Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sd_matt
ParticipantThe side that loses is the side that learns. It’s a long-term investment. Of course I’m talking long term to Americans….never mind.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Why not give the bribe money to someone that makes green energy cheaper than fossil, nuclear ect? That way everyone buys american made energy….win/win.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Why not give the bribe money to someone that makes green energy cheaper than fossil, nuclear ect? That way everyone buys american made energy….win/win.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Why not give the bribe money to someone that makes green energy cheaper than fossil, nuclear ect? That way everyone buys american made energy….win/win.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Why not give the bribe money to someone that makes green energy cheaper than fossil, nuclear ect? That way everyone buys american made energy….win/win.
Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Why not give the bribe money to someone that makes green energy cheaper than fossil, nuclear ect? That way everyone buys american made energy….win/win.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=permabear]Back on the original topic, it definitely sounds like the banks themselves have thrown the game.
Related to the “Wells will dump soon” thread, it’s the GSE’s that are supposedly cracking down on delinquent loans:
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/wells-fargo-puts-stop-to-short-sale-extensions-2010-10-01
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fannie-mae-says-foreclosure-delays-represent-breach-by-servicer-2010-09-02This would mean an end to the 2+ year squatters that have become the norm – an end to “extend and pretend”. Banks would have to write down losses.
But how to stop this? Call the entire foreclosure process itself into question.[/quote]
Yep. Every time it looks like things might finally be getting back to normal (pre-bubble prices), a wrench is thrown in the works. Extend and pretend, at all costs.[/quote]
We should start another thread with predictions for the next delay tactic and start a betting pool.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=permabear]Back on the original topic, it definitely sounds like the banks themselves have thrown the game.
Related to the “Wells will dump soon” thread, it’s the GSE’s that are supposedly cracking down on delinquent loans:
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/wells-fargo-puts-stop-to-short-sale-extensions-2010-10-01
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fannie-mae-says-foreclosure-delays-represent-breach-by-servicer-2010-09-02This would mean an end to the 2+ year squatters that have become the norm – an end to “extend and pretend”. Banks would have to write down losses.
But how to stop this? Call the entire foreclosure process itself into question.[/quote]
Yep. Every time it looks like things might finally be getting back to normal (pre-bubble prices), a wrench is thrown in the works. Extend and pretend, at all costs.[/quote]
We should start another thread with predictions for the next delay tactic and start a betting pool.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=permabear]Back on the original topic, it definitely sounds like the banks themselves have thrown the game.
Related to the “Wells will dump soon” thread, it’s the GSE’s that are supposedly cracking down on delinquent loans:
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/wells-fargo-puts-stop-to-short-sale-extensions-2010-10-01
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fannie-mae-says-foreclosure-delays-represent-breach-by-servicer-2010-09-02This would mean an end to the 2+ year squatters that have become the norm – an end to “extend and pretend”. Banks would have to write down losses.
But how to stop this? Call the entire foreclosure process itself into question.[/quote]
Yep. Every time it looks like things might finally be getting back to normal (pre-bubble prices), a wrench is thrown in the works. Extend and pretend, at all costs.[/quote]
We should start another thread with predictions for the next delay tactic and start a betting pool.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=permabear]Back on the original topic, it definitely sounds like the banks themselves have thrown the game.
Related to the “Wells will dump soon” thread, it’s the GSE’s that are supposedly cracking down on delinquent loans:
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/wells-fargo-puts-stop-to-short-sale-extensions-2010-10-01
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fannie-mae-says-foreclosure-delays-represent-breach-by-servicer-2010-09-02This would mean an end to the 2+ year squatters that have become the norm – an end to “extend and pretend”. Banks would have to write down losses.
But how to stop this? Call the entire foreclosure process itself into question.[/quote]
Yep. Every time it looks like things might finally be getting back to normal (pre-bubble prices), a wrench is thrown in the works. Extend and pretend, at all costs.[/quote]
We should start another thread with predictions for the next delay tactic and start a betting pool.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=permabear]Back on the original topic, it definitely sounds like the banks themselves have thrown the game.
Related to the “Wells will dump soon” thread, it’s the GSE’s that are supposedly cracking down on delinquent loans:
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/wells-fargo-puts-stop-to-short-sale-extensions-2010-10-01
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fannie-mae-says-foreclosure-delays-represent-breach-by-servicer-2010-09-02This would mean an end to the 2+ year squatters that have become the norm – an end to “extend and pretend”. Banks would have to write down losses.
But how to stop this? Call the entire foreclosure process itself into question.[/quote]
Yep. Every time it looks like things might finally be getting back to normal (pre-bubble prices), a wrench is thrown in the works. Extend and pretend, at all costs.[/quote]
We should start another thread with predictions for the next delay tactic and start a betting pool.Participant[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.
Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.
Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.
Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.
Participant[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.
Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.
Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.
Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.
Participant[quote=EconProf]Prop 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.[/quote]BGIG. I’m all for any program that rewards whoever invents cheap green energy. The quickest way to get everyone green is to have the technology that everyone is lining up to buy.
This is the point I was trying to make with the “Should Google go nuclear?” video. I don’t know whether or not Polywell will work…or FRC or Focus Fusion for that matter. The good thing about these ideas is that they first start off with the question “Will this idea make electricity cheaper”?Fusion is not a bad idea, but ITER (Tokamak reactor) is a bad idea. It will never be cost competitive…just like crystalline Solar PV.
Once again irony…most of us here are supposedly far right of you…yet we have a better understanding of just how alternative energy needs to be implemented.
Maybe I’m wrong about AB32. So show me what it is that AB32 does that rewards the person that invents cost-competitive green energy.
Of course BGIG, I’m assuming you are something more that a troll or schill.
-
AuthorPosts
