2013-02-24, 09:39 | Link #301 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-02-24, 09:56 | Link #302 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-24, 10:57 | Link #303 | ||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
This thread moves so quickly...
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
2013-02-24, 11:59 | Link #304 | ||||||
Banned
|
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! 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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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:
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: |
||||||
2013-02-24, 12:19 | Link #305 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Don't they all
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-24 at 12:59. |
||||
2013-02-24, 12:45 | Link #306 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
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... |
2013-02-24, 12:47 | Link #307 |
(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.
__________________
|
2013-02-24, 13:03 | Link #308 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
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. |
2013-02-24, 13:20 | Link #309 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-02-24, 13:24 | Link #310 | ||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
||||||||
2013-02-24, 13:33 | Link #311 |
On a mission
Author
|
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...
__________________
|
2013-02-24, 13:55 | Link #312 |
(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.
__________________
|
2013-02-24, 14:08 | Link #313 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
@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! |
2013-02-24, 14:11 | Link #314 | ||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
Oh, and we're also the home of coffee and coffeeshops, where everyone is plugged in. Quote:
Change your paradigm, and realize that you don't need to spend the time charging anymore That leaves you with more. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
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. |
||||||||||
2013-02-24, 14:26 | Link #315 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-24, 14:27 | Link #316 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-24, 14:37 | Link #317 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2013-02-24, 14:44 | Link #318 | |||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Wow, I don't believe this, this is amazing!
Quote:
BTW, still waiting for your proof that I'm anti-EV. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-24 at 15:10. |
|||||||||
2013-02-24, 14:51 | Link #319 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
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.
__________________
|
2013-02-24, 14:51 | Link #320 | ||
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|