I post guest blog entries from interested readers if they are thought provoking and they answer questions in the comments section after the entry.
To post comments you don't need to register or use your real name. I often delete comments that abusive or use foul language if someone emails me to request it.
Here is the latest from Martin Breen. After reading it give him some feedback.
Money For Nothing
By Martin BreenI remember when I was twelve and I got my first newspaper route. I worked something like 20 hours a week and got paid $10 - 12 bucks a week (not much even by those standards) if the tips were good. But to me that $10 bucks was everything. I quickly realized that the more I worked, the more I made. The nicer I was, the more tips I received. The more efficient I was in assembling the paper and the faster that I pedaled, the less time I spent on my route and the more time that I could devote to my real love, baseball. What a great lesson in capitalism. I remember one particular rainy day when I was bemoaning the fact that I had 46 papers to deliver in the pouring rain, and my Father would not drive me, he told me that you don't get "money for nothing." My Father went on to say that "in America, we work hard for our money, and we're proud of that fact." This sense of pride, the American work ethic, would serve me well as I entered college and ultimately, the workforce.
But I am afraid that it is this sense of pride, the American work ethic, that is missing today. Quite frankly, I do not believe that many Americans want to work hard for their money. Instead, I would suggest that a certain level of entitlement has crept into our psyche that is completely contrary to the origins of this great country. I call it the "money for nothing" economy. Americans that expect to make a certain level of living, regardless of the value that they provide. It is this mindset, whether it is demonstrated by a Wall Street Banker or the Octomom, that makes me believe we're headed in the wrong direction.
Some examples are in order. The Wall Street banker who wants to make millions even if they have not made you or me one cent. As the AIG bonus fiasco so clearly demonstrates, paying people huge sums of money to lose money is completely absurd. You could also make a strong argument that while Wall Street plays an important role in lending and raising capital in our society, it does not actually create the jobs or the things that we produce. In other words, Wall Street is only the means, not the ends. Real businesses, like Ford, Caterpillar or a local manufacturing business -- those that create jobs -- truly provide value to America. Yet, Wall Street pays itself so handsomely that you would think their all 3rd baseman's for the New York Yankees. To make matters worse, in the last ten years, they have done nothing but shuffle papers around, selling the same crummy mortgages, over and over again. In fact, the derivate market grew to $683 trillion, which is twenty times the size of the U.S. Stock Market. You do not need a Nobel Prize in Economics to know that this defies common sense.
Adam Smith once said, "The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to man who wants to acquire it is the toil and trouble of acquiring it." Put simply, Mr. Smith espoused that the value of an exchangeable good or service is equal to the amount of labor required to produce it. Classical economic theory is that you should get paid a day's wages for a day's worth of work (I am simplifying). And, in America, this worked for employer and employee alike (with a little help from the Unions) as the middle class grew to epic proportions.
I mean do you remember when sales folks used to take pride in saving you money? Now, it seems like everyone just wants to rip you off and they don't care if you know it. Clearly, something happened between the Chia Pet (if your under age 35, google it) and Youtube and profit became a drug. Instead of CEO's making ten times the average worker (in the 70's), they started making four-hundred times (in the 90's) that same worker. The profit drug became an addiction and not only did they want millions when they were making money but even when they weren't.
Unfortunately, the free market forces became unbalanced and out of sorts with much of the wealth being shared by fewer and fewer. Indeed, as companies purged the workforce, outsourced jobs and stop manufacturing in the U.S., they simultaneously, transferred this wealth only to themselves. In other words, any savings that might have accrued to the shareholders, did not go to the shareholders but instead went to a small, insular group of corporate managers that voted themselves pay raises, stock options and golden parachutes under the auspices that it was the market rate. Of course, the market rate had been artificially set and tampered with by this new breed of robber barons. You do not need a Harvard MBA to make money by firing thousands of workers and outsourcing jobs. I might suggest that anyone could do that.
Moreover, company after company began raising prices despite the fact that they did not provide any more value to the customer. Consider the Airlines, now they charge you a baggage fee, meal charges, pillow fees, all, made-up fees that used to be part of something called your airfare. Did they provide you any more value? And, other industries are not much better. If UPS and FedEx and the cell phone companies want more money (and they always do), they create phony fees, like a fuel surcharge, or an environmental fee, an administration fee or even a cancellation fee. None of these charges were real or provided you and me any more value. And, this mindset even trickled down to the working class, as mechanics and laborers started demanding fees in excess of their value. I mean how many times do you go to an auto repair shop and these guys just seem like they charge you whatever they want. We truly became a money for nothing society.
This must change if we're going to turn things around. Value must be restored to its rightful place - as a foundation of capitalism. Look around your neighborhood and see what we manufacture or produce? We haven't made anything in quite a while; we seem content to be a "service" economy - where we just push papers around -- where we all just feed on ourselves. It's like a giant ponzi scheme with no one actually creating anything. And, thanks to Madoff, we all know how ponzi schemes turn out: One guy gets rich and everyone else loses they're life's earnings.
