Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

If the private market is so efficient how can

Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 8:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://thinkprogress.org...
^Investing 279billion into energy standards would save 3 trillion dollars over ten years and create 3million jobs,8nd also reduce CO2 emissions by 600metric tons a year

http://www1.eere.energy.gov...
^Energy efficiency standards study.

http://www.energy.gov...
^DOE energy standards for 20 appliances set to save a net of 275 billion dollars over 20 years. Appliances include but not excluded to, lamps, washing machines, refrigerators, freezers and dryers

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
^Light bulb energy standards will save 4 billion dollars each year,

http://www.energy.ca.gov...
http://edition.cnn.com...
^TV energy standards in California which will make TV's 49% more energy efficient set to save the state 1 billion dollars each year.

http://eetdnews.lbl.gov...
^DOE energy standards which will make washers/dryers 35% more energy efficient will save 35 billion dollars over 20 years.

http://www.environmentalleader.com...
^DOE energy standards which will make refrigerator and freezers 20% more energy efficient will save 30 billion dollars over 30 years.

http://earthjustice.org...
^-DOE energy standards for furnaces which would increase efficiency would save 11 billion dollars over 20 years.

http://www.treehugger.com...
^DOE energy standards requiring water heaters to be 37% more efficient will save 10 billion dollars over 30 years.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov...
^DOE air conditioners energy standards will save 1 billion dollars over 20 years.

http://www.environmentalleader.com...
^Increasing fuel economy standards for car and trucks up to 55 MPG by 2025 will save 1.7 trillion dollars.

http://thinkprogress.org...
^Obama Increasing cars/trucks mpg standards will save consumers 150 billion and create 700,000 thousand jobs by 2030

http://yosemite.epa.gov...
^Car/truck mpg/energy/greenhouse gas standards set to save 3,000 dollars on gas over the lifetime of a new car.

http://www.environmentalleader.com...
^Increasing fuel economy standards for car and trucks up to 55 MPG by 2025 will save 1.7 trillion dollars.

http://thinkprogress.org...
^Since 2004 26 states have put into place EERS all have succeeded in saving consumers millions of dollars.
^Over the lifetime of the EERS measures will result in over a 550% return rate for Hawaii.

http://www.aceee.org...
^-Government energy standards could save the economy 170 billion dollars.
^EERS standards that require companies to reduce electricity and natural gas demand would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs
^EERS standards would also create over 200,000 jobs.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.
President of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 9:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

THIS!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 9:29:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You keep claiming "goverment trumps private". If this is so then prove this: Communism. Communistic countries are total goverment control and under your thesis they would be better functioning as the goverment is better then the private sector. To disprove your theory all I have to do it prove communist countries suck, and therefore goverment intervention is bad. I will even use THINK PROGRESS, a think tank you support to prove my claims. When chile left communism growth skyrocketed, while cubas economy has not even grown, that much.
http://thinkprogress.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.

That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.
President of DDO
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 9:39:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.


That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

Singapore is pretty close to a state-run market economy. The government owns large portions of several industries.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.

Interesting assertion, here are some facts: Acording to the IMF these are the top ten countries in GDP per capita.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 122,272
2 Qatar 97,967
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
5 Australia 66,984
6 United Arab Emirates 66,625
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
9 Netherlands 51,410
10 Canada 51,147
...
15 United States 48,147
(http://www.imf.org...)

So, which of those on the list have a "more free" economy than the U.S.? I'll grant possibly Australia, although they also have a national health care system.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 9:51:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 9:39:13 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.


That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

Singapore is pretty close to a state-run market economy. The government owns large portions of several industries.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.

Interesting assertion, here are some facts: Acording to the IMF these are the top ten countries in GDP per capita.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 122,272
2 Qatar 97,967
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
5 Australia 66,984
6 United Arab Emirates 66,625
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
9 Netherlands 51,410
10 Canada 51,147
...
15 United States 48,147
(http://www.imf.org...)

So, which of those on the list have a "more free" economy than the U.S.? I'll grant possibly Australia, although they also have a national health care system.

