A tax credit for a product means no one wants to buy it

Opteron · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Explain why anyone should have to pay higher taxes to reduce the price of a product others wouldn't buy if the tax credit didn't exist.

It's to promote conservation. The hybrids and electric cars are better for the environment, although they cost slightly more. You can keep guzzling gas, its cheaper, but its worse for the environment. We need to transition from gas guzzling to electric cars because we will run out of oil eventually and because of global warming.

A tax break boosts demand, it doesn't mean a product is not in demand or not wanted, it simply means that by giving a tax break, demand will be higher than what it originally was. The Priuses were in high demand, they weren't in stock a few years ago, and they still had a tax break at that time.

obvious Child · Aug 21, 2010

Barbbtx said:
I don't know why any tax credit for a product would be a good thing.

Like a catalytic converter?
How about low water showers in arid locations?

The government doesn't have it's own money. That is tax payer money to begin with. Let the free market work and stop trying to pick winners and losers. That's not the job of the government.

Except we don't have a free market. The only time a free market exists is during the short period of time where anarchy exists before being rapidly turned into Despotism. Furthermore, the government does have the job of picking industries that are beneficial to the economy. And the government does pick winners and losers when it spends defense money.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

Opteron said:
It's to promote conservation.

No. it's not.

They're ELECTRIC CARS.

That means, since no one outside the United States is going to be stupid enough to buy the things, and since most of the electricity in the United States is produced by BURNING fossil fuels, notably COAL, that the car isn't going to do squat about reducing CO2 emission.

Not to mention the fact that the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax has been uncorked for well over a year now, anyway.

No. The only reason for the subsidy is to generate some market interest to create the illusion that Government Motors is producing a product anyone wants.

The hybrids and electric cars are better for the environment, although they cost slightly more. You can keep guzzling gas, its cheaper, but its worse for the environment.

I don't guzzle gas. I find it's bad for my heartburn.

My ancient 10 mpg van loves the stuff, and it's sheer mass and presence on the road simply pushes the little hybridies out of my way.

So, what's your point again? That you think sompe people should be robbed because others have rocks in their heads and swallow the trendiest eco-freak guff that will get them laid this week? Well, since I'm been ordered to pay the bill, I'm not going along with the game.

We need to transition from gas guzzling to electric cars because we will run out of oil eventually and because of global warming.

When, in three to four hundred years, the world begins to run out of oil, the people then will have the opportunity to pay bogus tax credits to scammers lying to them. No reason to play along today.

A tax break boosts demand, it doesn't mean a product is not in demand or not wanted,

If the product had enough demand to justify it's existence, there wouldn't be a desire by it's sellers to steal money from the taxpayers to bribe others to buy it.

That's not hard to understand, is it?

it simply means that by giving a tax break, demand will be higher than what it originally was.

Right.

And the government has what constitutional authority to meddle in the free market in this manner?

Don't cite the commerce clause. This isn't regulating commerce, this is manipulating commerce to favor politically connected friends.

The Priuses were in high demand, they weren't in stock a few years ago, and they still had a tax break at that time.

And...the arguments against the Volt were equally valid against the Priuses. So what's your point, that when the government makes a gigantic mistake once, it's free to repeat it whenever it wants?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

obvious Child said:
Like a catalytic converter?

If a person wanted a catalytic converter (god knows why, I don't) he has always had the freedom to go out and buy one with his own money.

Not complicated at all.

How about low water showers in arid locations?

How about them? Is there some reason someone in the desert needs a subsidy to buy a gadget that reduces his water bill? Isn't he already getting a savings by buying it himself?

Except we don't have a free market.

No.

We have the government stealing money from some taxpayers to give other people a present to appease racketeers that have succeeded in seizing control of a major formerly free industry.

The only time a free market exists is during the short period of time where anarchy exists before being rapidly turned into Despotism.

Yawn.

Borrrrrrrinnggggg.

And quite irrelevant.

If anyone can figure out it's supposed relationship to Government Motors demanding taxes be stolen to finance sales of is junky car.

Furthermore, the government does have the job of picking industries that are beneficial to the economy.

Actually, no it doesn't it.

Welcome to the Constitution of the United States of America.

When you finally read it for the first time, you'll notice distinct lack of anything giving the government the authority to discriminate among citizens.

And the government does pick winners and losers when it spends defense money.

No. The government picks companies that have presented bids that have satisfied the RFP in better ways than the competitors, for the most part. Unless you're Northrop-Grumman and you've won the new refueling tanker bid three times, and Boeing's pals in government keep getting it re-opened because they're sore losers.

Opteron · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. it's not.

They're ELECTRIC CARS.

That means, since no one outside the United States is going to be stupid enough to buy the things, and since most of the electricity in the United States is produced by BURNING fossil fuels, notably COAL, that the car isn't going to do squat about reducing CO2 emission.

Not to mention the fact that the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax has been uncorked for well over a year now, anyway.

No. The only reason for the subsidy is to generate some market interest to create the illusion that Government Motors is producing a product anyone wants.

Um, generating electricity at power plants is much more efficient than trying to generate power in a small car. Not to mention you could use excess electricity which would otherwise be wasted. And also, if we were to switch to renewable energy sources or nuclear, using your electric car would no longer cause CO2 emissions.

If you're a Global Warming conspiracy theorist, please keep perpetuating your wrong view.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I don't guzzle gas. I find it's bad for my heartburn.

My ancient 10 mpg van loves the stuff, and it's sheer mass and presence on the road simply pushes the little hybridies out of my way.

So, what's your point again? That you think sompe people should be robbed because others have rocks in their heads and swallow the trendiest eco-freak guff that will get them laid this week? Well, since I'm been ordered to pay the bill, I'm not going along with the game.

You're ancient van guzzles gas, why should we pay environmentally for your polluting car? I'm glad we have some sensible people in Congress and in the majority at least. If you don't want to play along, you're welcome to not pay your taxes, but I don't think that will go very well.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When, in three to four hundred years, the world begins to run out of oil, the people then will have the opportunity to pay bogus tax credits to scammers lying to them. No reason to play along today.

More like 50-75 years. Oil will be running out soon, what a great attitude, if it doesn't happen today, just forget about it.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Right.

And the government has what constitutional authority to meddle in the free market in this manner?

Don't cite the commerce clause. This isn't regulating commerce, this is manipulating commerce to favor politically connected friends.

I am right. Typical anti-government empty rhetoric.

obvious Child · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If a person wanted a catalytic converter (god knows why, I don't) he has always had the freedom to go out and buy one with his own money.

Apparently you think that people should be allowed to pollute as they so please without any restrictions at all.

Not complicated at all.

Well, if your beliefs are delusional, sure!

How about them? Is there some reason someone in the desert needs a subsidy to buy a gadget that reduces his water bill? Isn't he already getting a savings by buying it himself?

So you think that government should not influence anyone on anything?

We have the government stealing money from some taxpayers to give other people a present to appease racketeers that have succeeded in seizing control of a major formerly free industry.

The notion that taxation = theft is a sign of serious mental issues. Inflation = theft. Get it right.

Yawn.

Borrrrrrrinnggggg.

And quite irrelevant.

Hardly. Arguing in the context of a free market ignores what a free market looks like.

If anyone can figure out it's supposed relationship to Government Motors demanding taxes be stolen to finance sales of is junky car.

That depends. Do they view taxation as theft? :roll:

When you finally read it for the first time, you'll notice distinct lack of anything giving the government the authority to discriminate among citizens.

I wasn't aware that businesses were citizens. Can you point that out to me?

No. The government picks companies that have presented bids that have satisfied the RFP in better ways than the competitors, for the most part.

But in the process, they have indeed picked a winner. By the notion of BIDS alone they have done what you claim they should not have done. In the same fashion as picking the most suitable project for its needs, government issuing tax credits for products that are more suitable for its needs, such as reducing consumer water use has done the same thing. Your argument's problem is that it refuses to apply a single set of standards. If it's civilian it's wrong, but if it's military then it's okay. Despite the SAME principles at work.

Unless you're Northrop-Grumman and you've won the new refueling tanker bid three times, and Boeing's pals in government keep getting it re-opened because they're sore losers.

I'll give you that one.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

Opteron said:
Um, generating electricity at power plants is much more efficient than trying to generate power in a small car.

Carnot efficiency man, it's called Carnot Efficiency.

And it's not all that wonderful.

Really, it's not.

It just hides the CO2 production to someone else's back yard. Probably in some low class minority urban neighborhood where the property values are lower because of the presence of the coal fired electric plant that's stinking up the 'hood and giving the children asthma. But that doesn't matter, so long as the limosuine liberals can make their money and feel superior.

Not to mention you could use excess electricity which would otherwise be wasted.

No such thing as "excess" electricity. Just in case you didn't notice, the theory that electricity is a fluid died with the discovery of the electron. Electricity is nothing but the motion of charge. If someone isn't drawing current at the plug, the generator isn't burning coal, gas, oil, or uranium to push the current through the plug.

You keep saying silly things like "excess" electricity too often and people are going to start suspecting you don't know what you're talking about.

And also, if we were to switch to renewable energy sources or nuclear, using your electric car would no longer cause CO2 emissions.

You mean by "renewable" those wonderful Works-In-The-Dark Solar Power Plants, or those Incredible-What-If-The-Wind-Stops-Blowing Towering Cuisinarts of the Bird Kingdom, both of which require full stand-by-generating back-up capability available to be put on-line within SECONDS of the failure of the wind or sun? Since those back generators are fueled by...um....FUEL, and since those devices can't be started up in an instant, that means those generators have to be ALREADY running and BURNING fuel to be ready when the Magic power sources fail.

Where's your no-CO2 advantage again, hmmm?

If you're a Global Warming conspiracy theorist, please keep perpetuating your wrong view.

No. I don't support the conspiracy that is AGW in the least. I've seen the hoax for what it truly is for decades.

You're ancient van guzzles gas, why should we pay environmentally for your polluting car?

You don't.

I don't recall sending you a bill.

If you want to subsidize me, just post your Pay-Pal account info right here, and someone will get back to you.

I'm glad we have some sensible people in Congress and in the majority at least.

Oh.

I thought you lived on Planet Earth. That statement there, though, puts your positions in a whole new context.

If you don't want to play along, you're welcome to not pay your taxes, but I don't think that will go very well.

Click to expand...

There's a reason why socialists have machine guns.

Stealing tax dollars is the reason.

More like 50-75 years. Oil will be running out soon, what a great attitude, if it doesn't happen today, just forget about it.

Click to expand...

Just in case you chose to ignore it, I did say the US have "TRILLIONS" of barrels of reserves.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LizardofOz · Aug 21, 2010

Tax rebates in general work a lot like a rebate at Best Buy--you will see incredible Sony tvs with crazy rebates, come with a BluRay player etc with the main intent to make the product cheaper to build, steadily lower the price, and make it more worth it to the average consumer.

With a tax rebate for many tax payers, that just means they would pay less taxes, some would get some of that back, but over the course of time the government makes that money back with the amount of people put to work, taxes on the car, etc and it has the dual effect now of making it easier and more attractive for car makers to meet the 35MPG (I think that is what it was) guideline.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

obvious Child said:
Apparently you think that people should be allowed to pollute as they so please without any restrictions at all.

Apparently you haven't asked the right questions and you need your assumptions to conduct a discussion.

So you think that government should not influence anyone on anything?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Pretty explicit, that.

The notion that taxation = theft is a sign of serious mental issues. Inflation = theft. Get it right.

The notion that someone can't understand that taxation for unconstitutional, and hence, illegal, government mandates is theft indeed a sign of their willingness to moon at the window hoping Peter Pan will take them to Never Never Land.

I present the world as it is. The horse drinks of it, or not.

ardly. Arguing in the context of a free market ignores what a free market looks like.

Well, the first thing a free market would look like is a whole bunch of Democrat-voting goonionistas in Michigan pounding the pavement looking for work, while real car companies who weren't raped by the goonions were picking over the corpses of GM and Chrysler looking for deals, which in turn would lead to Americans being able to buy cars they want to purchase without being robbed by their government to subsidize a car company and a car company's products they simply do not want.

