Conquer Club

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

So the government can reduce the costs of making the cars through tax breaks for each car made, but that doesn't change the cost of making the car?

the gov't can reduce the sticker price for the consumer at someone elses expense. The cost of producing the car does not change.

simple

Phatscotty wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

So the government can reduce the costs of making the cars through tax breaks for each car made, but that doesn't change the cost of making the car?

the gov't can reduce the sticker price for the consumer at someone elses expense. The cost of producing the car does not change.

simple

So if the government gives tax breaks per car made, the overall cost of making the car isn't lowered for the car company? And those savings aren't passed on to consumers?

And when supply increases, price doesn't decrease? Gotcha.

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

So the government can reduce the costs of making the cars through tax breaks for each car made, but that doesn't change the cost of making the car?

the gov't can reduce the sticker price for the consumer at someone elses expense. The cost of producing the car does not change.

simple

So if the government gives tax breaks per car made, the overall cost of making the car isn't lowered for the car company? And those savings aren't passed on to consumers?

And when supply increases, price doesn't decrease? Gotcha.

dude, you are all over the place.

#1: originally the subject was alternate energy costs, not costs of cars.
#2: supply and demand only works in a free market. obviously your examples do not indicate a free market exists with gov't intervening in car production

supply and demand only works in a free market.

spurgistan wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It's really not a mystery. The only reason we do not have alternative energy sources is because it's the gov't who is trying to do it.

The main problem with alternative energy is that it's too expensive. Gov't doesn't make anything cheaper as it wastes 35 cents of every dollar is touches. The free market wastes close to 0 cents.

Who's got a better shot to make alt energy cheaper? The free market. Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

Troll better, plz. Thnx.

Try and defeat the logic instead of acting like a douche bag.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It's really not a mystery. The only reason we do not have alternative energy sources is because it's the gov't who is trying to do it.

The main problem with alternative energy is that it's too expensive. Gov't doesn't make anything cheaper as it wastes 35 cents of every dollar is touches. The free market wastes close to 0 cents.

Who's got a better shot to make alt energy cheaper? The free market. Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

Troll better, plz. Thnx.

Try and defeat the logic instead of acting like a douche bag.

Why?

Phatscotty wrote:It's really not a mystery. The only reason we do not have alternative energy sources is because it's the gov't who is trying to do it.

WRONG. The government has not been funding alternative energy. They throw a small amount of money at tiny projects. Meanwhile, millions and billions are cut in taxes from oil companies, supporting the petroleum dependent infrastructure, etc.

Phatscotty wrote:The main problem with alternative energy is that it's too expensive.

compared to what? oil won't last. I personally think that my great grandchildren have value. So, cutting off all of their options seems like a very ineffective way, not to mention immoral, way to live.

Phatscotty wrote:Gov't doesn't make anything cheaper as it wastes 35 cents of every dollar is touches. The free market wastes close to 0 cents.

Source?

Because in the past you have not shown this at all. You can claim that if you only look at products. The government mostly doesn't create products, it regulates. So by that measure, you could say it "wastes" money. OR you could say it saves lives by preventing accidents, etc. However, if you tihnk any real estimates of the free market show 0 waste... then you are dreaming.

Phatscotty wrote:Who's got a better shot to make alt energy cheaper? The free market. Sure, the gov't can pretend it's cheap through subsidizing the price, but that does not change the cost.

The free market has an open plane to do this. Problem is the oil companies have too much vested in our current government and have ensured it won't happen any time soon.

But, sure.. to be really successful alternative energy must be truly profitable. The thing is, oil is not truly profitable right now. It just pretends it is because the oil companies themselves don't have to bear most of their costs.

... Blame the evil, rich, cigar smoking speculators.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/ ... lator.html

I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

Phatscotty wrote:I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

How so?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

How so?

For example, many people live in Wisconsin and work or go to school in Minnesota.

What costed them 25$/day to commute now costs them 60. 5 days a week is an extra 175$/week, and that's 700$+/month. That would seem to be reason enough to skip out on rent and stay with a friend or stay in a motel during the week, or maybe even put a for sale sign on their house? or tell work the situation and ask for a raise?

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

How so?

For example, many people live in Wisconsin and work or go to school in Minnesota.

What costed them 25$/day to commute now costs them 60. 5 days a week is an extra 175$/week, and that's 700$+/month. That would seem to be reason enough to skip out on rent and stay with a friend or stay in a motel during the week, or maybe even put a for sale sign on their house? or tell work the situation and ask for a raise?