1 Liechtenstein
$ 141,100

2008 est.
2 Qatar
$ 102,700

2011 est.
3 Luxembourg
$ 84,700

2011 est.
4 Bermuda
$ 69,900

2004 est.
5 Singapore
$ 59,900

2011 est.
6 Jersey
$ 57,000

2005 est.
7 Norway
$ 53,300

2011 est.
8 Brunei
$ 49,400

2011 est.
9 Hong Kong
$ 49,300

2011 est.
10 United Arab Emirates
$ 48,500

2011 est.
11 United States
https://www.cia.gov...

I trust cia more... I was adding both stats in :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:06:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 9:51:09 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/12/2012 9:39:13 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.


That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

Singapore is pretty close to a state-run market economy. The government owns large portions of several industries.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.

Interesting assertion, here are some facts: Acording to the IMF these are the top ten countries in GDP per capita.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 122,272
2 Qatar 97,967
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
5 Australia 66,984
6 United Arab Emirates 66,625
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
9 Netherlands 51,410
10 Canada 51,147
...
15 United States 48,147
(http://www.imf.org...)

So, which of those on the list have a "more free" economy than the U.S.? I'll grant possibly Australia, although they also have a national health care system.

1 Liechtenstein
$ 141,100

2008 est.
2 Qatar
$ 102,700

2011 est.
3 Luxembourg
$ 84,700

2011 est.
4 Bermuda
$ 69,900

2004 est.
5 Singapore
$ 59,900

2011 est.
6 Jersey
$ 57,000

2005 est.
7 Norway
$ 53,300

2011 est.
8 Brunei
$ 49,400

2011 est.
9 Hong Kong
$ 49,300

2011 est.
10 United Arab Emirates
$ 48,500

2011 est.
11 United States
https://www.cia.gov...

I trust cia more... I was adding both stats in :)

It's not CIA vs. IMF, it's nominal vs. PPP, and you mixed years. You've also named a bunch of non-countries (if NYC were counted separately it would be ~#3), and you're still left with three categories: totalitarian oil exporters, foreign tax shelters that don't actually produce anything, and Norway.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:07:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 10:06:23 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/12/2012 9:51:09 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/12/2012 9:39:13 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.


That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

Singapore is pretty close to a state-run market economy. The government owns large portions of several industries.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.

Interesting assertion, here are some facts: Acording to the IMF these are the top ten countries in GDP per capita.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 122,272
2 Qatar 97,967
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
5 Australia 66,984
6 United Arab Emirates 66,625
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
9 Netherlands 51,410
10 Canada 51,147
...
15 United States 48,147
(http://www.imf.org...)

So, which of those on the list have a "more free" economy than the U.S.? I'll grant possibly Australia, although they also have a national health care system.

1 Liechtenstein
$ 141,100

2008 est.
2 Qatar
$ 102,700

2011 est.
3 Luxembourg
$ 84,700

2011 est.
4 Bermuda
$ 69,900

2004 est.
5 Singapore
$ 59,900

2011 est.
6 Jersey
$ 57,000

2005 est.
7 Norway
$ 53,300

2011 est.
8 Brunei
$ 49,400

2011 est.
9 Hong Kong
$ 49,300

2011 est.
10 United Arab Emirates
$ 48,500

2011 est.
11 United States
https://www.cia.gov...

I trust cia more... I was adding both stats in :)

It's not CIA vs. IMF, it's nominal vs. PPP, and you mixed years. You've also named a bunch of non-countries (if NYC were counted separately it would be ~#3), and you're still left with three categories: totalitarian oil exporters, foreign tax shelters that don't actually produce anything, and Norway.

oh well hong kong being there is good for jimtimmys case then :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:23:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not CIA vs. IMF, it's nominal vs. PPP, and you mixed years. You've also named a bunch of non-countries (if NYC were counted separately it would be ~#3), and you're still left with three categories: totalitarian oil exporters, foreign tax shelters that don't actually produce anything, and Norway.

oh well hong kong being there is good for jimtimmys case then :P

Yes, there are advantages to being a protectorate of a much larger economy.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:44:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 10:23:42 AM, Mimshot wrote:
It's not CIA vs. IMF, it's nominal vs. PPP, and you mixed years. You've also named a bunch of non-countries (if NYC were counted separately it would be ~#3), and you're still left with three categories: totalitarian oil exporters, foreign tax shelters that don't actually produce anything, and Norway.

oh well hong kong being there is good for jimtimmys case then :P

Yes, there are advantages to being a protectorate of a much larger economy.