The will of the American people in the matter of how much of their money should go to General Motors was decided by the free market. Enough Americans decided they didn't want their money going to GM that GM was facing bankruptcy. There was no need for the government to violate the will of the majority by bailing out GM and Chrysler. The People had already established bankruptcy courts that had the laws and the expertise to handle what needed to be done for GM and Chrysler.

It was that simple, back when America was free.

That depends. Do they view taxation as theft? :roll:

If they don't view taxes taken from them to pay for unconstitutional and hence illegal government activity as theft, they're not capable of thought.

I wasn't aware that businesses were citizens. Can you point that out to me?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Businessmen are citizens. They're even, in most cases in the US, AMERICAN citizens.

But in the process, they have indeed picked a winner.

Oh, duh.

Meanwhile, that doesn't mean your argument isn't silliness hiding as emptiness that I've wasted enough time on.

Guess what, just in case you haven't figured it out, the Constitution not only authorizes the Federal government to defend the nation, it requires the federal government to defend the nation, and that means the government has to buy the tools to do the job. So grow up and figure out that a car company doesn't have the same constitutional standing as a firm providing nuclear submarines to the Navy.

Opteron · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Carnot efficiency man, it's called Carnot Efficiency.

And it's not all that wonderful.

Really, it's not.

Don't try to lecture me on Carnot efficiency. The Carnot efficiency is higher in a power planet because of the temperatures, and the working efficiency is better because of the geometry and design.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No such thing as "excess" electricity. Just in case you didn't notice, the theory that electricity is a fluid died with the discovery of the electron. Electricity is nothing but the motion of charge. If someone isn't drawing current at the plug, the generator isn't burning coal, gas, oil, or uranium to push the current through the plug.

You keep saying silly things like "excess" electricity too often and people are going to start suspecting you don't know what you're talking about.

Um, I think you are the one who has no idea what they're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about fluid and motion of charge but you obviously have no idea how electricity is generated:

A key limitation in the distribution of electricity is that, with minor exceptions, electrical energy cannot be stored, and therefore it must be generated as it is needed. A sophisticated system of control is therefore required to ensure electric generation very closely matches the demand. If supply and demand are not in balance, generation plants and transmission equipment can shut down which, in the worst cases, can lead to a major regional blackout,

Electric power transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Excess electricity is not stored. Any electricity that is generated and not used is lost. If you keep spinning the turbine, irregardless of whether the electricity is being used or not, fuel will be used and energy will be lost. There may not be as much load, but energy will be lost nonetheless.

I don't think I should bother to respond to the rest of your post, based on these two arguments, you're not aware of facts.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

Opteron said:
Don't try to lecture me on Carnot efficiency. The Carnot efficiency is higher in a power planet because of the temperatures, and the working efficiency is better because of the geometry and design.

Good, you have some inkling of thermodynamics which means you have no excuse for your ignorance of basic market economics and the basic morality that says the government shouldn't be ordering people what to do or what to buy and most importantly shouldn't be stealing from people who don't want a product to reduce the price others have to pay for it.

And, let's see....the temperature of your typical boiler some six hundred degrees, the temperature of the heat sink is typically sixty degrees...gotta convert that to rankine, of course....then there's the temperature of your average combustion engine, which is somewhere around damn hot, and the heat sink temperature, which isn't all that much different than the power plants. There's the matter of closed cycle heat engine loops versus the open cycle internal combustion process....but typically your average steam plant isn't seeing more than a 30% ideal carnot efficiency, and your car isn't getting more than 15%, at best.

But the car isn't running 24 hours a day, the steam plant is....hmmm....that has to be given some part of the figure of merit...then there's the inefficiency and environmental damage caused by the non-recyclable portions of the 1000-lb battery in the electric car...and the fact that really, when it's time to replace the battery in that car the car isn't going to be worth keeping, financially. Whereas my honkin' old one-ton cargo van is fit to go for another quarter million miles, and who cares if it ain't pretty? I can have a block party inside the car!

Um, I think you are the one who has no idea what they're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about fluid and motion of charge but you obviously have no idea how electricity is generated:

No, of course I don't. I just ran the machinery in the engine room of a navy nuclear submarine for six years.

Your failure to understand my discussion isn't a failure on my part to explain. I'm quite articulate. You've missed key words and you need to read the lessons again until you understand them.

Excess electricity is not stored. Any generated and not used is lost.

Amazing.

That means there's no excess electricity.

Which is what I said.

BTW, if excess electricity is not stored, as you just claimed, why does the Volt have a battery?

Hmmm?

drz-400 · Aug 21, 2010

Guys, carnot efficiency is impossible in reality. It is an idealization. It will never be reached (see 2nd law of thermodynamics).

Skarkrow, I have no idea why anyone would ever willingly use rankine.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 21, 2010

drz-400 said:
Guys, carnot efficiency is impossible in reality. It is an idealization. It will never be reached (see 2nd law of thermodynamics).

Skarkrow, I have no idea why anyone would ever willingly use rankine.

Too ignorant to spell someone's screen name correctly?

I'm fully aware that carnot efficiency is an idealization. It's kinda stressed in thermodynamics and heat transfer courses in college

People use degrees rankine because they're also using BTU's, foot-pound-force, and good old g-sub-c.

It's called engineering in the English system. And if you start with temperatures in Fahrenheit, their absolute temperatures are in rankine. It's not hard.

Real engineers used to use it all the time.

Ain't a spacecraft in American built to metric standards who's engineers aren't discussing the tensile ultimate allowable of Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 as 42 ksi, and not some figure in megapascals.

Opteron · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Good, you have some inkling of thermodynamics which means you have no excuse for your ignorance of basic market economics and the basic morality that says the government shouldn't be ordering people what to do or what to buy and most importantly shouldn't be stealing from people who don't want a product to reduce the price others have to pay for it.

Other way around, your surprising knowledge of thermodynamics should provide you no excuse for your ignorant and government-phobic world view. Basically, you're exceptional market economics and lack of environmental regulation-view dictates that we would all be using lead-filled merchandise and breathing NO2 and sulfur air, because why should companies waste money on environmental protections?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Amazing.

That means there's no excess electricity.

Which is what I said.

BTW, if excess electricity is not stored, as you just claimed, why does the Volt have a battery?

Hmmm?

If you looked at the context at which the storage of electricity is mentioned, its that storage on a large scale in the power grid is when electricity is not stored. Of course everyone knows it can be stored in batteries on a small scale, that's obvious.

There is excess electricity. Any capacity generated which is not used is excess electricity, but it is not stored. Because we don't experience power outages often, that means the generated electrical capacity is always greater than what we use, therefore electricity is wasted, or energy is wasted. I was a physics major, I know something about electricity generation and power plant function.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And, let's see....the temperature of your typical boiler some six hundred degrees, the temperature of the heat sink is typically sixty degrees...gotta convert that to rankine, of course....then there's the temperature of your average combustion engine, which is somewhere around damn hot, and the heat sink temperature, which isn't all that much different than the power plants. There's the matter of closed cycle heat engine loops versus the open cycle internal combustion process....but typically your average steam plant isn't seeing more than a 30% ideal carnot efficiency, and your car isn't getting more than 15%, at best.

The Kelvin scale is better...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But the car isn't running 24 hours a day, the steam plant is....hmmm....that has to be given some part of the figure of merit...then there's the inefficiency and environmental damage caused by the non-recyclable portions of the 1000-lb battery in the electric car...and the fact that really, when it's time to replace the battery in that car the car isn't going to be worth keeping, financially. Whereas my honkin' old one-ton cargo van is fit to go for another quarter million miles, and who cares if it ain't pretty? I can have a block party inside the car!

The battery and its materials can be recycled. Even with a heavy battery, its still more efficient than your car. Hybrids even with a large battery have been proven to be more efficient than a regular car.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your failure to understand my discussion isn't a failure on my part to explain. I'm quite articulate. You've missed key words and you need to read the lessons again until you understand them.

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I don't know how much difference it would make to answer based on your views. You should know that without government environmental protections, the EPA, FDA etc. you probably wouldn't be living/breathing/eating fine and probably be walking around glowing green. Of course you will take the advantages of such government regulations in protecting your health, but will take any opportunity to knock the government and such regulation.

drz-400 · Aug 21, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Too ignorant to spell someone's screen name correctly?

I'm fully aware that carnot efficiency is an idealization. It's kinda stressed in thermodynamics and heat transfer courses in college

People use degrees rankine because they're also using BTU's, foot-pound-force, and good old g-sub-c.

It's called engineering in the English system. And if you start with temperatures in Fahrenheit, their absolute temperatures are in rankine. It's not hard.

Real engineers used to use it all the time.

Ain't a spacecraft in American built to metric standards who's engineers aren't discussing the tensile ultimate allowable of Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 as 42 ksi, and not some figure in megapascals.

Thanks for the enlightening discussion. I apologize about the slip up with the name. I still prefer kelvin if I have a choice.

I'll ask the guys at work what they use now adays, don't really know since I'm a water resources guy myslef.

Zyphlin · Aug 21, 2010

obvious Child said:
On the aspect of price to value, you're correct. However, on the basis of Rush's asinine argument that tax credit = no one wants it period, both prove very pointed examples of Rush being full of crap.

/sigh

Zyphlin said:
Nope, as typical from Rush its hyperbole built upon a more reasonable basic notion.

Zyphlin said:
So to say "nobody wants it" is hyperbole.

Yes, we already generally agreed though you think he's "full of ****" and I just see it as typical trumped up hyperbole by a commentator who typically boils **** down to the simplest extreme..

Not at the current moment no, but Fiskar is scaling up to 15,000 for its Karma and I believe the roadster is going well beyond that as well.

15,000 production for the year is great and all....

That's 2,000 less than Ford Fusions sold in July of 2010.

Its still miniscule and doesn't really show that the fact there's "back orders" necessarily shows that by and large people, in a general societal sense, would buy it.

Which further proves that the credit is rather irrelevant to people wanting the cars.

Yes, its irrelevant with regards to his hyperbolic taken to the extreme argument. For what the basis of his argument is, it doesn't disprove the notion. The tax credit currently on hybrids and electrics shortens the gap between hybrids and good fuel economy standard cars, making it more likely for people to buy it. A legitimate argument could be made that there would not be as large scale embracing of hybrids with actual wallets by a significant number of mainstream citizens if not for the reduction in price and the mental influences a seeming "rebate" does to the buying public.

UtahBill · Aug 21, 2010

I doubt we can compute true market value for anything the govt has a hand in....
The Thermal Solar water heaters that so many of us installed back in the 80s were subsidized, and the industry died anyway. Why? The vendors were jacking up the price based on the amount of subsidy. They killed their own industry by being greedy. Not to mention the design of most systems almost guaranteed expensive replacement of the flimsy collectors.
True Market Value is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

TurtleDude · Aug 21, 2010

The Uncola said:
Rush is always wrong.

That is just plain stupid.

TurtleDude · Aug 21, 2010

Barbbtx said:
I don't know why any tax credit for a product would be a good thing. The government doesn't have it's own money. That is tax payer money to begin with. Let the free market work and stop trying to pick winners and losers. That's not the job of the government.

The free market tends to be anathema to some on this board. They think the job of government is to run every aspect of everyone's life

Opteron · Aug 21, 2010

Barbbtx said:
I don't know why any tax credit for a product would be a good thing. The government doesn't have it's own money. That is tax payer money to begin with. Let the free market work and stop trying to pick winners and losers. That's not the job of the government.

The whole point of the tax credit is help the environment, reduce foreign oil dependency, and promote environmental responsibility in this country. This is a national security issue and also a national issue because of the impact on the environment. Many of you probably don't favor the Mideast region and don't want to be dependent on oil from there. This tax credit helps reduce foreign oil dependency.

The free market is not a panacea, and does not care about the environment, only on maximizing profit. If it wasn't for regulation and the government, many of the products you use would contain lead, carcinogens, and other harmful chemicals. Companies would not bother to regulate their environmental impact and safety of their products because that costs money, and they could just hide or conceal any dangers from the consumer.

This tax break is not picking and choosing companies, its not picking LG over Mitsubishi, its treating all companies the same and its saying that this product will further our national interests than current products.

Again, many of you knock governmental regulation, but you enjoy the benefits of their protections, such as minimal acid rain and breathing relatively clean air with less SO2, CO, NO, and NO2. If catalytic converters weren't required by the government, car companies would probably not include them because they add to the cost. I doubt people would be environmentally conscious and purchase cars with catalytic converters too if they added to the cost.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 22, 2010

Opteron said:
Other way around, your surprising knowledge of thermodynamics should provide you no excuse for your ignorant and government-phobic world view. Basically, you're exceptional market economics and lack of environmental regulation-view dictates that we would all be using lead-filled merchandise and breathing NO2 and sulfur air, because why should companies waste money on environmental protections?

What's surprising? That an engineer knows engineering or the fact that most engineers are Americans, not socialists?

You should try to bone up on the concept of libertarianism and the libertarian understanding of property rights and the commons. MY concepts are ideologically sound, and your concepts are talking points.

If you looked at the context at which the storage of electricity is mentioned, its that storage on a large scale in the power grid is when electricity is not stored. Of course everyone knows it can be stored in batteries on a small scale, that's obvious.

You sure electricity can't be stored? What about a flywheel? What about capacitor bank? What about electrolyzing H20 and saving the H in a fuel cell?

The words you're groping for is that eletricity is a wonderful means to transfer energy from the generator to the motor, but it really sucks when it has to wait.

There is excess electricity. Any capacity generated which is not used is excess electricity, but it is not stored. Because we don't experience power outages often, that means the generated electrical capacity is always greater than what we use, therefore electricity is wasted, or energy is wasted. I was a physics major, I know something about electricity generation and power plant function.

That's nice.

I was an operator in a nuclear power plant. I'm betting I know more about the nuts and bolts and valves of electrical power generation than you do.

The Kelvin scale is better...

No, that's just bigotry. The definition of the degree Kelvin as 1/100 of the temperature difference between the point of fusion and the point of vaporization of water at Earth sea level air pressure. That's no less parochial than Lord Fahrenheit abritrarily ruling etches on his first thermometer and never bothering to adjust for that minor difference.

So, whatever.

(Which isn't to say I wouldn't rather work metric than English, but that's not my call.)

The battery and its materials can be recycled. Even with a heavy battery, its still more efficient than your car. Hybrids even with a large battery have been proven to be more efficient than a regular car.

I measure my Car-no efficiency in terms of dollars per mile, from date of purchase to date of disposal. My antique but well running gas hog van has that metric won hands down.

Basicly, there's no good reason the government should be intruding on the principles of free market economic by stealing money from tax payers to subsidize this dinosaur of a golf-cart.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Aug 22, 2010

Opteron said:
The whole point of the tax credit is help the environment, reduce foreign oil dependency, and promote environmental responsibility in this country.

No.

The whole point of the subsidy is to artificially boost sales of Chevy's Golf Cart, allow the government to tell the public that's been robbed that keeping GM out of the bankruptcy courts wasn't the mistake it clearly was, and to provide sales to goonion members who would otherwise have to find something useful to do with themselves.

This is a national security issue

Can't possibly be. The same gangsters that stole the money to subsidize this golf cart are also the same clowns who have an completely unreasonable moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and previously restricted drilling and exploration off shore to smaller areas.

and also a national issue because of the impact on the environment.

Yawn. Cars are already so pampered and gadgeteered that practically the only effluents are CO2 and Water. My gas hog van emits less than 137 ppm hydrocarbons. Minimal environmental footprint, that.

Many of you probably don't favor the Mideast region and don't want to be dependent on oil from there.

Drill.

Drill in the US.

Drill off shore.

Drill now.

Don't wait.

That's the answer you're avoiding.

This tax credit helps reduce foreign oil dependency.

This subsidy doesn't do any such thing.

The free market is not a panacea,

It's more like a pancreas. Too incredibly complicated for some, but you can't live healthy without one.

and does not care about the environment, only on maximizing profit.

Oh, spare us the mindless pattering paternalism of the professional talking point reader, okay?

[qoute]If it wasn't for regulation and the government, many of the products you use would contain lead, carcinogens, and other harmful chemicals.[/quote]

If it wasn't for the interferences of government, the economy wouldn't have collapsed in 2008 or 1929.

Nor would nearly two hundred million people have been murdered in the last century by their government.

Companies would not bother to regulate their environmental impact and safety of their products because that costs money, and they could just hide or conceal any dangers from the consumer.

Yes.

Naturally the consumer must be totally stupid. Why else would they surrender their freedoms for governemnt security?

I mean, what parent wouldn't want to save fifty cents or so by using leaded paint in their kid's nursery? I mean, duh! That's four bits!

This tax break is not picking and choosing companies, its not picking LG over Mitsubishi, its treating all companies the same and its saying that this product will further our national interests than current products.

Oh. I didn't realize all those companies were involved in the manufacture and sales of the Chevy Golf Cart.

Again, many of you knock governmental regulation, but you enjoy the benefits of their protections, such as minimal acid rain and breathing relatively clean air with less SO2, CO, NO, and NO2. If catalytic converters weren't required by the government, car companies would probably not include them because they add to the cost. I doubt people would be environmentally conscious and purchase cars with catalytic converters too if they added to the cost.

That's what you got? The tired old, "gee, just think how much worse it is for those free negros in Africa" argument?

Opteron · Aug 22, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You sure electricity can't be stored? What about a flywheel? What about capacitor bank? What about electrolyzing H20 and saving the H in a fuel cell?

The words you're groping for is that eletricity is a wonderful means to transfer energy from the generator to the motor, but it really sucks when it has to wait.

No, the words I'm looking for is that electricity is not stored on current power grids. Of course you can transfer energy from one form to another, that's nothing new. Engineers in all their wisdom have determined that there is no easy way to store electricity on a large scale, currently or they would already be doing it. I even quoted it from the wikipedia and you still don't believe it.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's nice.

I was an operator in a nuclear power plant. I'm betting I know more about the nuts and bolts and valves of electrical power generation than you do.

Well if you did, then you'd have probably known that electricity is not stored in the current power grid. It's even quoted in the wikipedia, but you don't so I doubt it.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, that's just bigotry. The definition of the degree Kelvin as 1/100 of the temperature difference between the point of fusion and the point of vaporization of water at Earth sea level air pressure. That's no less parochial than Lord Fahrenheit abritrarily ruling etches on his first thermometer and never bothering to adjust for that minor difference.

So, whatever.

(Which isn't to say I wouldn't rather work metric than English, but that's not my call.

No, that's stupidity to work in units that have no relation to the physical elements they're related too. The Fahrenheit scale is arbitrary, the Kelvin and Celsius scale are based on the most important of physical elements in the most common conditions.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You should try to bone up on the concept of libertarianism and the libertarian understanding of property rights and the commons. MY concepts are ideologically sound, and your concepts are talking points.

Nope, your concepts and views and not logically sound and consistent. Thermodynamics, engineering are all based on logic, your principles are inconsistent and not logically defendable. I could point out the inconsistencies and where you're wrong, if you're willing to listen and admit when you are wrong, but I doubt you would be willing to change your views and admit when you're wrong.
Even libertarianism is not logically sound and has it's flaws.

AxelAsdf · Aug 22, 2010

Not literally nobody, just too few for it to be a successful thing.

AxelAsdf · Aug 22, 2010

I say I'm libertarian because it makes the MOST sense to me, amongst popular political groups. Could you list some faults in the Libertarian foundation? I'm wondering what you mean by flaws.

A tax credit for a product means no one wants to buy it

Read Question

Rush is right

Rush is wrong

Well-known member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Well-known member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Well-known member

Well-known member

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member