Discussion:
Mining the moon
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-18 20:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.

Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?

Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits?"
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-18 20:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
Abhinav Lal
"Who benefits?"
The real money is in the asteroid belt.

Lynn
David Johnston
2020-01-19 01:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC.
You do not. No such agreement exists. The only thing they've agreed on
is that you can't put weapons on the Moon and you can't claim the whole
thing.
s***@yahoo.com
2020-01-19 03:51:49 UTC
Permalink
L-5 organization was very proud of having thwarted the moon treaty.


Nils
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 15:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
L-5 organization was very proud of having thwarted the moon treaty.
Is there a history of this written down someplace?

What "buzz phrases" might I search on to find it?

I recall reading something about it at the time. But I was
right smack in the middle of my PhD thesis, and barely had
time to wash and eat.
Alan Baker
2020-01-20 18:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
L-5 organization was very proud of having thwarted the moon treaty.
Is there a history of this written down someplace?
What "buzz phrases" might I search on to find it?
Hmmmmm...

"L-5 organization moon treaty"? Do you think?

<https://www.google.com/search?q=l-5+organization+moon+treaty&oq=l-5+organization+moon+treaty&aqs=chrome..69i57.14644j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8>
Post by p***@gmail.com
I recall reading something about it at the time. But I was
right smack in the middle of my PhD thesis, and barely had
time to wash and eat.
a425couple
2020-01-19 04:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone ---- . The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
"Who benefits?"
Nobody will benefit, if it (mining & development) is never done.

Development and extraction will not happen until a lot of
money is invested in it. So far it seems, governments
are not willing to do so. Private investors will only
do it if there is lure of a large profit.

So, how much profit are you willing to give the investors
before you expect to begin this 'sharing'?
If the chances look too slim, then war, outright theft,
or some other sneakery will be done.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-19 07:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone ---- . The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
"Who benefits?"
Nobody will benefit, if it (mining & development) is never done.
Development and extraction will not happen until a lot of
money is invested in it. So far it seems, governments
are not willing to do so. Private investors will only
do it if there is lure of a large profit.
So, how much profit are you willing to give the investors
before you expect to begin this 'sharing'?
If the chances look too slim, then war, outright theft,
or some other sneakery will be done.
This is one of the situations that calls for global cooperation, like the international space station. Funding can be provided by any nations, and technology by space faring nations or otherwise advanced nations.

Abhinav Lal

"I am only human"
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 03:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone ---- . The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
"Who benefits?"
Nobody will benefit, if it (mining & development) is never done.
Development and extraction will not happen until a lot of
money is invested in it. So far it seems, governments
are not willing to do so. Private investors will only
do it if there is lure of a large profit.
So, how much profit are you willing to give the investors
before you expect to begin this 'sharing'?
If the chances look too slim, then war, outright theft,
or some other sneakery will be done.
This is one of the situations that calls for global cooperation, like the international space station. Funding can be provided by any nations, and technology by space faring nations or otherwise advanced nations.
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 07:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone ---- . The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
"Who benefits?"
Nobody will benefit, if it (mining & development) is never done.
Development and extraction will not happen until a lot of
money is invested in it. So far it seems, governments
are not willing to do so. Private investors will only
do it if there is lure of a large profit.
So, how much profit are you willing to give the investors
before you expect to begin this 'sharing'?
If the chances look too slim, then war, outright theft,
or some other sneakery will be done.
This is one of the situations that calls for global cooperation, like the international space station. Funding can be provided by any nations, and technology by space faring nations or otherwise advanced nations.
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
I don't unconditionally love either government or private enterprise. As a MBA. I understand that business people mostly care about making a profit, and mostly have short time horizons - not more than five years.

To look decades into the future is rare, and requires deep pockets. Government also can be short sighted and focus on the next elections. But they do fund basic research, some of which can take a long time to deliver results.

I don't know the future. But if the moon is considered shared territory, and establishing a moon base requires serious investment, there is no easy solution. We may need some kind of joint venture or Public Private Partnership.

If a solo visionary entrepreneur can raise the funding, develop the technology, and execute the mission, I'm all for it.

Abhinav Lal

"The world belongs to all of us"
Paul S Person
2020-01-20 18:26:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.

Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 19:41:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:26:27 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.
Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
Sometimes something is worse than nothing. Between them the Space
Shuttle and the ISS cost 346 billion dollars. NASA estimated that
Shuttle launch cost was 450 million per launch, with a payload, not
including the orbiter, of about 60,000 pounds.

SpaceX has over its entire history spent less than 6 billion dollars.
It can in fully expendable mode launch about 2.3 times what the Space
Shuttle could carry, or launch the same payload for about 90 million
dollars. It can also deliver astronats to the ISS for $160 million
per launch. It is currently working on a project to orbit a volume
equal to that of the entire ISS for $2 million and the entire mass of
the ISS in 5 launches at a cost of about 10 million total. If it
costs Spacex twice as much to develop Starship/Super Heavy as their
entire income stream to date, that's 12 billion.

So for 18 billion plus 10 million in launch costs there's a system
that can do anything the Space Shuttle could do, including orbit ISS
modules. That leaves 328 billion to develop the modules. Currently
Bigelow is estimating that their BA2100 module will sell for 500
million dollars. Let's make it a billion. Fly it on Super Heavy that
adds 2 million to the cost. Now you've got something up that's three
times the size of the ISS that you can start building on.

The Gateway Foundation space station requires 28 inflatable
modules--call it 30 billion delivered. How much will it cost to put
together the framework to support them in a wheel configuration? I
have no idea. But you've got 298 billion left to work on it. And
bear in mind that instead of having the crew of a space shuttle to
work with, once the habs are up you'll have lodgings for up to 400
workers.

So is the "something" that we have really better than the "something"
that we could have had if NASA hadn't been so focused on stunts?
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 21:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:26:27 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.
Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
Sometimes something is worse than nothing. Between them the Space
Shuttle and the ISS cost 346 billion dollars. NASA estimated that
Shuttle launch cost was 450 million per launch, with a payload, not
including the orbiter, of about 60,000 pounds.
SpaceX has over its entire history spent less than 6 billion dollars.
It can in fully expendable mode launch about 2.3 times what the Space
Shuttle could carry, or launch the same payload for about 90 million
dollars. It can also deliver astronats to the ISS for $160 million
per launch.
A few years ago I checked that the Russians were charging USD 70 million to send people in to orbit. When the Indians start spending people into space it will also probably be cheaper than USD 160 million.

Abhinav Lal

"Know your facts"


It is currently working on a project to orbit a volume
Post by J. Clarke
equal to that of the entire ISS for $2 million and the entire mass of
the ISS in 5 launches at a cost of about 10 million total. If it
costs Spacex twice as much to develop Starship/Super Heavy as their
entire income stream to date, that's 12 billion.
So for 18 billion plus 10 million in launch costs there's a system
that can do anything the Space Shuttle could do, including orbit ISS
modules. That leaves 328 billion to develop the modules. Currently
Bigelow is estimating that their BA2100 module will sell for 500
million dollars. Let's make it a billion. Fly it on Super Heavy that
adds 2 million to the cost. Now you've got something up that's three
times the size of the ISS that you can start building on.
The Gateway Foundation space station requires 28 inflatable
modules--call it 30 billion delivered. How much will it cost to put
together the framework to support them in a wheel configuration? I
have no idea. But you've got 298 billion left to work on it. And
bear in mind that instead of having the crew of a space shuttle to
work with, once the habs are up you'll have lodgings for up to 400
workers.
So is the "something" that we have really better than the "something"
that we could have had if NASA hadn't been so focused on stunts?
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 23:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:26:27 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.
Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
Sometimes something is worse than nothing. Between them the Space
Shuttle and the ISS cost 346 billion dollars. NASA estimated that
Shuttle launch cost was 450 million per launch, with a payload, not
including the orbiter, of about 60,000 pounds.
SpaceX has over its entire history spent less than 6 billion dollars.
It can in fully expendable mode launch about 2.3 times what the Space
Shuttle could carry, or launch the same payload for about 90 million
dollars. It can also deliver astronats to the ISS for $160 million
per launch.
A few years ago I checked that the Russians were charging USD 70 million to send people in to orbit.
That's 70 million a seat. Crew Dragon has 7 seats.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When the Indians start spending people into space it will also probably be cheaper than USD 160 million.
Per seat?

Seems to have escaped your awareness that SpaceX has the lowest launch
costs in the world for payloads the size they launch, and beat out a
lot of much smaller launch vehicles.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Know your facts"
Follow your own advice.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 01:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:26:27 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.
Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
Sometimes something is worse than nothing. Between them the Space
Shuttle and the ISS cost 346 billion dollars. NASA estimated that
Shuttle launch cost was 450 million per launch, with a payload, not
including the orbiter, of about 60,000 pounds.
SpaceX has over its entire history spent less than 6 billion dollars.
It can in fully expendable mode launch about 2.3 times what the Space
Shuttle could carry, or launch the same payload for about 90 million
dollars. It can also deliver astronats to the ISS for $160 million
per launch.
A few years ago I checked that the Russians were charging USD 70 million to send people in to orbit.
That's 70 million a seat. Crew Dragon has 7 seats.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When the Indians start spending people into space it will also probably be cheaper than USD 160 million.
Per seat?
Seems to have escaped your awareness that SpaceX has the lowest launch
costs in the world for payloads the size they launch, and beat out a
lot of much smaller launch vehicles.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Know your facts"
Follow your own advice.
Thanks for the clarification. Can you clarify if they are using any technology that was first developed by the government? Are they using ex NASA or other government trained engineers or scientists? Did government pay for their services, and so encourage their development?

Where were the entrepreneurs doing during the dawn of the space age?

If entrepreneurs can provide quality space travel at a lower cost, I am all for it.

Abhinav Lal

"Transparency and accountability"
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 08:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:26:27 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:50 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
The International Space Station has been a grossly overpriced
boondoggle. Some time in the next several years SpaceX is going to
put something up with as much habitable volume, for a fraction of the
cost, and then bring it back home and fly it again. While the
all-powerful government that you love so much is just wasting more
billions trying to reinvent the wheel.
Would that it were a wheel, as described in books and shown in films
in the 60s, 50s, 40s ... but, alas, it is not.
Still, something is better than nothing. And, since it will inevitably
get replaced eventually, a wheel may yet appear.
Sometimes something is worse than nothing. Between them the Space
Shuttle and the ISS cost 346 billion dollars. NASA estimated that
Shuttle launch cost was 450 million per launch, with a payload, not
including the orbiter, of about 60,000 pounds.
SpaceX has over its entire history spent less than 6 billion dollars.
It can in fully expendable mode launch about 2.3 times what the Space
Shuttle could carry, or launch the same payload for about 90 million
dollars. It can also deliver astronats to the ISS for $160 million
per launch.
A few years ago I checked that the Russians were charging USD 70 million to send people in to orbit.
That's 70 million a seat. Crew Dragon has 7 seats.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When the Indians start spending people into space it will also probably be cheaper than USD 160 million.
Per seat?
Seems to have escaped your awareness that SpaceX has the lowest launch
costs in the world for payloads the size they launch, and beat out a
lot of much smaller launch vehicles.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Know your facts"
Follow your own advice.
Thanks for the clarification. Can you clarify if they are using any technology that was first developed by the government? Are they using ex NASA or other government trained engineers or scientists? Did government pay for their services, and so encourage their development?
SpaceX achieved orbit with their own resources. Once they achieved
orbit then the government was willing to give them contracts to
provide various services that the government wanted. I have no idea
where their staff was trained, however NASA can't do what SpaceX does,
so they didn't learn how to do it from NASA, and their new engine
designs are of types that NASA has never even attempted.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Where were the entrepreneurs doing during the dawn of the space age?
Working on designs that might have actually been useful but wouldn't
get a man on the Moon in 10 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If entrepreneurs can provide quality space travel at a lower cost, I am all for it.
Abhinav Lal
"Transparency and accountability"
a425couple
2020-01-20 18:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a425couple
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone ---- . The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
"Who benefits?"
Nobody will benefit, if it (mining & development) is never done.
Development and extraction will not happen until a lot of
money is invested in it. So far it seems, governments
are not willing to do so. Private investors will only
do it if there is lure of a large profit.
So, how much profit are you willing to give the investors
before you expect to begin this 'sharing'?
If the chances look too slim, then war, outright theft,
or some other sneakery will be done.
This is one of the situations that calls for global cooperation,
like the international space station. Funding can be provided
by any nations, and technology by space faring nations or
otherwise advanced nations.
Abhinav Lal
"I am only human"
It strikes me that you are urging the chorus to sing "Kumbia",
but nobody is doing it because they have seen that it goes
nowhere and accomplishes nothing.

Look at facts. Man first went into space in 1961,
(refresh your mind on "2001 a Space Odyssey" made in 1968)
and without the big financial push of cold war military,
all we have done on space and science is the ISS.
What is that? (6 people at a time, research only???)

If we accept democracy, we see that the majority of the
citizens are not interesting in large portions of
their tax money being spent on space exploration.

While we do have a few ultra wealthy individual citizens
who can by themselves fund explorations, and perhaps
they see that exploitation for a profit is possible.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-19 10:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-19 19:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.

Abhinav Lal

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 03:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.

As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 11:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research. They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners. They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.

Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.

Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business. Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits?"
Peter Trei
2020-01-20 17:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research. They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners. They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business. Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
Abhinav Lal
"Who benefits?"
Those who dare, and invest, of course. At least in a just world.

India signed but did not ratify the Moon treaty. The US, China, and Russia are not parties to it, and not bound by it.

Pt
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 22:04:30 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:34:35 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research. They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners. They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
They have a longer view? Do they now. And the next
election is how far away?

They look out for "all citizens"? Do they now. And the difference
between winners and losers in the last election was what percent?

They require a lower return on investment? And this is automatically
a good thing? Shoveling money into a burning barn such as the ISS
seems like a good thing?

When a person such as Burt Ruttan does things, do you suppose he
is considering something like how his children will spend their
lives? Or maybe his grand children?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
Yep. There is government corruption. And the most likely way to
generate such is through some huge program of lucrative projects.
In the 1960s NASA was the only ride in town. Now, people write
filk songs about how they are keeping us from getting off this rock.

Meanwhile, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have shown that
the number one thing to produce corruption in government is to give
them lots of money. The more cash a government has the more likely
they are to find horrible ways to spend it in order to stay in power.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business. Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
Terence Kealey has shown quite convincingly that if the government
gets out of these things, the net amount of money spent on science
will increase by 50%. With far fewer constraints and restrictions.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312173067?pf_rd_p=2d1ab404-3b11-4c97-b3db-48081e145e35

Why? Because a private company must find ways to motivate researchers.
And it turns out that part of that is money. But a large part comes
under the heading "academic freedom." So when a private company wants
research done they must bring the money, and they must bring the
permissions as well.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-20 22:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research. They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners. They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
They have a longer view? Do they now. And the next
election is how far away?
It takes a long time to get a return on spending on infrastructure. Of course they care about elections too.

In USA the current government has a short term view. But in countries like China, they have a longer term view.

The countries that care about the environment and climate, have a longer term view. They have to force businesses to stop polluting, like they do with plastic and carbon.
Post by p***@gmail.com
They look out for "all citizens"? Do they now. And the difference
between winners and losers in the last election was what percent?
The government represents all citizens, and provides public services like infrastructure, healthcare - in many countries.
Post by p***@gmail.com
They require a lower return on investment? And this is automatically
a good thing? Shoveling money into a burning barn such as the ISS
seems like a good thing?
Businesses only care about making the largest profit for investors. They don't care about the long term environmental damage they cause. With lower returns, government can better protect the environment.
Post by p***@gmail.com
When a person such as Burt Ruttan does things, do you suppose he
is considering something like how his children will spend their
lives? Or maybe his grand children?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
Yep. There is government corruption. And the most likely way to
generate such is through some huge program of lucrative projects.
In the 1960s NASA was the only ride in town. Now, people write
filk songs about how they are keeping us from getting off this rock.
Meanwhile, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have shown that
the number one thing to produce corruption in government is to give
them lots of money. The more cash a government has the more likely
they are to find horrible ways to spend it in order to stay in power.
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business. Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
Terence Kealey has shown quite convincingly that if the government
gets out of these things, the net amount of money spent on science
will increase by 50%. With far fewer constraints and restrictions.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312173067?pf_rd_p=2d1ab404-3b11-4c97-b3db-48081e145e35
Why? Because a private company must find ways to motivate researchers.
And it turns out that part of that is money. But a large part comes
under the heading "academic freedom." So when a private company wants
research done they must bring the money, and they must bring the
permissions as well.
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.

What we need is not less government, but more transparent government.

Do you have any training or experience in government or business?

Abhinav Lal

"Who do you serve?"
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 16:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:41:04 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.

It has been observed that, were a foreign power to impose the
current system of education on the USA, it would be considered
an international war crime.

Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. Brute, raw,
physical violence kind of force. Guns and tanks and bombs.
In any society the government is that portion that can force
you to do what they say. Up to and including killing you or
imprisoning you.

The cop on the corner, the army guy in the tank at the military
base, the customs guard at the border, the guard in a prison.
That's the government.

Do you really want such entities running your school? Your
hospital? Your university? Your physics lab? Imagine an on-duty,
uniform wearing, gun and badge displaying, police officer.
Now imagine him running a daycare. Not a good image? Then
you don't want the government running daycare. How about a
supermarket? A surgery in a hospital? A physics class.
"You will do this physics homework question the way I instructed
or you will be arrested and jailed." Bad image? Then you
don't want the government in your physics labs.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2020-01-21 18:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It has been observed that, were a foreign power to impose the
current system of education on the USA, it would be considered
an international war crime.
Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. Brute, raw,
physical violence kind of force. Guns and tanks and bombs.
In any society the government is that portion that can force
you to do what they say. Up to and including killing you or
imprisoning you.
The cop on the corner, the army guy in the tank at the military
base, the customs guard at the border, the guard in a prison.
That's the government.
Do you really want such entities running your school? Your
hospital? Your university? Your physics lab? Imagine an on-duty,
uniform wearing, gun and badge displaying, police officer.
Now imagine him running a daycare. Not a good image? Then
you don't want the government running daycare. How about a
supermarket? A surgery in a hospital? A physics class.
"You will do this physics homework question the way I instructed
or you will be arrested and jailed." Bad image? Then you
don't want the government in your physics labs.
Wow. Now who's taking their beliefs and waving them around like a loony?

I mean sure, that's all pretty true for the US govt. Others are not so asinine
(admittedly it's a low bar). Plus even at home there's the other 90% of what a
government does that you're completely ignoring.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Tomorrow (noun) - A mystical land where 99 per cent of all human
productivity, motivation and achievement is stored.
-- http://thedoghousediaries.com/3474
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 20:51:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:24:17 PM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
[snip]
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Wow. Now who's taking their beliefs and waving them around like a loony?
You.
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
I mean sure, that's all pretty true for the US govt. Others are not so asinine
(admittedly it's a low bar). Plus even at home there's the other 90% of what a
government does that you're completely ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that it is immoral,
it does not work, and it kills people. And it does not
even achieve the ends for which it is touted. Indeed, in
most cases, it is diametrically opposed to the claimed ends.
Alan Baker
2020-01-21 22:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Wow. Now who's taking their beliefs and waving them around like a loony?
You.
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
I mean sure, that's all pretty true for the US govt. Others are not so asinine
(admittedly it's a low bar). Plus even at home there's the other 90% of what a
government does that you're completely ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that it is immoral,
it does not work, and it kills people. And it does not
even achieve the ends for which it is touted. Indeed, in
most cases, it is diametrically opposed to the claimed ends.
So you're basically claiming that "the other 90%" of what government
does is immoral... ...in addition to your orginal 10%?

Sorry, mate, but you're a loony.
James Nicoll
2020-01-21 18:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA.
Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public
services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
Ah ha ha ha oh wait you're serious.

FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Paul S Person
2020-01-22 17:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA.
Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public
services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
Ah ha ha ha oh wait you're serious.
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
I'm not sure about the present situation but, in the past, I got a lot
of packages from Amazon that were shipped to the local area by UPS or
FedEx and then handed over to the USPS to complete the delivery.

And, anyway, I would think someone who constantly shipped packages to
customers, at least, would choose the carrier by cost and transit
time, not brand name.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2020-01-22 18:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by James Nicoll
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA.
Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public
services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
Ah ha ha ha oh wait you're serious.
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
I'm not sure about the present situation but, in the past, I got a lot
of packages from Amazon that were shipped to the local area by UPS or
FedEx and then handed over to the USPS to complete the delivery.
And, anyway, I would think someone who constantly shipped packages to
customers, at least, would choose the carrier by cost and transit
time, not brand name.
The service in question.

https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/fedex-smartpost.html

Competing service from United Parcel:

https://www.upsmailinnovations.com/

These are less expensive, and slower, than the ground services
offered by both carriers, but they have the advantages of bring
eligible for delivery to USPS P.O. Boxes. Also, in the case of
shipment to street addresses, if a hold is put on mail, as folks
sometimes do while traveling, the package won't sit on the
doorstep for a week until the family comes back home.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 01:22:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:57:14 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by James Nicoll
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA.
Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public
services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
Ah ha ha ha oh wait you're serious.
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
I'm not sure about the present situation but, in the past, I got a lot
of packages from Amazon that were shipped to the local area by UPS or
FedEx and then handed over to the USPS to complete the delivery.
And, anyway, I would think someone who constantly shipped packages to
customers, at least, would choose the carrier by cost and transit
time, not brand name.
And I've never had a FedEx driver fake the delivery. I understand
though that quantities of Amazon packages have been found in
dumpsters--there's a reason Amazon now makes their drivers take a
picture of the delivered package. Of course one of them showed a
picture of the package in the mailbox with the flag up, so it took a
while for the postal service to redeliver it.
Paul S Person
2020-01-23 17:58:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:22:59 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:57:14 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by James Nicoll
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA.
Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public
services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
Ah ha ha ha oh wait you're serious.
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
I'm not sure about the present situation but, in the past, I got a lot
of packages from Amazon that were shipped to the local area by UPS or
FedEx and then handed over to the USPS to complete the delivery.
And, anyway, I would think someone who constantly shipped packages to
customers, at least, would choose the carrier by cost and transit
time, not brand name.
And I've never had a FedEx driver fake the delivery. I understand
though that quantities of Amazon packages have been found in
dumpsters--there's a reason Amazon now makes their drivers take a
picture of the delivered package. Of course one of them showed a
picture of the package in the mailbox with the flag up, so it took a
while for the postal service to redeliver it.
I actually saw one doing that recently. It should also help with those
"the package never showed up" complaints -- not to dismiss them, but
to suggest getting the police involved, as theft now appears probable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 18:45:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:36:40 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
[snip]
Post by James Nicoll
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
Postal service people routinely steal the mail. How many times
have you been told not to send valuables or cash through the mail?
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 01:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by James Nicoll
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
Postal service people routinely steal the mail. How many times
have you been told not to send valuables or cash through the mail?
You don't send cash through the mail because it encourages theft, not
just by postal workers.
Paul S Person
2020-01-23 18:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by James Nicoll
FedEx drivers routinely lie about attempting deliveries and there are
large swaths of the country FedEx charges extra to deliver to. I don't
know if it is still the case but it used to be FedEx serviced sufficently
remote regions by handing the package to Canada Post.
Postal service people routinely steal the mail. How many times
have you been told not to send valuables or cash through the mail?
It isn't "routine" and the reason you /don't send cash/ is because, if
the person you are sending it to claims it never arrived, /you have no
receipt/. You use a check because the check (well, it's image, anyway)
comes back and /is/ a receipt. And, if it /doesn't/ come back, you can
replace it with a new one and be out only the cost of the second
attempt to pay.

Valuables can be sent by mail, but you would be well-advised to insure
them, just in case -- no matter how they are sent. Items you don't
send by mail exist, but are mostly toxic, explosive, or illegal.

So far as I know, the Postal Inspectors are still active. They tend to
respond to such cases. And publicize the results, which encourages the
others to continue behaving properly.

Back in the sixties, one of our colleagues was arrested when the
Inspectors sent /an open envelope stuffed with cash/ down the line he
was working -- and he grabbed it. How obvious can a setup possibly be?
What can I say about it except "stupid is as stupid does"?

When I was unloading the trucks and one of the other team members saw
a wallet, bulging with cash, on the dock I went to the manager,
reported the find, and suggested the Inspectors needed to come and
retrieve their their bait.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2020-01-23 01:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
OK. Fedex sucks. It costs 10 times as much and because I live in a
small town I have to drive 50 miles to make any use of it
Paul S Person
2020-01-23 18:12:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:15:20 -0700, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
OK. Fedex sucks. It costs 10 times as much and because I live in a
small town I have to drive 50 miles to make any use of it
In a city, Fedex is now working.

20 years ago, though, it was focused on business, not home,
deliveries.

When I ordered my first scanner online, they sent it Fedex. I got a
notice on the door on a Thursday. I called the number and requested
that they not try to deliver until the following Monday, as the notice
said they would make /only one more attempt before sending it back/
and I was going to home Monday. But the guy I talked to treated it
like a big joke, so I filled out the form and put it on the door.

You must understand that this was a large, prominent notice, printed
in bright red, which essentially said:

Attention theives! Important package arriving today!

Nonetheless, it worked: the scanner was right in the middle of the
porch when I got home. Which is the good news. The not-so-great news
is that the porch had solid 3-ft-high walls on it, so it /could/ have
been put in a corner so as to be invisible from the street. But, no,
this was placed in plain sight of any thief that came along.

But, as I say, that was 20 years ago and since that time they have
/definitely/ improved.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 01:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
Post by p***@gmail.com
It has been observed that, were a foreign power to impose the
current system of education on the USA, it would be considered
an international war crime.
Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force. Brute, raw,
physical violence kind of force. Guns and tanks and bombs.
In any society the government is that portion that can force
you to do what they say. Up to and including killing you or
imprisoning you.
If government shouldn't run the legal system, who should? In USA how many people do private citizens kill - how does it compare to police killings. The best thing would be to outlaw weapons like guns.

I am also against imprisonment, or punishment. People found guilty of crimes should be given community service.



Abhinav Lal

"Man kills, God forgives"
Post by p***@gmail.com
The cop on the corner, the army guy in the tank at the military
base, the customs guard at the border, the guard in a prison.
That's the government.
Do you really want such entities running your school? Your
hospital? Your university? Your physics lab? Imagine an on-duty,
uniform wearing, gun and badge displaying, police officer.
Now imagine him running a daycare. Not a good image? Then
you don't want the government running daycare. How about a
supermarket? A surgery in a hospital? A physics class.
"You will do this physics homework question the way I instructed
or you will be arrested and jailed." Bad image? Then you
don't want the government in your physics labs.
Paul S Person
2020-01-23 18:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.

Now we have Republicans in charge.

Even in Kansas, the roads are deteriorating.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 23:06:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:13:39 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
Now we have Republicans in charge.
Even in Kansas, the roads are deteriorating.
We have Democrats in charge, and not only are the roads deteriorating
but so is everything else while the taxes continue to increase.
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 22:51:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:53:18 -0800, Paul S Person
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:06:51 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:13:39 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
Now we have Republicans in charge.
Even in Kansas, the roads are deteriorating.
We have Democrats in charge, and not only are the roads deteriorating
but so is everything else while the taxes continue to increase.
Sorry, in Kansas, the Republicans got in.
Then they reduced state income taxes on rich people.
Then they ran out of money (funny how that works, isn't it?) and the
roads declined.
Or so I have read.
That's nice. I'm not in Kansas. Democrats are in charge here. So
what's the excuse?
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-24 02:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
When I was studying and working in USA in the nineties, I drove from Florida to Illinois to take a job. I found Illinois too cold, and later drove from Illinois to California. I found the roads to be in good condition. Have things seriously deteriorated in the last two decades?

Poor maintenance?

Abhinav Lal

"Who's responsible?"
Post by Paul S Person
Now we have Republicans in charge.
Even in Kansas, the roads are deteriorating.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-01-24 17:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
When I was studying and working in USA in the nineties, I drove from Florida to Illinois to take a job. I found Illinois too cold, and later drove from Illinois to California. I found the roads to be in good condition. Have things seriously deteriorated in the last two decades?
Poor maintenance?
Abhinav Lal
"Who's responsible?"
This is the Age of Trump.

Nobody is responsible.

For anything.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Woodward
2020-01-24 05:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Peter Trei
2020-01-24 17:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.

https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#

pt

either a high flat rate
Paul S Person
2020-01-24 17:58:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
pt
either a high flat rate
I suspect, unless Congress was unusually prescient, a similar problem
with /payroll taxes/ and /replacement of human workers with robots/.

Some people are talking about a per-mile tax. Which would at least hit
electric car and (if the gas prices are reduced properly[1])
non-electric car owners equally, however wierd it may sound otherwise.

[1] The thing to watch for with new and innovative forms of taxation
is: what tax, if any, covers that area now, and will it be /replaced/
by the new tax or simply left to soldier on?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 22:52:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:58:40 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
pt
either a high flat rate
I suspect, unless Congress was unusually prescient, a similar problem
with /payroll taxes/ and /replacement of human workers with robots/.
Some people are talking about a per-mile tax. Which would at least hit
electric car and (if the gas prices are reduced properly[1])
non-electric car owners equally, however wierd it may sound otherwise.
There's a certain resistance to having our movements tracked with that
degree of precision.
Post by Paul S Person
[1] The thing to watch for with new and innovative forms of taxation
is: what tax, if any, covers that area now, and will it be /replaced/
by the new tax or simply left to soldier on?
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 23:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:58:40 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
pt
either a high flat rate
I suspect, unless Congress was unusually prescient, a similar problem
with /payroll taxes/ and /replacement of human workers with robots/.
Some people are talking about a per-mile tax. Which would at least hit
electric car and (if the gas prices are reduced properly[1])
non-electric car owners equally, however wierd it may sound otherwise.
There's a certain resistance to having our movements tracked with that
degree of precision.
Post by Paul S Person
[1] The thing to watch for with new and innovative forms of taxation
is: what tax, if any, covers that area now, and will it be /replaced/
by the new tax or simply left to soldier on?
By whom ? We are already being tracked. Google sent me an email the
other day asking me to rate the 19 restaurants that I visited in
November. It gave me dates and times.

BTW, Google is selling that tracking data to the FBI and NSA.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2020-01-25 17:42:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:52:41 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:58:40 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
pt
either a high flat rate
I suspect, unless Congress was unusually prescient, a similar problem
with /payroll taxes/ and /replacement of human workers with robots/.
Some people are talking about a per-mile tax. Which would at least hit
electric car and (if the gas prices are reduced properly[1])
non-electric car owners equally, however wierd it may sound otherwise.
There's a certain resistance to having our movements tracked with that
degree of precision.
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.

But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.

In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
[1] The thing to watch for with new and innovative forms of taxation
is: what tax, if any, covers that area now, and will it be /replaced/
by the new tax or simply left to soldier on?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-01-25 19:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:52:41 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:58:40 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:41:35 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
pt
either a high flat rate
I suspect, unless Congress was unusually prescient, a similar problem
with /payroll taxes/ and /replacement of human workers with robots/.
Some people are talking about a per-mile tax. Which would at least hit
electric car and (if the gas prices are reduced properly[1])
non-electric car owners equally, however wierd it may sound otherwise.
There's a certain resistance to having our movements tracked with that
degree of precision.
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...

...but not in the USA or Canada.

;-)
Jay E. Morris
2020-01-25 22:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections

Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming

Rest require some form of one.
Alan Baker
2020-01-25 22:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Florida
    Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
1. No. Only 15 require a SAFETY inspection. The rest only require an
emissions inspection.

2. Only 11 require an ANNUAL safety inspection. The other 4 are biennial.
Jay E. Morris
2020-01-26 00:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
     Alaska
     Arkansas
     Iowa
     Michigan
     Minnesota
     Mississippi
     Montana
     North Dakota
     South Carolina
     South Dakota
     Florida
     Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
1. No. Only 15 require a SAFETY inspection. The rest only require an
emissions inspection.
2. Only 11 require an ANNUAL safety inspection. The other 4 are biennial.
My fault. Having never lived in a state with only a VIN or emission
inspection I had assumed it was part of a safety inspection.
Alan Baker
2020-01-26 01:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
     Alaska
     Arkansas
     Iowa
     Michigan
     Minnesota
     Mississippi
     Montana
     North Dakota
     South Carolina
     South Dakota
     Florida
     Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
1. No. Only 15 require a SAFETY inspection. The rest only require an
emissions inspection.
2. Only 11 require an ANNUAL safety inspection. The other 4 are biennial.
My fault. Having never lived in a state with only a VIN or emission
inspection I had assumed it was part of a safety inspection.
No worries... ;-)
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 15:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Florida
    Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
1. No. Only 15 require a SAFETY inspection. The rest only require an
emissions inspection.
2. Only 11 require an ANNUAL safety inspection. The other 4 are biennial.
Doesn't matter. They still collect the odometer reading, which is all
that is needed to charge a per-mile tax.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2020-01-27 15:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Florida
    Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
1. No. Only 15 require a SAFETY inspection. The rest only require an
emissions inspection.
2. Only 11 require an ANNUAL safety inspection. The other 4 are biennial.
Doesn't matter. They still collect the odometer reading, which is all
that is needed to charge a per-mile tax.
In SC, the only reason for the government to ever have your odometer reading
is if you ask for the "high milage" deduction on your vehicle property tax.
Otherwise they don't care. In fact, I don't even know the milage on one
of my cars because the odometer rolled over before I inherited it. Maybe
once, maybe twice..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
2020-01-25 23:17:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Florida did away with inspection? I haven't lived there since some
time in the '80s but back then they were required. They were a joke
but they were required.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-26 03:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Florida
    Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
No safety inspection in Texas anymore. Just an annual emission
inspection after the first two years.

Lynn
Jay E. Morris
2020-01-26 14:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual
inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
     Alaska
     Arkansas
     Iowa
     Michigan
     Minnesota
     Mississippi
     Montana
     North Dakota
     South Carolina
     South Dakota
     Florida
     Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
No safety inspection in Texas anymore.  Just an annual emission
inspection after the first two years.
Lynn
There was a bill in 2015 to remove the requirement but it failed to get
out of the calendar committee. Seventeen counties require emission
testings. Those are the ones the EPA has a problem with.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/vi/
Paul S Person
2020-01-26 17:24:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.

And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.

Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.

Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?

Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?

As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Peter Trei
2020-01-26 17:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.
And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.
Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.
Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?
Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?
As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
The goal (from an engineering standpoint at least - politics may think
different) is to find a proxy for the amount of damage a given vehicle does
to the road, and tax it proportionately.

If everything uses ICE engines, fuel taxes are pretty good - the amount of
energy a vehicle expends probably tracks road damage fairly closely. Big
18 wheelers reportedly cause more than their consumption indicates, but
taxing them 'fairly' would pass on costs to everyone, not just drivers
(politics, again).

A tire tax can do the same, but needs to be modified for differing wear rates
and leftover tread on tires turned in.

A mileage tax (factored with weight) would be good, except that it requires a
method to gather the data (annual inspections/registrations are not universal)
and some states want apportionment, which can only be done by intrusive
tracking.

There's no perfect solution.

pt
J. Clarke
2020-01-26 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.
And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.
Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.
Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?
Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?
As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
The goal (from an engineering standpoint at least - politics may think
different) is to find a proxy for the amount of damage a given vehicle does
to the road, and tax it proportionately.
If everything uses ICE engines, fuel taxes are pretty good - the amount of
energy a vehicle expends probably tracks road damage fairly closely. Big
18 wheelers reportedly cause more than their consumption indicates, but
taxing them 'fairly' would pass on costs to everyone, not just drivers
(politics, again).
A tire tax can do the same, but needs to be modified for differing wear rates
and leftover tread on tires turned in.
A mileage tax (factored with weight) would be good, except that it requires a
method to gather the data (annual inspections/registrations are not universal)
and some states want apportionment, which can only be done by intrusive
tracking.
There's no perfect solution.
We could just accept that good roads are a benefit to everybody
(including the non-driver who needs urgently to be transported to a
hospital) rather than continuing with the fiction that they are only
beneficial to those who operate motor vehicles.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-26 21:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.
And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.
Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.
Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?
Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?
As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
The goal (from an engineering standpoint at least - politics may think
different) is to find a proxy for the amount of damage a given vehicle does
to the road, and tax it proportionately.
If everything uses ICE engines, fuel taxes are pretty good - the amount of
energy a vehicle expends probably tracks road damage fairly closely. Big
18 wheelers reportedly cause more than their consumption indicates, but
taxing them 'fairly' would pass on costs to everyone, not just drivers
(politics, again).
A tire tax can do the same, but needs to be modified for differing wear rates
and leftover tread on tires turned in.
A mileage tax (factored with weight) would be good, except that it requires a
method to gather the data (annual inspections/registrations are not universal)
and some states want apportionment, which can only be done by intrusive
tracking.
There's no perfect solution.
We could just accept that good roads are a benefit to everybody
(including the non-driver who needs urgently to be transported to a
hospital) rather than continuing with the fiction that they are only
beneficial to those who operate motor vehicles.
Roads are mostly /consumed/ by heavier vehicles.
Like the one with President Trump in it.

On tracking... here is what's now mandatory safety
equipment in Europe:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall>
Peter Trei
2020-01-27 05:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.
And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.
Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.
Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?
Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?
As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
The goal (from an engineering standpoint at least - politics may think
different) is to find a proxy for the amount of damage a given vehicle does
to the road, and tax it proportionately.
If everything uses ICE engines, fuel taxes are pretty good - the amount of
energy a vehicle expends probably tracks road damage fairly closely. Big
18 wheelers reportedly cause more than their consumption indicates, but
taxing them 'fairly' would pass on costs to everyone, not just drivers
(politics, again).
A tire tax can do the same, but needs to be modified for differing wear rates
and leftover tread on tires turned in.
A mileage tax (factored with weight) would be good, except that it requires a
method to gather the data (annual inspections/registrations are not universal)
and some states want apportionment, which can only be done by intrusive
tracking.
There's no perfect solution.
We could just accept that good roads are a benefit to everybody
(including the non-driver who needs urgently to be transported to a
hospital) rather than continuing with the fiction that they are only
beneficial to those who operate motor vehicles.
Roads are mostly /consumed/ by heavier vehicles.
Like the one with President Trump in it.
On tracking... here is what's now mandatory safety
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall>
If I'm reading right, that only activates when a probable accident is detected. It a bit
different from. constant tracking to determine when a car crosses a state line.

Pt
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-27 03:48:05 UTC
Permalink
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

[taxes to pay for roads]
Post by J. Clarke
We could just accept that good roads are a benefit to everybody
(including the non-driver who needs urgently to be transported to a
hospital) rather than continuing with the fiction that they are only
beneficial to those who operate motor vehicles.
Non-drivers also need to eat, and few grow all their own food.

Problem is, drivers want a lot spent on roads, more than taxpayers in
general want to pay. (This is a major feature of politics in my
state - not in yours?) Gas taxes are meant to cover the difference,
but no longer seem fair.

What would be the downsides of a Libertarian solution to this? Most
obviously, since we're not going to see vast new amounts of land
dedicated to roads, there's the issue of privatising public property
without spectacular corruption. But this is the kind of problem that
just seems to beg for a market solution.

-- JLB
Paul S Person
2020-01-27 17:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:51:27 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:49:39 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:08:20 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Since I don't own a car, I haven't been paying a lot of attention.
But I do seem to recall that automobiles come with odometers, and must
undergo annual safety inspections to get their tabs. Miles travelled
in the last year (or so, the inspections are, surely, not always on
the same day of the year) should, therefor, be easily available.
In fact, it may even be available /now/, just not utilized.
There might be some jurisdictions where cars require annual inspections...
...but not in the USA or Canada.
;-)
States without safety, emissions, or VIN inspections
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Wyoming
Rest require some form of one.
Thanks for the list.
And to those who produced additional clarifications downthread.
Well, the only /other/ option is universal GPS tracking.
Let's see now -- which is likely to work better politically? An annual
inspection to capture mileage or universal GPS tracking?
Or maybe a required transponder that reports mileage (but nothing
else) automatically?
As I noted above, I have no vehicle, I do not drive, and so I have no
particular opinion, although the transponder (once every vehicle has
one) /would/ be less intrusive -- provided, of course, that it's use
is carefully controlled. Say once a year at a designated point?
The goal (from an engineering standpoint at least - politics may think
different) is to find a proxy for the amount of damage a given vehicle does
to the road, and tax it proportionately.
If everything uses ICE engines, fuel taxes are pretty good - the amount of
energy a vehicle expends probably tracks road damage fairly closely. Big
18 wheelers reportedly cause more than their consumption indicates, but
taxing them 'fairly' would pass on costs to everyone, not just drivers
(politics, again).
A tire tax can do the same, but needs to be modified for differing wear rates
and leftover tread on tires turned in.
A mileage tax (factored with weight) would be good, except that it requires a
method to gather the data (annual inspections/registrations are not universal)
and some states want apportionment, which can only be done by intrusive
tracking.
There's no perfect solution.
We could just accept that good roads are a benefit to everybody
(including the non-driver who needs urgently to be transported to a
hospital) rather than continuing with the fiction that they are only
beneficial to those who operate motor vehicles.
Indeed we could, and most of us do.

Just because I don't own a car and don't drive doesn't mean I don't
take buses that run on streets when my goal to too far to walk to. Or
appreciate the repaving job done (a year ago each trip to the nearest
shopping center was a new adventure as different bits of
sidewalk/crosswalk were blocked off) on a major artery.

Not only does the new pavement look nice and smooth, the traffic
lights (including the pedestrian lights and controls) were updated.
Now I can be told to "wait" on any corner (along that arterial)!

And, more to the point, so can any blind person trying to cross it.
Much safer.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
r***@rosettacondot.com
2020-01-24 21:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 23:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
pt
My 1977 F-350 got 6 mpg in both the city and highway.

My 2005 Expedition got 14 mpg city, 20 mpg at 60 mph, and 17 mpg at 80 mph.

My 2019 F-150 4x4 gets 16 mpg city, 28 mpg at 60 mph, and 20 mpg at 80 mph.

While significantly improving, trucks are still a heavy brick. No way
are they going to improve much more without converting to plugin hybrids.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-25 04:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
Getting weight included in the calculations faces a huge political
hurdle as the tractor-trailer rigs are responsible for most road and
highway deterioration and should therefore pay the lion's share of such
a tax/surcharge. But that would just get passed on to consumers by
jacking up the price of pretty much EVERYTHING since pretty much
everything gets transported by big rigs.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Alan Baker
2020-01-25 05:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-5,
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:40:24 PM UTC+5:30,
Post by p***@gmail.com
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:41:04 PM UTC-5,
[snip]
Which country are you in?  I believe in a mixed economy, like
they have
in India and USA.  Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy.  USA has excellent road
infrastructure.  And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards
requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly
consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and
$0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
Getting weight included in the calculations faces a huge political
hurdle as the tractor-trailer rigs are responsible for most road and
highway deterioration and should therefore pay the lion's share of such
a tax/surcharge.  But that would just get passed on to consumers by
jacking up the price of pretty much EVERYTHING since pretty much
everything gets transported by big rigs.
1. They also pay a lot more in fuel taxes.

2. I can't say for certain, but I'd bet the license fees are a lot
higher, too.
r***@rosettacondot.com
2020-01-25 10:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
Interesting...this is the page that Wikipedia links to when giving the
24.9 MPG number for 2017:
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
From context they're including cars, SUVs and light trucks.
AFAICT most of the projected increases over the next few years come from
the assumed increase in electrics and pluggable hybrids and the inclusion
of MPGe in the economy averages.
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
My undestanding is that while the F-450 causes more wear than the Fiesta,
the wear from either is negligible compared to "big rigs". In our area
there's also a significant amount of seasonal damage (vertisols are the
bane of roads and foundations).
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
I've seen other suggestions, like making it payable yearly as part of the
registration renewal. In places that have yearly inspections, logging the
mileage could be part of the inspection process. The concern with that is
that it doesn't account for people that do a lot of driving in multiple
states...only the registering state gets the funds.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Peter Trei
2020-01-25 16:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
Interesting...this is the page that Wikipedia links to when giving the
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
From context they're including cars, SUVs and light trucks.
AFAICT most of the projected increases over the next few years come from
the assumed increase in electrics and pluggable hybrids and the inclusion
of MPGe in the economy averages.
I'd like to see some confirmation of that; anecdotally, I rented ICE vehicles
twice last fall on trips, a Sentra and a Fiesta, and they both got close to
40 mpg.

But more to the point, we're still using almost 1000x more energy from
petroleum for transport than energy from electricity, to I don't think EVs
are making much of a dent on fleet averages yet:
https://www.mackinac.org/8433
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
My undestanding is that while the F-450 causes more wear than the Fiesta,
the wear from either is negligible compared to "big rigs". In our area
there's also a significant amount of seasonal damage (vertisols are the
bane of roads and foundations).
Yeah, its politics, and not ideal. You occasionally see signs on the back of
big listing how much tax they pay per year - its typically in the low 5
figures: https://www.mackinac.org/8433
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
I've seen other suggestions, like making it payable yearly as part of the
registration renewal. In places that have yearly inspections, logging the
mileage could be part of the inspection process. The concern with that is
that it doesn't account for people that do a lot of driving in multiple
states...only the registering state gets the funds.
My guess is it balances out pretty well - just do it by weight and distance
driven. (I keep forgetting that some states don't have yearly inspections).

Another way to do it would be to tax tires; the wear done to them by the
road may be a pretty good proxy for the wear they do to the road. Downside
would be that it would incentivize people to drive tires bald. Perhaps some
kind of rebate on tread left on the tire being replaced?

pt
r***@rosettacondot.com
2020-01-25 19:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/27/get-ready-for-more-states-to-charge-ev-fees-in-2020/#
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles
Interesting...this is the page that Wikipedia links to when giving the
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
From context they're including cars, SUVs and light trucks.
AFAICT most of the projected increases over the next few years come from
the assumed increase in electrics and pluggable hybrids and the inclusion
of MPGe in the economy averages.
I'd like to see some confirmation of that; anecdotally, I rented ICE vehicles
twice last fall on trips, a Sentra and a Fiesta, and they both got close to
40 mpg.
Some of the data is CAFE values, which have even less correspondence to
reality than the EPA values. For example, if I understand correctly in
the CAFE calculations zero emission vehicles count as more than 1 vehicle
sold and, to a lesser extent, so do hybrids. The multiplier decreases by
time and total number of ZEV/hybrid sales by the manufacturer. Also the
CAFE MPG values tend to be significantly higher than the EPA values for
the same vehicle, especially since the EPA changed their methodology to
be closer to real-world results and the CAFE calculation didn't.
Post by Peter Trei
But more to the point, we're still using almost 1000x more energy from
petroleum for transport than energy from electricity, to I don't think EVs
https://www.mackinac.org/8433
Overall usage has to deal with the 15+ year (and increasing) average lifetime
of a passenger vehicle. ICE vehicles being sold now are likely to be on the
road for two decades. It takes a tremendous increase in fuel prices to
compensate for a car payment. Electrics were around 1.5% of sales in 2018,
but they have an outsize effect with MPGe ratings around 4 times the best
non-hybrid ICE vehicles and 6-8 times typical trucks and SUVs, plus any
CAFE multipliers.
Post by Peter Trei
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
My undestanding is that while the F-450 causes more wear than the Fiesta,
the wear from either is negligible compared to "big rigs". In our area
there's also a significant amount of seasonal damage (vertisols are the
bane of roads and foundations).
Yeah, its politics, and not ideal. You occasionally see signs on the back of
big listing how much tax they pay per year - its typically in the low 5
figures: https://www.mackinac.org/8433
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
I've seen other suggestions, like making it payable yearly as part of the
registration renewal. In places that have yearly inspections, logging the
mileage could be part of the inspection process. The concern with that is
that it doesn't account for people that do a lot of driving in multiple
states...only the registering state gets the funds.
My guess is it balances out pretty well - just do it by weight and distance
driven. (I keep forgetting that some states don't have yearly inspections).
I'm in Texas, but have friends and family in Oklahoma. Oklahoma used to have
inspections, but there was a huge battle years ago that ended with the entire
system being eliminated. The station owners didn't want to do inpsections for
the long-unchanged state fee ($5, i think?) and the legislature refused to
authorize an increase.
In Texas I'm pretty sure the mileage already gets reported to the state.
Registration can't be renewed unless there's a successful inpsection logged
less than (IIRC) 90 days prior. Registration is also proof of inspection.
Post by Peter Trei
Another way to do it would be to tax tires; the wear done to them by the
road may be a pretty good proxy for the wear they do to the road. Downside
would be that it would incentivize people to drive tires bald. Perhaps some
kind of rebate on tread left on the tire being replaced?
I think that could get really complicated. For one thing, I haven't noticed
a substantial difference in tread life between our passenger cars (around
3500 lbs) and our truck (over 8000 lbs). There's a bigger difference on the
same car depending on the model and type of tire. The stock tires on the
truck lasted about 35,000 and were replaced because of age (sidewall cracks)
rather than treadwear. OTOH I've run Pirellis that only lasted 15,000 (but the
vehicle they were on cornered a lot better than the truck).

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 16:18:40 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:41:04 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
In USA the current government has a short term view. But in countries like China, they have a longer term view.
The countries that care about the environment and climate, have a longer term view. They have to force businesses to stop polluting, like they do with plastic and carbon.
Also, pretty sure you don't want to use China as a good
example related to the environment. Pollution in China is
as bad as anywhere in the world. Pollution of all kinds
and in all contexts. For example, those lovely solar cells
they pump out are produced mostly in a few medium sized
cities in the interior of China. These cities are so massively
polluted that foreigners are not allowed in. There are open
ponds of grotesquely noxious chemicals just leaking into the
ground water. Things like arsenic and cyanide and so on, runoff
and waste product from making solar cells. By the thousands
of tons.

And there is a brown haze from coal smoke hanging over pretty
much the whole country.

They take a long view of their own power. Xi, for example,
recently got himself named leader for life. And they carefully
require each member of CPC to study his essays on a weekly basis.

Seriously, you should consider facts, not ideology. You clearly
care about expanding government and are using environment as
a talking point to do it.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-22 10:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
[snip]
Post by a***@gmail.com
In USA the current government has a short term view. But in countries like China, they have a longer term view.
The countries that care about the environment and climate, have a longer term view. They have to force businesses to stop polluting, like they do with plastic and carbon.
Also, pretty sure you don't want to use China as a good
example related to the environment. Pollution in China is
as bad as anywhere in the world. Pollution of all kinds
and in all contexts. For example, those lovely solar cells
they pump out are produced mostly in a few medium sized
cities in the interior of China. These cities are so massively
polluted that foreigners are not allowed in. There are open
ponds of grotesquely noxious chemicals just leaking into the
ground water. Things like arsenic and cyanide and so on, runoff
and waste product from making solar cells. By the thousands
of tons.
But doesn't everywhere have that?

(Except where local industry has closed down
because they now get stuff from China.)
Post by p***@gmail.com
And there is a brown haze from coal smoke hanging over pretty
much the whole country.
Possible exaggeration? In India I gather the main
problem has been agricultural burning. Elsewhere,
inefficient wood-burning stoves... (Islington?)
Post by p***@gmail.com
They take a long view of their own power. Xi, for example,
recently got himself named leader for life. And they carefully
require each member of CPC to study his essays on a weekly basis.
Seriously, you should consider facts, not ideology. You clearly
care about expanding government and are using environment as
a talking point to do it.
It will be interesting to see if Chinese dictatorship
can rein in pollution, since that is being ordered.
Going by reports, a big problem in Chinese
ground-level politics is cheating. Objectively,
that's a problem everywhere.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 14:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
It will be interesting to see if Chinese dictatorship
can rein in pollution, since that is being ordered.
iirc Lawrence Watt Evans said that they'd made pretty huge strides on apparent air quality the last time he was there
Post by Robert Carnegie
Going by reports, a big problem in Chinese
ground-level politics is cheating. Objectively,
that's a problem everywhere.
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 18:42:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:15:57 AM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
[re China pollution from solar panels]
Post by Robert Carnegie
But doesn't everywhere have that?
No, not everybody has that.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/china-lack-of-regulations-on-solar-panel-recycling-raises-concerns-about-toxic-waste-affecting-health-environment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288377/Cancer-villages-Global-twitter-revolt-hamlet-wells-poisoned-disease-rates-soaring.html

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/China:-'The-river-water-is-clean'.-But-the-tests-were-on-mineral-water-44805.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/china-air-pollution-blocks-solar-panels-green-energy/

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/world/asia/china-cancer-villages-mckenzie/

https://www.vice.com/da/article/gq87ex/photographs-of-chinas-cancer-villages
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 23:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research.
Governments don't invest, they fund. And have a bad track record on
basic research.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners.
Governments look out for the interests of politicians.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
The government generally doesn't look for return on investment. If it
did it would invest more carefully.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
"Enormous investment required" to do _what_? You're thinking like a
government--the government since 1960 has spent roughly half a
trillion dollars on space and hasn't achieved what one rich guy
working mostly out of his investors pockets achieved in less than a
decade.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business.
I doubt it. Easiest way to destroy any business is to put an MBA in
charge.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
And at creating technology.
Post by a***@gmail.com
"Who benefits?"
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 00:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
"Enormous investment required" to do _what_? You're thinking like a
government--the government since 1960 has spent roughly half a
trillion dollars on space and hasn't achieved what one rich guy
working mostly out of his investors pockets achieved in less than a
decade.
Note that Space-X acknowledges that a lot of what they've done was dependent upon what NASA had done previously and given them access to.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 01:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research.
Governments don't invest, they fund. And have a bad track record on
basic research.
R&D the government does is available to the public unless of importance to national security. Businesses generally do not share. Much of the technology that was developed directly or indirectly by NASA has helped private businesses.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners.
Governments look out for the interests of politicians.
People look after their own interests, whether in business or government. It is in the government's interest to provide public services.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
The government generally doesn't look for return on investment. If it
did it would invest more carefully.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
"Enormous investment required" to do _what_? You're thinking like a
government--the government since 1960 has spent roughly half a
trillion dollars on space and hasn't achieved what one rich guy
working mostly out of his investors pockets achieved in less than a
decade.
That guy used technology originally developed by the government, and received government contracts. The government creates the environment where entrepreneurs can flourish.

Government should be transparent and accountable, as should be businesses. In a mixed economy both have their part to play.

Abhinav Lal

"Knowledge is virtue"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business.
I doubt it. Easiest way to destroy any business is to put an MBA in
charge.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
And at creating technology.
Post by a***@gmail.com
"Who benefits?"
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 08:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research.
Governments don't invest, they fund. And have a bad track record on
basic research.
R&D the government does is available to the public unless of importance to national security.
For a price.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses generally do not share. Much of the technology that was developed directly or indirectly by NASA has helped private businesses.
That businesses do not share would be news to China. Who do you think
taught them to make semiconductors?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners.
Governments look out for the interests of politicians.
People look after their own interests, whether in business or government. It is in the government's interest to provide public services.
It is in the politicians interest to buy votes with the labor of their
serfs.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
The government generally doesn't look for return on investment. If it
did it would invest more carefully.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
What enormous investment and long time scale? You are stuck in the
'60s.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
"Enormous investment required" to do _what_? You're thinking like a
government--the government since 1960 has spent roughly half a
trillion dollars on space and hasn't achieved what one rich guy
working mostly out of his investors pockets achieved in less than a
decade.
That guy used technology originally developed by the government,
What technology was that? He designed his own engine and his own
flight structure. None of that was developed by the government.
Post by a***@gmail.com
and received government contracts.
After he achieved orbit. And he makes more from commercial contracts
than from the government.
Post by a***@gmail.com
The government creates the environment where entrepreneurs can flourish.
The government puts obstacles in the way of enterpreneurs.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Government should be transparent and accountable, as should be businesses. In a mixed economy both have their part to play.
You claim to have been tortured by this government that you love so
much. Did that teach you nothing?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Knowledge is virtue"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business.
I doubt it. Easiest way to destroy any business is to put an MBA in
charge.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
And at creating technology.
Post by a***@gmail.com
"Who benefits?"
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 10:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Whatever resources can be extracted from the moon should be shared by everyone according to international agreements IIRC. The moon has water, helium, and some rare materials.
Should a permanent base on the moon be established? If people can sustain themselves on the moon, can they form an independent colony?
Perhaps they can mine the moon, and use what they can to support themselves, and trade the rest with earth for essential supplies or luxury goods.
considering the cost of getting anything established and the problems with mining on the moon it seems unlikely to be a problem that requires resolution in the near future
The cost is why we need global cooperation and funding. Possibly within a few hundred years, efforts will be made to mine the moon. Hopefully we can start with robots to mine the moon and establish a base.
What we need is a hardheaded businessman who will figure out how to
get the cost down to a sustainable level. Kind of like some guy named
"Musk" is doing for orbital launches.
As long as governments are doing it there won't be any incentive at
all to control costs--governments can always screw a few more billion
out of their serfs.
Governments have a longer view than businesses, as they invest in things like infrastructure and basic research.
Governments don't invest, they fund. And have a bad track record on
basic research.
R&D the government does is available to the public unless of importance to national security.
For a price.
Basic research that gave us the standard model and all the forces of nature are public goods available for free.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses generally do not share. Much of the technology that was developed directly or indirectly by NASA has helped private businesses.
That businesses do not share would be news to China. Who do you think
taught them to make semiconductors?
China forces businesses to share. American businesses generally prefer not to share their technical secrets with other businesses. China's economic model is different, it is state capitalism.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also look out for the interests of all citizens and not just their owners.
Governments look out for the interests of politicians.
People look after their own interests, whether in business or government. It is in the government's interest to provide public services.
It is in the politicians interest to buy votes with the labor of their
serfs.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
They also require a lower return on their investment, as compared to private investors.
The government generally doesn't look for return on investment. If it
did it would invest more carefully.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Of course there is government corruption and other problems. But with the enormous investment required, and the long time scale, a global effort with the cooperation of leading nations and technology companies might be called for.
What enormous investment and long time scale? You are stuck in the
'60s.
Establishing a permanent moon base and mining operations is on a different scale from ferrying astronauts to the ISS. If this was easy it would have been done already.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
"Enormous investment required" to do _what_? You're thinking like a
government--the government since 1960 has spent roughly half a
trillion dollars on space and hasn't achieved what one rich guy
working mostly out of his investors pockets achieved in less than a
decade.
That guy used technology originally developed by the government,
What technology was that? He designed his own engine and his own
flight structure. None of that was developed by the government.
Post by a***@gmail.com
and received government contracts.
After he achieved orbit. And he makes more from commercial contracts
than from the government.
Post by a***@gmail.com
The government creates the environment where entrepreneurs can flourish.
The government puts obstacles in the way of enterpreneurs.
The government creates and enforces laws. Without rule of law, economies do not flourish.

Unfortunately some laws are not applied to the rich and powerful. Laws should respect everyone's human rights, including the most vulnerable parts of society.

There are bad people in government. Just like there are bad people in business. What we need is transparent and ethical business and government.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Government should be transparent and accountable, as should be businesses. In a mixed economy both have their part to play.
You claim to have been tortured by this government that you love so
much. Did that teach you nothing?
There is evil in this world. If we avoid all morally complex institutions we will be left with nothing. Instead try to engage with and reform both business and government.

Abhinav Lal

"Life is suffering"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
"Knowledge is virtue"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Even if a business person wants to make an effort, he may ask for government funding. As a MBA I have some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of business.
I doubt it. Easiest way to destroy any business is to put an MBA in
charge.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Businesses may be better at adapting to changes in technology or the business environment.
And at creating technology.
Post by a***@gmail.com
"Who benefits?"
Loading...