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 11:25:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The common fault in these studies is that they do not include the cost of capital. They all involve paying more up font for something to get a later payback. Instead of putting the money into energy savings, it could have been invested in something elese that producers an even larger gain. Sometime the investment in energy savings pays, sometimes it doesn't.

There is another factor that is harder to evaluate. Insurance policies and lottery tickets make no sense based upon a strict investment accounting. The insurance company makes money on policies, and the state makes a lot of money on lottery tickets. In the case of insurance policies, the buyer is paying for transferring the risk of a large loss to the insurance company. In the case of a lottery ticket, the buyer is buying a small chance of a large gain, which is paying to take a risk.

Long term investments in energy savings lock money up tightly in the energy investment. You can sell investments in stocks or bonds, but energy investments are not liquid. You might need the money for something else, the price of energy might drop, and in a few years there might be something cheaper that saves even more energy. When the government mandates energy savings, they are forcing you to take risks that you may think unwise or to avoid risks that you actually want to take.

The principle of leftism is that the government will decide what is best, then pass laws to make sure you do what is best. The elite decides and you comply. Any objection to the principle produces the response: "But what we require really is best. Let me tell you one more time why it is best."

There are so many decisions as to what is best that elected representatives cannot consider and vote on each one. Instead, an army of bureaucrats must be built and maintained to do the task. For example, to answer the question of what is best in health care, we will have 129 new government agencies writing an expect 140,000 pages of regulations. A new profession will emerge whose job it is to determine whether or not you are complying.

The 72,000 pages of the tax code costs about $500B a year in user compliance costs. The purpose of the tax code is to reward government approved activities and punish disapproved activities.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 12:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 9:39:13 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:58:54 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/12/2012 8:18:07 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/7/2012 9:04:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
One more question, if state run economies are so much more efficient than market based ones, why have communism and socialism been such utter failures?

This is a very legitimite question that needs to be answered.

State run economy vs. Laissez-faire capitalism is a false dichotomy. All the countries that tried a completely unrestrained market failed also.


That is not true. In fact, the countries that are closest to a "completely unrestrained market" are some of the most successful. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Although, to be fair, Singapore does have a lot of state involvement in industry.

Singapore is pretty close to a state-run market economy. The government owns large portions of several industries.

But, Hong Kong is as close to a free market as any country and it is very successful.

It turns out that the more free an economy is, the more successful.

Interesting assertion, here are some facts: Acording to the IMF these are the top ten countries in GDP per capita.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 122,272
2 Qatar 97,967
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
5 Australia 66,984
6 United Arab Emirates 66,625
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
9 Netherlands 51,410
10 Canada 51,147
...
15 United States 48,147
(http://www.imf.org...)

So, which of those on the list have a "more free" economy than the U.S.? I'll grant possibly Australia, although they also have a national health care system.

You need to look at PPP not nominal. If you look at that, the US has much higher than all of those nations except for the oil rich countries and Luxembourg.
President of DDO
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 12:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 11:25:22 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Long term investments in energy savings lock money up tightly in the energy investment. You can sell investments in stocks or bonds, but energy investments are not liquid. You might need the money for something else, the price of energy might drop, and in a few years there might be something cheaper that saves even more energy. When the government mandates energy savings, they are forcing you to take risks that you may think unwise or to avoid risks that you actually want to take.

Investments do not lock up money. There are two parties to every transaction. When you pay a $10M to build a factory that money goes somewhere -- to the construction workers and suppliers, who then spend it on yet other things. No money disappears.

The principle of leftism is that the government will decide what is best, then pass laws to make sure you do what is best. The elite decides and you comply. Any objection to the principle produces the response: "But what we require really is best. Let me tell you one more time why it is best."

Strawman! We do, and should do most things on our own as individuals. Some things we do collectively (like run an army, a court system, and a school system). The debate in politics is in determining which things are better done collectively, and which are best left to individuals. Only the people at the extreme (left or right) fringe believe in a stateless society where there is no government fulfilling any collective purposes.

It's fine to disagree about which things are best left to the government vs. the private sector. However, please don't miss-characterize the positions of people who disagree with you. I can't recall ever hearing someone (seriously) say they wanted a nanny-state. See, I also oppose the fictional "lefties" you oppose.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes