AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-02-24, 09:39   Link #301
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
In a free market, you get charged extra for being desperate. If you are sick and dying, the free market demands that you give them all your money and get into debt to survive. After all, they want to charge as much as you are willing to pay. And if they can clean you out in the process because you are not willing to "not live", that's your bad luck.

The wonderful hand of the market. Maximising profit one sick person at a time.
But it's not really a free market. In an ideal free market a buyer have as much power as the seller, as the buyer would have the choice to find a cheaper seller if the price is too high.

But that doesn't really apply to the healthcare system, where a buyer have little to no choice or any power - people generally don't incur diseases or injuries willingly, and so when they DO need to cross paths with the healthcare system, they are forced buyers in that they have no other choice like you said. You can't very well tell the EMT that this hospital's ER is too expensive while you're unconscious and bleeding out after a car accident for example.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 09:56   Link #302
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
We don't have "military police" in the US - those pictures are of *civilian* police who have scooped up excess armaments because the military industrial complex needs consumers.

If you ask, they'll come up with scenarios of why they "need" that stuff but police have a bad history of misapplication of any toys they are given.
I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that the military police is only for police duties on bases as Kyp stated. Unlike many countries the civilian law enforcement in the US has no military branch they can fall back on immediately except the national guard. I don't think it's too surprising that LE then invests in more heavy equipment themselves.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 10:57   Link #303
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
This thread moves so quickly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one. While the rich and those that are doing well can certainly afford it, I doubt the majority of people can simply go out and just buy new cars whenever they want, I certainly can't. Doubling the gas bill for those who are already struggling would be devastating, you're gonna have people who would have to choose between food or gas, and some who would end up spending the majority of their take home pay on gas alone. Also, which car gives 45+ MPG in the city again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
Yes, because the people who cannot afford to pay an extra $100-$300 a month in gas expense can oh so easily go out and buy a brand new, fuel efficient car! And clearly, if they cannot afford double gas prices, netting that cost against better mileage means they don't mind paying the cost for buying that new car, because somehow it all breaks even!
Responding to both posts - I don't see why there's this immediate jump to the idea that people need to buy a brand new, high-end hybrid vehicle. Hybrids aren't new; from what I've seen, used hybrids are somewhat scarce due to high demand, but they're out there. Given some of the crazy things that people take out loans for, an auto loan to go for a more fuel-efficiency vehicle is also an option.

People need to calculate it out for themselves. If the cost of a hybrid comes out to a net loss compared with the older, less efficient vehicle, then obviously it makes no financial sense. In that case, perhaps it doesn't need to be a hybrid; perhaps they could simply trade in their truck that has a perpetually empty flatbed for something like a Smartcar.

What I'm getting at is being realistic. Some people want to drive huge, fuel-inefficient vehicles, while others want to drive overpowered and inefficient sports cars. I'm not judging their preference in vehicles, but we need to be realistic about the cost of gas and our finances. If gas prices rise and you don't want to give up your truck, you are going to be paying more. You can whine to the government to subsidize and drill more all you like, but eventually you will have to deal with reality: drive less, alter your driving style, and/or change your vehicle. If there are no trucks that get the mileage you need to be able to afford shuttling yourself around and you really don't need the capabilities of a truck, then it's time to get real: you're not going to be driving a truck.

We talked a lot about entitlement this past election, and it seems like there's a lot of it when it comes to Americans and cars. People seem to think that they should be able to drive what every they want, and to hell with the mileage: gas prices are the government's fault (or the fault of the greedy oil companies, but that's a rarer sentiment).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Carpool is only feasible in the city provided you know someone well enough that lives close by and your work/whatever schedule allows you to carpool. In the suburb? forget it. Relocation is also not an option for everyone, nor are biking practical in all areas (certainly not in places that snows). Your ideas would probably work best in localized scenarios where the needs matches up favorably, but not as a broad policy for the whole country.
Carpooling is feasible anywhere. The internet makes it even more feasible, as websites designed for carpooling could allow you to see other peoples' routes and acquire rides that way. It's no longer limited to word of mouth, or putting up flyers on telephone poles.

I can think of two major obstacles getting in the way of making carpooling more popular. The first big one is trust: it's one thing to carpool with friends, family, or co-workers, but it's another to sign up for a carpooling service and then ride with total strangers (both accepting them into your vehicle or getting into theirs). The second is scheduling and control of schedule: nobody wants to spend even one minute waiting on someone else to get out of their house, or getting out from work. Nobody wants to risk being made late because their ride was late, or because someone on the route was late. There are plenty of other reasons, I'm sure, but here's the rub: if gas prices get high enough, people will feel that the benefits outweigh the trade-offs.

As to riding a bicycle in the snow, I have a contact in Canada who does it. I thought he was probably one of the only nuts in the world to do it, but then I saw a few people doing it here in Pittsburgh. I doubt it's pleasant, but it's clearly possible. If you can't afford the gas for your vehicle, then you have no choice.

Just to clarify, none of these ideas are meant to be policy for the entire country. Regions are varied, as are people's needs. The point is that there are an awful lot of people driving inefficient vehicles with capabilities that they absolutely do not need; there are a lot of people who are driving when they could be biking; there are a lot of people driving solo when they could carpool with little inconvenience. People make excuses to resist taking up any of these ideas. Plenty of those excuses are valid, and those suggestions truly can't work for the individual. Yet there are plenty who make excuses to resist change, but who really could take up the suggestion and would benefit from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
I drive 20 miles each way to work. I have co-workers who drive 2-3 times that far each way. No way in hell bicycling is the answer.
20 miles sounds like a lot, but try reading stories about people who commute by bicycle. People who commute long distances, people who have major hills on their commute, people who are out of shape - the stories of their overcoming the obstacles are pretty inspiring. It really opened my eyes to what's possible. I can't commute by bicycle (I'm doing 30-40 miles each way and have some massively huge hills along my path, not to mention that it's almost all highway), and perhaps it's still not something that you could do. Regardless, it made me realize that you don't need to be within a five-mile radius of your destination or live on flat land for a bicycle to be feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
You know guys, Europe isn't perfect.

Europe has plenty of its own problems. Surely that's clear with what we've seen in Greece and Iceland, amongst other nations.

Frankly, if your argument is simply "Let's do what those other guys are doing. Who cares if some of them have just about bankrupted themselves, we should follow them anyway" that's not a terribly compelling argument.
What first-world country isn't in debt at this very moment? I've briefly searched online and had trouble finding a list that wasn't about who was most in debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
If you want to convince people of a particular policy idea, then argue for the merits of the policy itself. You don't need to point to other countries to prop it up. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originated from.
It's useful to compare with other countries, though. Just as we can't know exactly how a person's body will respond to a certain medication, we have an idea of what will happen based on how others responded. Each country is a petri dish of sorts, a grand experiment in policies and people. What happens in one might not play out exactly the same in another, but we have an idea of what to expect.

On the topic of health, the arguments are quite easy to make. According to 2010 data, the USA spends approximately double what many European nations spend per person in healthcare dollars. As a percentage of our GDP healthcare takes up more for the USA than for other countries by far, which is even more impressive when you consider how much larger our GDP is than many of these countries. And what do we get for it? Bearing in mind that a person's birth and their death are the most expensive parts of their life in terms of healthcare, our infant mortality rate puts us amongst those of third-world countries, and our average life expectancy of 75 years for men and 80 for women (according to 2010 data) is approximately four years shorter than many of our European and developed Asian peers.

I am not going to over-simplify and say that adopting a European model would fix our numbers, drive down costs and raise the average life expectancy immediately. There are reasons for these numbers that go beyond the setup of our healthcare system. However I can see many reasons why it would help, and without going into the specifics of those reasons, I'd put it this way: if we're all going into debt (and we all most certainly are), I'd rather live longer and have to pay less. Who wouldn't?
__________________

Last edited by Ledgem; 2013-02-24 at 11:07.
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 11:59   Link #304
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Last time I checked I (and for that matter, the vast, vast majority of people in American, and frankly the world) don't have a socket on my car to plug in, and I didn't see a $40,000 check from you for me to buy one, so no, it's very much a necessity. To claim otherwise would be delusional.
It wouldn't be a quick solution, but it is a doable one. I'd tax gas to put a subsidy on electric cars to make easier to get one. I don't foresee everyone getting an electric car the next day. But after 10-15 years? I'd begin seeing electric cars being the norm.

Perhaps because I live near Seattle, but there are charging stations all over. Tesla is putting them in for free. Shopping centers and parking garages have them, and a very few restaurants are beginning to get them. No longer does one need to go to an actual filling station... your car is "refueled" for free while you are doing other things. I know charging stations are being installed in the northeast US as well, and right now fueling is free!

One thing people also don't realize about electric cars: not only is fuel free at the moment (or cheaper than gas), but maintenance is incredibly cheap as well. Electric cars have much fewer moving parts. So, for a larger up front cost in buying the car (which you can pay off over a number of months), you are saving money in gas AND maintenance!

When you take those into consideration, electric cars are very affordable nowadays.

Quote:
Walk? bike? how would you like to bike 20 miles each way to work in michigan winter while trying to navigate the snow covered ground which may or may not have a sidewalk for you to bike on? I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the idea of sharing the main roads with cars in the middle of winter, what could possibly go wrong.
Sounds like poor public planning. I remember reading an article which talked about how we tend to live far from our work, and that over time, the costs associated with that mean we lose a lot of money. Not saying bicycling is for everyone, but there are many options. We might analyze why you are so against anything but gas-powered cars, but I suppose we can let the post speak for itself. One thing you can do, is combine methods. For one of my jobs, I bicycling to a bus stop, put my bike on the bus, rode it aways, then got off and bicycled the rest of the way. In this way, I probably only bicycled a few miles, but was able to overcome the disadvantage of public transit (it doesn't pick and drop me off close enough), and help me get in shape, too!

Quote:
Public transportation? who's gonna pay for it? when states, cities and municipalities are forced to cut down police and fire departments due to budget shortfalls, they're somehow going to come up with the money to pay for an expansive public transportation network large and robust enough to cover the third largest country in the world, where more than half of the population lives out in the suburbs?
Europe manages to do it with trains. Japan has the best network in the world. I always find it amusing when people say "it can't be done!" and yet we have tons of other countries in the world that have managed to do it.

Quote:
Geothermal, tidal, and hydro are all very good, but also extremely location-dependent with a specific limit on capacity, and quite often their own set of environmental issues to face. Each type of energy production have their own advantage and disadvantages, but for now only fossil and nuclear have the capability of carrying the bulk of the weight of humanity's energy requirement.
I'll set aside the others at the moment (since you're a bit wrong about that, but I won't quibble). But compared to the two last ones, nuclear is considerable cleaner and kills a very minor fraction of people versus fossil fuels. I'm all for building new nuke plants, until we get other renewables up and running. Thus making electricity cheaper and more abundant for the electric cars.

Quote:
First I'd tell you to look over your number again, and ask yourself if anything looks odd.

Because you just claimed that 1.4 million people in the United State had a combined income of $518 TRILLION. Which is certainly odd, considering the GDI of the entire US economy in 2010 is only around the mid $14 trillions. As GDI includes "the sum of all wages, profits, and taxes, minus subsidies", I really don't see how your number can be remotely correct.

Here's a fun fact, your 1.4million people apparently earned more money in 2010 than the total economic activity and output of the ENTIRE WORLD($74.4 trillion) by SEVEN TIMES.

These data are freely available from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.


You're free to look at the IRS's data yourself. I actually got a $370,000 elsewhere, but this is more accurate and says $380,000. If you think their data is wrong, you can take it up with them. And unless my computer's calculate has a bug, 1,400,000 x 370,000 = 518,000,000,000. But if we think there is an error somewhere, how about we drop a 0 for $51.8 trillion. Or two zeros, for $5.18 trillion. Deficit is still long gone.

But just for the sake of argument, let's look at some other numbers up there. The top 5% includes 7 million people, who make an average of $160,000 a year.

7,000,000 x 160,000 = 1,120,000,000,000

You probably don't believe your eyes again, and even if we drop a 0, we're still left with $1.12 trillion. Deficit is now gone, leaving us with a surplus.

There are many ways of tackling the deficit and the debt, and obviously we're not going to tax the rich at 100%. But I hope this puts to rest the falsehood that we can't tax our way out of this. Whether it is a good idea or not, I won't address. Just that we can if we so choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Agreed, which is why car companies are pushing ahead towards building Hydrogen powered (fuel cell) automobiles.

Hydrogen fuel-cell cars look to overtake electric autos
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/25/bu...fuel-cell-cars

Why Hydrogen Cars Could Still Be The Future
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelk...be-the-future/

The problem of generating hydrogen is being tackled by scientists and engineers alike.
Daniel Nocera of MIT has made a few minor break throughs with his "artificial leaf" concept that could (after much further development) make hydrogen cells a reality.
‘Artificial leaf’ makes fuel from sunlight
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/a...leaf-0930.html

If his technology pans out, it would also allow Solar Power plants to use water to create hydrogen and thus clean fuel.
Hydrogen is a terrible fuel. Think about it for a second, keeping in mind that everytime you convert energy from one form to another, you lose something. If you have electricity from solar power which is perfectly capable of powering things... why would you convert it into hydrogen and thus lose some measure of energy in the process? Why not just use the electricity? Hydrogen can be a storage mechanism, but it is very problematic to store at the moment. As a gas or a liquid, it seeps out of your tank, so you lose fuel just by sitting there, without very costly and energy-intensive storage considerations.

And I'll note that since you didn't respond to my honest question of "how many people die to guns before you think there is a problem", then apparently you don't care how many people die to guns. 100,000 or 1,000,000, it doesn't matter. And well, at least that's an honest opinion.

Edit: to add to what Ledgem just said about health care, I find this chart handy:

Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 12:19   Link #305
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
This thread moves so quickly...
Don't they all

Quote:
I don't see why there's this immediate jump to the idea that people need to buy a brand new, high-end hybrid vehicle...Given some of the crazy things that people take out loans for, an auto loan to go for a more fuel-efficiency vehicle is also an option.

People need to calculate it out for themselves. If the cost of a hybrid comes out to a net loss compared with the older, less efficient vehicle, then obviously it makes no financial sense. In that case, perhaps it doesn't need to be a hybrid; perhaps they could simply trade in their truck that has a perpetually empty flatbed for something like a Smartcar.

What I'm getting at is being realistic. Some people want to drive huge, fuel-inefficient vehicles, while others want to drive overpowered and inefficient sports cars. What I'm getting at is being realistic. Some people want to drive huge, fuel-inefficient vehicles, while others want to drive overpowered and inefficient sports cars. I'm not judging their preference in vehicles, but we need to be realistic about the cost of gas and our finances. If gas prices rise and you don't want to give up your truck, you are going to be paying more. You can whine to the government to subsidize and drill more all you like, but eventually you will have to deal with reality: drive less, alter your driving style, and/or change your vehicle. If there are no trucks that get the mileage you need to be able to afford shuttling yourself around and you really don't need the capabilities of a truck, then it's time to get real: you're not going to be driving a truck.
Of course, but you also can't argue under the assumption that the majority of people are driving gas-guzzling SUVs/trucks/sports car. I believe the original line of argument was that gas tax should be raised to make EV more palatable, which IMO is the wrong approach, as it'd be a regressive tax raise that will hit the poor the hardest, as they are the people who are least financially capable of adapting to the change. Do no forget that raising the price of a basic commodity like fuel is likely going to lead to increased general inflation, including basic goods such as food, potentially leading to a double-whammy against the poor.

Quote:
Carpooling is feasible anywhere. The internet makes it even more feasible, as websites designed for carpooling could allow you to see other peoples' routes and acquire rides that way. It's no longer limited to word of mouth, or putting up flyers on telephone poles.
I would content that a more accurate description would be that they are possible in most places, rather than feasible. Practicality aside, one of the biggest reason you already mentioned yourself - trust. In today's society, I highly doubt most people would be comfortable with the idea of carpooling with total strangers from the internet - there are enough horror stories of that kind as it is. The public would clamor for buses long before they would look to adopt carpooling on a large scale.

Quote:
20 miles sounds like a lot, but try reading stories about people who commute by bicycle. People who commute long distances, people who have major hills on their commute, people who are out of shape - the stories of their overcoming the obstacles are pretty inspiring. It really opened my eyes to what's possible.
Sorry, it may be inspiring in a "oh, that's kinda neat" way, it's a different story when you're the one doing it, and have no choice but to do it. Much like a boot-ass new PFC may find the story from the grizzled Sergeant to be inspiring, but if you ask him again in the middle of that 20+ mile hump or when he's trying to sleep in that fighting hole he had to dig with that tiny little shovel, in the cold, while raining? "Inspiring" is probably the last thing he's thinking about.

Quote:
Regardless, it made me realize that you don't need to be within a five-mile radius of your destination or live on flat land for a bicycle to be feasible.
Again, possible, but hardly always feasible.

Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-24 at 12:59.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 12:45   Link #306
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
I'm not in favor of raising petrol taxes (it is regressive), but people can to an extent adjust.

I think a carbon tax might be a good idea though, so that people pay the hidden environmental costs for the goods they consume. The funds from such a tax would be earmarked for environmental projects...
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 12:47   Link #307
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
My belief is that if you were to show people how advantageous something like high speed rail could be, it would go a long way toward pushing to develop serious public transportation across the country. I think there will always be value for cars, even for recreation, but in a lot of instances where you need transportation having a car is overkill.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 13:03   Link #308
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
About Kaijo0s graphic:

So the USA spends almost 9 times more money than Mexico in healthcare and gets a paltry 3 extra years in life expectancy? bwahaha, that is pathetic. Also, let me tell you a secret, a good part of the money spent here in health care is stolen by the union's hierarchy!

@Solace

Sadly just the same as automakers and big oil conspired against the electric car, they will stall any attempt to restructure public transportation with efficient public transportation.
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 13:20   Link #309
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
My belief is that if you were to show people how advantageous something like high speed rail could be, it would go a long way toward pushing to develop serious public transportation across the country. I think there will always be value for cars, even for recreation, but in a lot of instances where you need transportation having a car is overkill.
Here in Seattle, we actually had a light rail system put in to help handle commuter traffic. It came out much smaller than envisioned, and even that short bit ran into so many obstacles towards getting implemented. But now that we have it, it is getting better and better. Ridership grows as people discover how easy it is to go from SEATAC airport to downtown Seattle. Thus, the monetary return is always growing, and the hope is to feed that into lengthening the route farther north and south.

Humanity is odd... they will say that they definitely don't like something no matter how good for them you say it is. It's not until you force it down their throats, that afterwards they go, "Don't take it away from me!" Whether entitlements, health care, gun bans, mass transit, etc. We're still children not wanting to take our medicine. It takes a mature individual to say, "Hmm, let's give it a try and see how it works, before we declare that we don't want it."

The US highway system was something only the government could do, to the great benefit we got. I envision the government going for a matching bullet train system as well, connecting the major cities.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 13:24   Link #310
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
It wouldn't be a quick solution, but it is a doable one. I'd tax gas to put a subsidy on electric cars to make easier to get one. I don't foresee everyone getting an electric car the next day. But after 10-15 years? I'd begin seeing electric cars being the norm.
There is already a $7,500 subsidy on EVs right now, and they're still in the realm of the rich and well-to-do (at least the ones that are capable of any range). Your vision is extremely optimistic, and I'm not sure you really grasp what's needed for EVs to replace ICE vehicles. There would need to be massive improvements in battery technology, and an overhaul of the entire US electric infrastructure. Plugging in a few recharge stations here and there is cute, it's a different story if you want to jack tens or hundreds of millions of EVs.

For example, California can barely keep itself powered during the summer(and indeed failed to do so on many occasions, and had to resort to rolling blackouts). How do you think the region's energy grid will respond to the energy demand that are being supported by fossil fuels dumped onto its head?

Quote:
Perhaps because I live near Seattle, but there are charging stations all over. Tesla is putting them in for free. Shopping centers and parking garages have them, and a very few restaurants are beginning to get them. No longer does one need to go to an actual filling station... your car is "refueled" for free while you are doing other things. I know charging stations are being installed in the northeast US as well, and right now fueling is free!
It IS because you live there. Tesla is installing charging stations in very select regions to showcase the technology and where their potential costumers are (you won't see them building any charging stations in Wisconsin anytime soon). There are currently barely over 5,000 charging stations in the entire US, as opposed to over 110,000 gas stations. A gas station can also serve a significantly higher number of vehicles than a comparable charging station, as it takes only a few minutes to refuel a car as opposed to the hours it'd take to charge up a single EV.

Quote:
One thing people also don't realize about electric cars: not only is fuel free at the moment (or cheaper than gas), but maintenance is incredibly cheap as well. Electric cars have much fewer moving parts. So, for a larger up front cost in buying the car (which you can pay off over a number of months), you are saving money in gas AND maintenance!
Try years and you'll be closer. The battery pack also don't last forever, and their replacement cost certainly is anything but cheap.

Quote:
When you take those into consideration, electric cars are very affordable nowadays.
I'm sorry, but have you actually done the math or looked into it as a serious buyer? Because I just went through all the nitty-gritty details a few weeks back while helping my sister to decide between a Mazda 3 and a Volt. Even with the majority of the travel covered by the battery, it'd still take FIVE YEARS for the Volt to break even with the Mazda 3.

Quote:
Sounds like poor public planning.
Poor or not, it's how cities and population centers in the US have evolved in the past hundred years.


Quote:
We might analyze why you are so against anything but gas-powered cars, but I suppose we can let the post speak for itself.
Oh FFS, I'm really getting sick and tired of your innuendos and mudslinging. Point out where I'm "so against anything but gas-powered cars", PLEASE, DO IT, I'LL WAIT. Are you unable to discuss anything without making it personal?

I like EVs, I think it's the way of the future. In fact, I was the one that suggested the Volt to my sister since I think it fits her driving profile well. But just because I like the technology and see its potential, doesn't mean that I can't see its limitations and drawbacks, and what obstacles it must overcome before widespread adaptation is practical.

But I guess that makes me "so against anything but gas-powered cars", you're amazing.


Quote:
Europe manages to do it with trains. Japan has the best network in the world. I always find it amusing when people say "it can't be done!" and yet we have tons of other countries in the world that have managed to do it.
Europe have nearly three times the population of the US, in an area that is roughly the same (4.0 vs 3.7 mil square mile), Japan's size speaks for itself, so is the size of its debt, at over twice its entire GDP.

I'm not against trains or public transportation, but don't accuse others of mindlessly saying things can't be done, while you're seemingly ignoring just about every single obstacles that implementing such a system would face in the US.

Quote:
You're free to look at the IRS's data yourself. I actually got a $370,000 elsewhere, but this is more accurate and says $380,000. If you think their data is wrong, you can take it up with them. And unless my computer's calculate has a bug, 1,400,000 x 370,000 = 518,000,000,000. But if we think there is an error somewhere, how about we drop a 0 for $51.8 trillion. Or two zeros, for $5.18 trillion. Deficit is still long gone.

But just for the sake of argument, let's look at some other numbers up there. The top 5% includes 7 million people, who make an average of $160,000 a year.

7,000,000 x 160,000 = 1,120,000,000,000

You probably don't believe your eyes again, and even if we drop a 0, we're still left with $1.12 trillion. Deficit is now gone, leaving us with a surplus.
Kaiji, Kaijo, Kaijo, are you serious? Did you not read the multiple posts by other people after mine that pointed out your mistake? I know you didn't really pay attention to my post, or else you would've seen the discrepancies. I don't know what scale you're using, as you're neither using short or long, or any recognizable scale. But, as multiple posts have already pointed out that the number being used is these reports is in SHORT SCALE.

As in one trillion = 1,000,000,000,000. That's a 1 followed by TWELVE zeroes. Your "518 Trillion", or 518,000,000,000? it is 518 BILLION in short scale, not even 1 trillion.

When they say the US debt is 16.5 trillion, with annual deficit of 1.1 trillion? they meant $16,500,000,000,000 and $1,100,000,000 ok? Basically your trillion is our billion, and our trillion would be your... I have no idea actually, as you're going even "shorter" than short scale, I guess you're using some sort of special numbering system? Here's a chart with some handy numbers for future reference


You're not just making a mistake of a zero here, you're making both with one AND four zeroes, as your numbers are all over the place even within your own post:

you claim that 518 followed by 9 zeroes is 518 trillion (actual: 518 billion), and then two sentences later you claim that 112, again followed by 9 zeroes, would be 1.12 trillion (actual: 112 billion). It's still wrong, but I suppose at least you're closer in that case.

If only my bank teller process my deposits the same way, I would love to put in $1,000 and have it counted as a million

Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-24 at 14:10.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 13:33   Link #311
Archon_Wing
Hater
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Being totally ebillll
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
The reason people drive over biking and frequently public transportation is about time, and frequently that's what working class Americans lack because they are saddled down with all kinds of responsibilities from work to children to buying food, etc. I know people that have very limited free time, and basically spend all day working. If you want them to spend even more time traveling, then well, it's possible, but it's not good for their mental health.

Until there is a comprehensive 24 hour, 7 days a week, transit system for people that live around the country, you're not going to get people off their cars. I live in a city that has a very comprehensive public transportation of which I don't need to drive to go where I need. But I'm just fortunate enough to live here. However, it doesn't work after midnight and is subject to hiccups. Go a bit south and it's pretty much inaccessible by public transit.

IMO this is one of the things that just happens on its own, as Dr. Casey mentioned earlier in this thread. This is why most people aren't stuck using VHS tapes... people will naturally buy the shiny new things when it's affordable, just like ipads, Windows 7 and such. Windows Vista sucked so people were hesitant, but once people saw how much better 7 is, transitions happened like crazy, much to Microsoft's pleasure. Electric cars are no different. When has it ever been hard to get people to buy new cars anyways-- if they can afford it?

I have not seen any indication that anyone is particularly in love with that smelly fuel so...
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 13:55   Link #312
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Remember though, the biggest problem with electric cars is FOSSIL materials. There are a lot of things that aren't fuel that we rely on fossil material for, and that includes things like rubber and plastics. So even though you aren't burning oil in a combustible engine, oil still makes up a large percent of the car. On top of that, when it does come to fuel, where do you think a lot of that electricity comes from? We aren't exactly harnessing lightning and funneling 1.21 gigawatts into your flux capacitor, and we're a long way from Mr. Fusion.

That's one of the gorillas in the "we need to get off of fossil fuels" discussions. Sure, great, your vehicles no longer run on gas. But they, and a huge number of products, are made of fossil based materials. Go to the grocery store and observe how much is made of plastic. How your computer and home theater are made of plastics and rubbers. How your kitchen and bathroom are filled with fossil products.

We live in an oil economy. It's not just the oil companies who stand to lose a lot from trying to get off it, and in many ways we simply do not have the materials to transition to, at least if we want to keep our lifestyles from being interrupted or changed in radical ways.

Simply put, if you're digging it out of the earth to use it, it's a finite resource. You won't run out of wind, sun, wave, or geothermal anytime soon, but you will run out of rocks and dead animals to burn, turn into chemicals, and turn into plastic wrap. And people tend to forget a fundamental law of physics: it takes energy to make energy. And we're getting increasingly less energy than we spend to get it.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:08   Link #313
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
@Solace

I think you are mixing two problems: finite resources and energy production. Oil can be made in a laboratory, but of course it needs energy to produce. Then why I have yet to hear of any goverment investing in solar wind?, a big one could supply all the energy humandkind requires with a surplus for future growth!
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:11   Link #314
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
There is already a $7,500 subsidy on EVs right now, and they're still in the realm of the rich and well-to-do (at least the ones that are capable of any range). Your vision is extremely optimistic, and I'm not sure you really grasp what's needed for EVs to replace ICE vehicles. There would need to be massive improvements in battery technology, and an overhaul of the entire US electric infrastructure. Plugging in a few recharge stations here and there is cute, it's a different story if you want to jack tens or hundreds of millions of EVs.
The longest journey begins with a single step. You want me to accept that you aren't against EVs? Then start by admitting that the process is already underway, and that it is fully feasible to do in 10-15 years. That infrastructure you talk about? It's happening, as you note with Tesla doing. And they aren't the only ones; many businesses are beginning to add them, as are parking garages. Sure, you won't have them in Wisconsin for awhile. But eventually the network will expand there.

When those "horseless carriages" first came out, people said the same thing about them, that they say about the electric car. Who will take a horseless carriage when you need to refill it every so often? There aren't many stations out there, and a horse is cheaper! The horse can also refill off of grass which is everywhere. Many people already ride horses, so why would they replace them with those gas cars?

We've been through this before. We'll go through it again.

Quote:
For example, California can barely keep itself powered during the summer(and indeed failed to do so on many occasions, and had to resort to rolling blackouts). How do you think the region's energy grid will respond to the energy demand that are being supported by fossil fuels dumped onto its head?
California also deregulated it's energy industry, which led to those blackouts. up in Washington, we have energy hungry industries like Amazon.com and Microsoft, and yet we don't have blackouts. We also have been adding a lot of electric vehicles and charging systems. We have electric buses that take energy off lines above them, and a light rail system installed in the last few years. Our electric grid is working just fine, supplying all that power.

Oh, and we're also the home of coffee and coffeeshops, where everyone is plugged in.

Quote:
It IS because you live there. Tesla is installing charging stations in very select regions to showcase the technology and where their potential costumers are (you won't see them building any charging stations in Wisconsin anytime soon). There are currently barely over 5,000 charging stations in the entire US, as opposed to over 110,000 gas stations. A gas station can also serve a significantly higher number of vehicles than a comparable charging station, as it takes only a few minutes to refuel a car as opposed to the hours it'd take to charge up a single EV.
Ignoring the fact that quick charging stations means you won't be charging a vehicle for hours, this is a matter of changing your point of view. You'd only even quick charge for longer trips, like every 100-200 miles or so. But for everyday things, you stop at the grocery store and charge while you shop. Or charge while you eat a restaurant or while you watch a movie. And, of course, you charge while you are at home. So, I'd say: why are you wasting time filling gas at a gas station? It takes at least five minutes(if your gas refill trip is on the way, and not a detour or a special trip), but electric car owners aren't spending that time at all.

Change your paradigm, and realize that you don't need to spend the time charging anymore That leaves you with more.

Quote:
Try years and you'll be closer. The battery pack also don't last forever, and their replacement cost certainly is anything but cheap.
The battery pack lasts longer than the car. Interesting fun fact I heard awhile ago, so it might not be entirely true now, but... not one prius or civic hybrid needed to come into the shop to have it's battery pack replaced. I've had my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid since I bought it in 2005. Never had a problem with my battery pack. Battery technology has come far. The only work I needed to do was an oil change and an air filter change since I got it, and I was easily able to wait years before doing that, with no harmful effects. Just recently, 8 years after buying it, I finally had a major expense to get the tires replaced, but that was it.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but have you actually done the math or looked into it as a serious buyer? Because I just went through all the nitty-gritty details a few weeks back while helping my sister to decide between a Mazda 3 and a Volt. Even with the majority of the travel covered by the battery, it'd still take FIVE YEARS for the Volt to break even with the Mazda 3.
People, including my parents, told me I was crazy to spend so much extra on a hybrid in 2005. And then gas prices shot up. And I actually got mine for cheaper; my car was one a sales associate at the dealership had been driving, so I was able to get it for $19,000. Only a little bit more than a regular new car at the time, which has more than paid for itself given that I only give my car 12 gallons of gas or so once every 3-4 weeks. Those with Chevy Volts report going to the gas station maybe once or twice a year. Maybe once every 2 months at most.

And five years is standard on a car loan repayment cycle, and people, if they are trying to save money, keep the same car longer than 5 years. So I don't see why that is an issue. The care breaks even after 5 years, but then it starts to pay you back. I notice a lot of Americans tend to have trouble imagining the long-term benefits over the short-term gain. They'll take $10 today, instead of waiting to get $100 next week.

Quote:
Europe have nearly three times the population of the US, in an area that roughly the same (4.0 vs 3.7 mil square mile), Japan's size speaks for itself, so is the size of its debt, at over twice its entire GDP.

I'm not against trains or public transportation, but don't accuse others of mindlessly saying things can't be done, while you're purposely ignoring just about every single obstacles that implementing such a system would face in the US.
My argument was that it can be done. Are their obstacles? Sure, but they can be overcome. And many parts of Europe are equivalent to the US, in terms of people per square mile. France, for instance, has a lot of rural areas. We have a lot of people squeezed into cities, where mass transit can really shine if done well.

Quote:
Kaiji, Kaijo, Kaijo, are you serious? Did you not read the multiple posts by other people after mine that pointed out your mistake? I don't know where you're from, or even what scale you're using, as you're neither using short OR long scale. But, as multiple posts have already pointed out that the number being used is these reports is in SHORT SCALE
Regardless of what kind of scale you want to use, those are the actual IRS numbers. The top 1% of tax returns consist of 1.4 million tax returns. Full stop. Averaging the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of those 1.4 million tax returns, gives a $380,000 figure. Those are the only numbers I took off that. This is simple math, dude. 1,400,000 times 380,000. There are no tricks involved in those figures. Everyone here can do the math themselves, even if you want to argue that somehow 2+2=3. This isn't my math, though, this is the IRS. So you're essentially arguing against the IRS itself. I suggest you take your math wizardy to them, since they will obviously see how wrong they are, and how right you are. I'm sure the government, too, will recognize your incredible insight that they are using different scales when calculating their financial system. Dude, you can save the entire US government overnight!

The rich really are damn rich. Of course, the only skewing of that number, is that most of that wealth is in the hands of the few. Even in that 1%, most of the wealth is concentrated into 0.01%.

By the way, something else you may want to consider, is that the rich are hiding at least $21 trillion in offshore accounts. If we managed to tax those, we could wipe out the deficit easily, too. And those numbers are extremely conservative.

Look, dude, your argument was that even if we taxed the rich at 100%, we couldn't cover the deficit. Even if took your $518 billion from the 1%, if we expanded that out to the top 10% (which would still be considered rich), we could still easily cover the deficit with a 100% tax rate. Your next argument should logically be: "but we won't tax them at 100%!" which is true. Instead of trying to argue that 2+2=3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
The reason people drive over biking and frequently public transportation is about time, and frequently that's what working class Americans lack because they are saddled down with all kinds of responsibilities from work to children to buying food, etc. I know people that have very limited free time, and basically spend all day working. If you want them to spend even more time traveling, then well, it's possible, but it's not good for their mental health.
That's a bigger issue with income distribution, with the super-wealthy taking all the cash, and forcing people to spend more time working. It used to be that a man could work his 40 hour a week job and easily support his wife and two children. Now, both parents must work.

But beside that, while it does vary as to where you live, it is very possible and doesn't add that much time. Of the several jobs I had in Arizona and Washington, I didn't spend more than 45 minutes commuting (and in most cases, 30 mins or less), with combination bicycle/bus route. Sometimes I just did bus, and sometimes just bicycle, too. And this is commuting into Seattle, a heavy metropolitan area, from a suburb 20 miles away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
Remember though, the biggest problem with electric cars is FOSSIL materials. There are a lot of things that aren't fuel that we rely on fossil material for, and that includes things like rubber and plastics. So even though you aren't burning oil in a combustible engine, oil still makes up a large percent of the car. On top of that, when it does come to fuel, where do you think a lot of that electricity comes from? We aren't exactly harnessing lightning and funneling 1.21 gigawatts into your flux capacitor, and we're a long way from Mr. Fusion.
Of course we use oil for more than gas. But eventually we'll use other materials for cars that don't use so much oil, either. And if we heavily reduce our oil use, the amount that we have still in the ground, will last us thousands of years.

Quote:
Simply put, if you're digging it out of the earth to use it, it's a finite resource. You won't run out of wind, sun, wave, or geothermal anytime soon, but you will run out of rocks and dead animals to burn, turn into chemicals, and turn into plastic wrap. And people tend to forget a fundamental law of physics: it takes energy to make energy. And we're getting increasingly less energy than we spend to get it.
I think you underestimate just how much nature is creating everyday, and how much energy the Earth has. If we were to cover a small fraction of the Sahara desert with solar panels, we would produce enough energy to power the entire planet. There is a TON of solar power coming in, so energy expenditure isn't a problem when you take that into account. The main problem is the losses from energy transmission, which is why it is better to produce energy closest to the point at which you use it. That's why putting solar panels on your house is the best bet, because even though it is expensive, most solar installations these days pay for themselves in anywhere from 3 to 10 years, depending your level of sunlight and the type of panels. After that, it is pure, free energy, and also ups the value of your home, so technically you earn more (and you can earn money if you can feed the excess energy back into the grid).

Science is also making headway on converting things from one form or another. Plasma incineration, whereupon you take garbage and incinerate it in a process called "plasma gassification" turns garbage into syngas, an energy source. And once you fully harness either the sun's solar power, or build a fusion generator, you'll have enough power to make something like the replicator from Star Trek possible.

Also, there are asteroids and other planes out there for mining. In short, if we run out of stuff here on Earth, then we deserve to die off. Because if in the thousand years it will take for that to happen, if we haven't managed to create better energy sources, or get off this planet, then we truly suck as a human species.

Last edited by Kaijo; 2013-02-24 at 14:27.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:26   Link #315
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat View Post
@Solace

I think you are mixing two problems: finite resources and energy production. Oil can be made in a laboratory, but of course it needs energy to produce. Then why I have yet to hear of any goverment investing in solar wind?, a big one could supply all the energy humandkind requires with a surplus for future growth!
Yes, we can make all sorts of synthetics, but as you point out, it needs energy. We built this society using what was, in the 1900s, a seemingly inexhaustible amount of oil, coal, and gas. We know better now. Not only does it cause dangerous environmental impact, there's only so much of it to go around. When it comes to the oil economy, we're on borrowed time.

As for why we haven't moved toward alternative energies seriously, it has to do with money and propaganda. People are all for "green" energy, until it has to be put up in their backyard. Then you get all sorts of complaints, most of which are unfounded. While oil is still generating billions a year in profits, there is no political motivation to move away from it.

What we can do and what we are doing are two different things. Our current energy production is tied to finite resources. It doesn't have to be. But even if we "solved" the energy problem, we still have to deal with the finite materials that make up the rest of our production chain. Growing more cotton to make more clothes is one thing, but a lot of the products we use today took millions and billions of years to form. Unless there's some huge breakthrough in technology, we're going to hit a wall.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:27   Link #316
Archon_Wing
Hater
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Being totally ebillll
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
That's a bigger issue with income distribution, with the super-wealthy taking all the cash, and forcing people to spend more time working. It used to be that a man could work his 40 hour a week job and easily support his wife and two children. Now, both parents must work.

But beside that, while it does vary as to where you live, it is very possible and doesn't add that much time. Of the several jobs I had in Arizona and Washington, I didn't spend more than 45 minutes commuting (and in most cases, 30 mins or less), with combination bicycle/bus route. Sometimes I just did bus, and sometimes just bicycle, too. And this is commuting into Seattle, a heavy metropolitan area, from a suburb 20 miles away.

It is, but this is the situation we have. Problem about telling "people" to change their lifestyles is that this always hurts the people that are struggling more. The rich don't give a damn; sure their wallets are a bit thinner, but that's about it. It's just like saying that people could get off welfare if they could work harder and find a better paying job. But you can't assume they wouldn't if they could.

It's nice that you were fortunate to be in a situation that you could get there in a decent time. People who already take 2 hours to go to work even by car don't have that luxury. Furthermore, there are people that need to move heavy objects around-- they're going to need those vehicles. And also, the weather... sure, you may be willing to tolerate cold weather and heavy rainfall where it's already difficult to see in a car with headlights, but not everyone wants to do such a thing when work itself is hard enough.
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:37   Link #317
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
It is, but this is the situation we have. Problem about telling "people" to change their lifestyles is that this always hurts the people that are struggling more. The rich don't give a damn; sure their wallets are a bit thinner, but that's about it. It's just like saying that people could get off welfare if they could work harder and find a better paying job. But you can't assume they wouldn't if they could.

It's nice that you were fortunate to be in a situation that you could get there in a decent time. People who already take 2 hours to go to work even by car don't have that luxury. Furthermore, there are people that need to move heavy objects around-- they're going to need those vehicles. And also, the weather... sure, you may be willing to tolerate cold weather and heavy rainfall where it's already difficult to see in a car with headlights, but not everyone wants to do such a thing when work itself is hard enough.
I should start by saying that I've been poor. I lost my job in the recession and had to cut back and survive on a meager unemployment check. I was also a starving college student at one time, for three years, without a car. I know how hard it can be to get around. And yet I still managed. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish, when you are forced to. Bicycling and the bus was actually good for me, because I saved money that way.

As for 2 hours to get to work... you're doing it wrong. At the least, that is a small fraction of people. Well, my supervisor does have a 1-2 hour commute, but only because she drives a company vehicle part of the way, and stubborn sticks to rush hour traffic, instead of side streets (and I have not yet convinced her to try side streets, despite trying). I'm employed now, but during the 2 years I wasn't employed, I made efforts to find work within a reasonable range. Had it come to it (and I was close at a few points), I would have moved closer to a more permanent job. But I took some temp assignments that were closer.

So, I've been there. I know what is like. Sure, some people will have it rough and will need their car (or truck for moving). But the idea is to get as many people onto the idea of alternate transport as possible, so that only those that really need a gas car, will use one. It might take 100 years to fully get rid of the gas car, but in the meantime, we reduce the use of it where we can.

As for a truck, they have places where you can rent them. My parents had a van, and thus they helped me move to and from college, and then into my condo, but they also use it to tow their trailer for their camping trips. So I won't deny that some would like that on a more regular basis. But if you have low means, then renting on the rare occasion you need it (moving), is the most cost-efficient solution. Had my parents not been around, or if they pass away and thus I have no access to their van and need to haul large things, I'll simply rent a truck. Maintaining a truck or van otherwise, is too expensive for me.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:44   Link #318
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Wow, I don't believe this, this is amazing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
The longest journey begins with a single step. You want me to accept that you aren't against EVs? Then start by admitting that the process is already underway, and that it is fully feasible to do in 10-15 years. [That infrastructure you talk about? It's happening, as you note with Tesla doing. And they aren't the only ones; many businesses are beginning to add them, as are parking garages. Sure, you won't have them in Wisconsin for awhile. But eventually the network will expand there.
I have to "prove" to you that I'm not anti-EV by believing in your scenario which have no basis in reality? Go ask Vexx, or any engineer that didn't flunk out of college algebra what they think about the idea of the US switching over to EV within 10-15 years. Is it technically physically possible? sure, if you go at it with zero regard to cost or economic impact, aka treating it as a sim city simulation. In the real world? you have a better chance of Assad kissing and making up with the opposition forces over an afternoon tea party.

BTW, still waiting for your proof that I'm anti-EV.

Quote:
California also deregulated it's energy industry, which led to those blackouts. up in Washington, we have energy hungry industries like Amazon.com and Microsoft, and yet we don't have blackouts. We also have been adding a lot of electric vehicles and charging systems. We have electric buses that take energy off lines above them, and a light rail system installed in the last few years. Our electric grid is working just fine, supplying all that power.
More like WA have a paltry population of 6.8 million, while CA has over 38 million, which also have a much harsher summer weather which causes severe strain on the grid.

Quote:
Ignoring the fact that quick charging stations means you won't be charging a vehicle for hours, this is a matter of changing your point of view. You'd only even quick charge for longer trips, like every 100-200 miles or so.
Which would require you to ignore the fact that quick charging (or turbocharging as Tesla calls it) is harmful to the battery (according again to Tesla), or the fun fact that the only commercial EV atm even capable of a range of "200 miles" is the top end Model S, starting at a cool $72,400.

Quote:
The battery pack lasts longer than the car. Interesting fun fact I heard awhile ago, so it might not be entirely true now, but... not one prius or civic hybrid needed to come into the shop to have it's battery pack replaced. I've had my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid since I bought it in 2005. Never had a problem with my battery pack. Battery technology has come far. The only work I needed to do was an oil change and an air filter change since I got it, and I was easily able to wait years before doing that, with no harmful effects. Just recently, 8 years after buying it, I finally had a major expense to get the tires replaced, but that was it.
Unless it's car with crap built quality, the car will almost certainly last longer than the battery pack. Batteries loses capacities over time, it's a rather commonly known fact. The EV would start losing range long before the battery packs becomes non-functional. And no, your hybrid is not an EV. And if you're claiming that you've done only one oil change since 2005... I'm sorry, I'm raising the giant BS flag, unless your car has been in storage the whole time.

Quote:
Only a little bit more than a regular new car at the time, which has more than paid for itself given that I only give my car 12 gallons of gas or so once every 3-4 weeks.
Then you don't drive very far at all. It doesn't matter how long it is between your fill ups, what matters is the distance you traveled. A guy with a Hummer H2 can also give his car 12 gallons or so once every 3-4 weeks, but that doesn't mean shit.

Quote:
Those with Chevy Volts report going to the gas station maybe once or twice a year. Maybe once every 2 months at most.
Only possible if their daily commute is less than 38 miles round trip, and that charging is always available.

Quote:
And five years is standard on a car loan repayment cycle, and people, if they are trying to save money, keep the same car longer than 5 years. So I don't see why that is an issue. The care breaks even after 5 years, but then it starts to pay you back. I notice a lot of Americans tend to have trouble imagining the long-term benefits over the short-term gain. They'll take $10 today, instead of waiting to get $100 next week.
Now you're presuming to know why my sister went with the Mazda instead of the Volt? you're a real piece of work you know that?

Quote:
Regardless of what kind of scale you want to use, those are the actual IRS numbers. The top 1% of tax returns consist of 1.4 million tax returns. Full stop. Averaging the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of those 1.4 million tax returns, gives a $380,000 figure. Those are the only numbers I took off that. This is simple math, dude. 1,400,000 times 380,000. There are no tricks involved in those figures. Everyone here can do the math themselves, even if you want to argue that somehow 2+2=3. This isn't my math, though, this is the IRS. So you're essentially arguing against the IRS itself. I suggest you take your math wizardy to them, since they will obviously see how wrong they are, and how right you are. I'm sure the government, too, will recognize your incredible insight that they are using different scales when calculating their financial system. Dude, you can save the entire US government overnight!
This, this is the crown jewel, you're so ingrained in your ideals that you can't see the math slapping you in the face. The only one doing the 2+2=3 here is you Kaijo. Nobody is disputing the IRS figure of 380,000, or the 1.4 million people, what we're trying to tell you is that YOU FK'D UP WHEN YOU'RE MULTIPLYING 380,000 BY 1,400,000!!!

Holy F-Balls man, this is ELEMENTARY LEVEL MATH! 1.4 million times 380 thousand equals 518 billion, NOT trillion. Seriously, if my math is off as you claimed, please point out where I got my calculation wrong.

1,400,000 x 380,000 = 518,000,000,000

I'm revoking your "scientist" card until you can get simple multiplication right.


Quote:
Look, dude, your argument was that even if we taxed the rich at 100%, we couldn't cover the deficit. Even if took your $518 billion from the 1%, if we expanded that out to the top 10% (which would still be considered rich), we could still easily cover the deficit with a 100% tax rate. Your next argument should logically be: "but we won't tax them at 100%!" which is true. Instead of trying to argue that 2+2=3.
At this point my argument is that you should go back and learn basic math.

Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-24 at 15:10.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:51   Link #319
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
California also has serious distance problems. Urban sprawl is a thing here. While you might be able to cover parts of the urban regions, they regions themselves are spread apart by considerable distances. Amtrak takes 11 hours to get from the Bay Area to Los Angeles by rail. Though they have many stops. High Speed Rail gets shot down here because of so many areas not benefitting from it in such a large state where the advantage of the High Speed Rail would be to get from one major area to another instead of local service.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 14:51   Link #320
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
While oil is still generating billions a year in profits, there is no political motivation to move away from it.
We have hit the jackpot! As a movie with Robert De'Niro said "Why dogs wag the tail? Because if tails were smarter, they would wag the dog!". Big oil dictates Washington's agenda when it should be Washington moving big capitals towards a future that is NOT a dead end.

Quote:
But even if we "solved" the energy problem, we still have to deal with the finite materials that make up the rest of our production chain.
There are two answers, in the short term we must learn to recycle. In the long term we must start to harvest those yummy asteroids
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.