The price of oil has increased steadily yet slowly. As the price increases, so will people's costs in engaging in the same activities. Consumers will be more willing to switch to substitutes (riding bikes, find jobs with lesser commute times), while producers will produce more substitutes (i.e. more fuel efficient cars, or alternative sources of energy), or producers will produce more petroleum through different means, which have now become profitable to do so.

tl;dr: I'm not too worried.

Personally, I think gas prices should be increased everywhere & a lot.

natty_dread wrote:Personally, I think gas prices should be increased everywhere & a lot.

DAMN YOU AND YOUR CUBE GOD.

Phatscotty wrote:#1: originally the subject was alternate energy costs, not costs of cars.

If were going to go that way, why can't the government incentivize (sp?) solar and wind energy the same way it could the manufacturing of electric cars?

Dear Obama,
You want to win the future? Alternative energy is the #1 way to win the future.

GreecePwns wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:#1: originally the subject was alternate energy costs, not costs of cars.

If were going to go that way, why can't the government incentivize (sp?) solar and wind energy the same way it could the manufacturing of electric cars?

Dear Obama,
You want to win the future? Alternative energy is the #1 way to win the future.

The government already incentivizes those things. Unfortunately, the incentives do not make these types of energy viable. Industry has to figure out a way to make solar energy and wind energy less expensive to produce before building these types of options en masse.

I'm pretty sure that solar energy specifically has much better tax incentives than electric cars.

going up to 1.40 per lt. today in Ontario.

People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Phatscotty wrote:I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

In big cities there is so much traffic daily it's hard to see the difference, but in recent years people are driving less. This is directly connected to the price of gas.

oVo wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I was originally interested to hear if gas prices have changed anyone's lives yet. I'm guessing at some point people are going to realize they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

In big cities there is so much traffic daily it's hard to see the difference, but in recent years people are driving less. This is directly connected to the price of gas.

My community is a classic example of one problem. though our town was built in pre-automobile days and therefore is fairly compact, folks have decided that bikes are a nuisance aside from the bike trail outside of town, (strictly for excercise, "of course"). Roads are absolutely inadequete for bikes and there is a general perception that you plain cannot ride a bike in the winter (never mind that folks all across Europe and in Scandinavia do it constantly!).

We are beginning to see a few "radicals" who are fighting the system, but truth is while I would do that myself, particularly when younger, I don't feel comfortable having my 10 year old do that. This from someone who rode 4 miles each way to school over rural roads from the time I was 7.

natty_dread wrote:People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Then the city can jack up the prices of its publicly provided mass transportation options. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Then the city can jack up the prices of its publicly provided mass transportation options. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

Not saying I like this option, but ideally it would not be assessed on public transport and the money would be used to subsidize buses, subways, etc... so not a double whammy, more of "directing behavior" effort. In reality, people would just go to then next city to get gas, though.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Then the city can jack up the prices of its publicly provided mass transportation options. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

Not saying I like this option, but ideally it would not be assessed on public transport and the money would be used to subsidize buses, subways, etc... so not a double whammy, more of "directing behavior" effort. In reality, people would just go to then next city to get gas, though.

PLAYER'S "IMMA GUNNA FIGHT CHOO, BBS" GAUGE: 7/10

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Then the city can jack up the prices of its publicly provided mass transportation options. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

and mass transit is subsidized already. The true cost is over twice what they charge. Everyone starts using mass transit and stops paying all those gas taxes......BOOM SHAKA-LAKAH!

OK. I hate to break up the party here but guess what GAS IS A GOOD! And guess what else!!! As a good IT IS WELL WANTED!!!!! I KNOW SHOCKING. COMPANY'S ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY!!!! Wow fancy that! now IF you created something that was well wanted would you give it away for free? Keeping in mind the cost of making it, researcher and all that other expanse's needed to keep your MAKING YOUR GOOD!!! SO it stands to reason if you can sell something for more WHY NOT? hate to break it to you all but Thats just the way our system runs!!!!!! ok so STOP COMPLAINING!!!!! YOU Don't have to buy it

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:People living in cities that have good public transport options should have to pay an extra 100% tax for gas.

Then the city can jack up the prices of its publicly provided mass transportation options. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

and mass transit is subsidized already. The true cost is over twice what they charge. Everyone starts using mass transit and stops paying all those gas taxes......BOOM SHAKA-LAKAH!

Interestingly enough, people's water and power utilities are subsidized as well. People don't really understand the real cost of these resources because the real cost is spread across everyone's taxes.