into
> a high tech version of the sort usually associated with making tin
> cans.

Lol, I just love christians who think every religious argument can only
be undertaken by bible quotes. I noticed how you economist just love to
blame "political factors" when your companies fsck up.

 

[Terryc]

Travis wrote:
>
> How interesting that all of the examples you have cited of supposed
> free market failure are examples of the use and abuse of government
> regulations.

Lets face it, pushing the letter of the law to its limit is seen as good
business activity. There are no morals in economics.

 

[Terryc]

Travis wrote:
> Travis wrote:
>
>
>>These strategies would work in a completely free market where
>
>
> I mean, the strategies would *NOT* work without government regulations
> to facilitate them.
>
> You could use your examples to argue that the law is an ass, but its a
> long shot to call this a failure of a free market capitalist system,
> which would imply that the antidote would be markets which are more
> regulated and less free.

Lol, keeping on pumping. A FMCS (oxymoronic) does not exist in a vacum.

 

[Terryc]

Travis wrote:

>>Microsoft. Arguably they inefficiently produce a product that is inferior
>>in many ways to some that cost much less, but they are the leader through
>>marketing (going back to the days of DOS 3.3 and Win95).
>
>
> They efficiently produce products which the market wants.

I guess that depends on your definition of "produce". Theft and thuggery
might be good economic principles, but most of us disagree.

Again, you either understand "Advertising", i.e. FUD specifically, or
you don't.


> 50 years later, the North doesn't have enough electricity to light
> their cities at night. The south is an economic powerhouse, admired
> all over the world.

Do you want to post the aid figures for each side {.
Lets face it, Cuba shows that socialism can survive in a vacum, i.e is
self sustaining but there is no corresponding capitalist example,
because capitalism is a unsustainable consumerist ideology that relives
on access to new resource to perpetuate.



> A pretty positive experimental result showing the advantages of
> capitalism over socialism don't you think Dave?

Nope, just another example of how you can always find positive exconomic
examples if you narrow the viewpoint sufficently.

 

[Terryc]

Dave Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:26:06 -0700, Travis wrote:
>
>
>>They efficiently produce products which the market wants.
>
>
> They've made the market want their products,

Not quite. They used the law to the maximum to undermine their
competition, whilst stealing their competitors idea, thus making
competitive products uneconomic.

Every microsoft "development" has been copied or stolen from elsewhere.

 

[Terryc]

Travis wrote:

> Examples of where people and companies have NOT played fair and have
> distorted a free market are not black marks on the free market, they're
> black marks on anti-competitive behaviour.

Lol, I just love how "all the failings are somebody else's fault" Waah,
waah, waah.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:55:41 +1000
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> vaudegiant wrote:
>>
>> The free market and the profit motive is effective, only for the reason
>> that the true 'cost' of market activities is rarely factored into the
>> cost of a good or service. Many negative impacts are not costed into
>> the value of a product of or activity, thus skewing the true 'cost'. If
>> all features and effects were considered, much of the free markets
>> activities would need to be reconsideredl.
>
> Plus, there are very few, if any "free markets".

And they don't stay free without a lot of state intervention because
the consumer isn't perfectly informed. And the sellers don't compete
just with products.

The free market is like communism really - never been tried.

Zebee

 

[Travis]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> The free market is like communism really - never been tried.

Free markets haven't really been tried, there is always political
interference from people that would like a free market except for a few
industries they'd like to subsidise or protect with subsidies etc.

But you can't say the same about Communism. Its been tried repeatedly
in various places. It was a dismal failure.

The totalitarianism that communism degenerated into in every place
communism exists is inevitable. When you wish to control all
production, fix all prices at levels grossly different to where they
would be if natural supply and demand set them, suppress private
enterprise and make people perform work without giving them any
financial incentive, the only way to keep the wheels turning is either
by appealing to people's altruistic and patriotic emotions, or pointing
a gun at them and forcing them to work.

Lenin knew this from the start, which is why as all students of Soviet
history know Lenin was the guy who founded the secret police. The
idealistic hope though was that after a while people would get used to
the new ways and think like a soviet man should, and work for
patriotism and altruism. They never did disband the secret police
though because the soviet man was as much a fiction as any subspecies
of **** Economicus.

You know what's funny? Right now there is a thread in aus.invest,
crossposted to aus.cars, which has turned into a discussion of the
merits of cycling to work. And here we are in aus.bicycles talking
about economics.

Travis

 

[Travis]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> The free market is like communism really - never been tried.

Free markets haven't really been tried, there is always political
interference from people that would like a free market except for a few
industries they'd like to subsidise or protect with subsidies etc.

But you can't say the same about Communism. Its been tried repeatedly
in various places. It was a dismal failure.

The totalitarianism that communism degenerated into in every place
communism exists is inevitable. When you wish to control all
production, fix all prices at levels grossly different to where they
would be if natural supply and demand set them, suppress private
enterprise and make people perform work without giving them any
financial incentive, the only way to keep the wheels turning is either
by appealing to people's altruistic and patriotic emotions, or pointing
a gun at them and forcing them to work.

Lenin knew this from the start, which is why as all students of Soviet
history know Lenin was the guy who founded the secret police. The
idealistic hope though was that after a while people would get used to
the new ways and think like a soviet man should, and work for
patriotism and altruism. They never did disband the secret police
though because the soviet man was as much a fiction as any subspecies
of **** Economicus.

You know what's funny? Right now there is a thread in aus.invest,
crossposted to aus.cars, which has turned into a discussion of the
merits of cycling to work. And here we are in aus.bicycles talking
about economics.

Travis

 

[Resound]

>> "Aliens have been visiting Earth for many years,
>
> Yep.
>
>> and there has been high level contact between
>> the US government and these aliens.
>
> Lol, that is the funny bit. Wishful thinking. It would have to be stupid
> aliens that did this.

No, no, the *real* US government.

 

[Resound]

>> "Aliens have been visiting Earth for many years,
>
> Yep.
>
>> and there has been high level contact between
>> the US government and these aliens.
>
> Lol, that is the funny bit. Wishful thinking. It would have to be stupid
> aliens that did this.

No, no, the *real* US government.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-21, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> The free market is like communism really - never been tried.
>
> Free markets haven't really been tried, there is always political
> interference from people that would like a free market except for a few
> industries they'd like to subsidise or protect with subsidies etc.
>
> But you can't say the same about Communism. Its been tried repeatedly
> in various places. It was a dismal failure.

I thought all attempts at communism have only been an approximation to
true communism, so as such, it hasn't yet been tried.

> The totalitarianism that communism degenerated into in every place
> communism exists is inevitable. When you wish to control all
> production, fix all prices at levels grossly different to where they
> would be if natural supply and demand set them, suppress private
> enterprise and make people perform work without giving them any
> financial incentive, the only way to keep the wheels turning is either
> by appealing to people's altruistic and patriotic emotions, or pointing
> a gun at them and forcing them to work.

Of course, if you let capitalism free, and got rid all all government
intervention, the natural state is for companies to merge until the
point where there is a single company only, in each industry. And
then any semblence of competition disappears, and you no longer have a
free market. Well damn, there go our assumptions. But it's not
capitalism's fault!

1) Examples: Digital^WCompaq^WHP
2) Microsoft buying out all competition (then promptly ditching the
better aspects of the code stolen/bought).
3)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...iversity-coonan/2006/03/14/1142098464004.html

_"Media changes won't reduce diversity: Coonan"_
Senator Coonan tonight said that under a proposed new test, the
number of media owners in Sydney would only reduce from the
current 12 to five if it was approved by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission.

(incidentally, 12 down to 5 is "not a large change"??)

Then there's the deals where the end consumer has no choice about what
they are buying. It is impossible to buy a laptop without windows
installed, because all laptop manufacturs have made a deal with
Microsoft -- in order for MS to support the hardware at all, the
hardware must be exclusively distributed with windows pre-installed.

> You know what's funny? Right now there is a thread in aus.invest,
> crossposted to aus.cars, which has turned into a discussion of the
> merits of cycling to work. And here we are in aus.bicycles talking
> about economics.

So um, that car. The one with wheels... Nice car, eh?

--
TimC
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-08-21, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Every microsoft "development" has been copied or stolen from elsewhere.

Objection! As a counterargument, I present unto thee, Microsoft Bob! So
good, the project lead actually married Bill Gates! (Then again, I'm not
sure if that would count as a reward or a punishment.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".