So how do we fix it? We let capitalism punish those that took excessive risk. We ask questions. We stand up in boardrooms and say that CEO's don't need to make $50 million a year. We become politically active. We refuse to pay a fifty dollar baggage fee. I know you think you don't have any power but you actually have all the power - you just haven't exercised it yet. Indeed, our greatest weakness, consumerism, may also be our greatest strength. Remember, you vote with your dollars every day -- Just like every vote counts so does every dollar.
Martin, I'm slightly confused. On one of you're earlier posts, didn't you say free markets were the answer? Isn't the same free markets that caused the economic crisis?
I think the American work ethic is alive and well. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Americans are extremely productive and hard-working people.
But, the point isn'tentirely that we work hard, it is that we work smart and continue to be problem solvers and innovators.
Just underneath the surface of the news media, there are millions of Americans doing the right things everyday. Doing the right thing is so common, it's often not newsworthy.
I should ran a google search and pulled some backup.
Here is an article from 2007 from a UN report.
"American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year."
Despite what we read or see in the media, we should take pride in our work ethic and the fact that we are very productive.
Yes, the free markets caused the current economic problems. Please understand that I am not saying that free markets are perfect; rather, there will be ebbs and flows (rises and falls) but ultimately left to their own devices, free markets will self-correct. Indeed, it is this self-correction, or what I call the purge that needs to happen here. Again, as stated above and in my earlier essays, it is failure that is so important to capitalism and that’s the part that the government is preventing. It just seems to me that people are so quick to give up on a system that has worked for a long time.
I know many people are saying that President Obama and his advisors had to step in and save all these companies because to do otherwise would be catastrophic. However, I disagree. Indeed, I believe if these companies (like AIG) and the banks had been allowed to fail, our current problems, while perhaps painful, would have routed out all the cancer. Now, we will never know if we got it all. Moreover, I have heard that letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big deal. But how so? How did Lehman’s failure cause you or me any damage? Some say that Lehman caused the credit markets to dry up. Again, I disagree. The credit markets dried up for other reasons not because Lehman failed.
The bottom line is that capitalism, like democracy, will work if every day people stay informed and involved.
Martin
I tend to agree with the premise of Martin's commentary. There is this entitlement mentality that pervades our society today. And it cuts across the socio-economic landscape, from welfare Moms to Wall Street bankers.
Ironically, perhaps, I think the saving grace to all of this will be the free market. In my opinion, the government should not be bailing out the AIG's of the world.
In a purist free market system, AIG, the automakers, the banks, and all the other companies that didn't have the foresight to prepare for the future, or were too consumed by greed to care, should be allowed to fail. Believe me, there will be new, more creative, more efficient and effective entrepreneurs that will come in behind them to fill the void.
Scott is absolutely right. Lurking beneath the surface of this economic maelstrom are the future business catalysts of the world who are ready to lead us into the future and rebuild this economy based on the principles espoused here by Scott - intelligence, inventiveness, hard work, and problem-solving skills.
Scott,
You are accurate when you point out the work ethic of the American worker. Americans are by most measurements the most productive workers on Earth.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.
Scott, thank you for your comments. I do not disagree with the statement that many Americans are productive and hard working people. However, in my observation, I do not think I would go as far to say that it is a “vast majority” of Americans. Regardless, the main point of my essay is the concept of “money for nothing” or the importance of the theory of value. Every day, I am confronted by someone or some company that wants to take my money without providing any value for it. Indeed, many people argue that that is exactly what the government is doing – taking our taxes and not providing much in value. I know from a personal perspective, that I would be okay with raising my taxes (but I don’t presume to make that decision for others) as long as our government demonstrated some fiscal responsibility and cut spending -- I don’t care how, they just need to do it. After they have proven to me that they can provide some value for my money then I might be willing to give them more.
Although my essays may demonstrate a fair amount of pessimism, I am actually an eternal optimist. And, I, too, believe we will overcome these challenges; but only if we recognize our shortcomings, adapt and change. In other words, be the hardworking, innovative problem-solvers that you claim we are. In fact, to a certain extent, the very existence of this crisis belies the fact that the “vast majority” of Americans do the right thing every day. Or, even if they do, if the bad conduct so overwhelms the good conduct, then it’s almost if the good actors don’t even matter. And, that is also a main point of my essay, that the good actors have to stand-up and make their voices heard.
Moreover, the origins of the crisis, in the housing market, make my point. People bought huge homes (way beyond their means) without putting any money down. When the bubble burst, they simply walked away. These foreclosures led to the mortgage crisis and then the banking crisis when the whiz kids on Wall Street showed that they didn’t even know how to figure out the value (see, there’s that word again) of the packaged and repackaged mortgage swaps. Please show me how anyone in this chain that did the right thing. I know many people don’t blame the poor, defenseless homeowners who were supposedly hoodwinked into their four bedroom dream house in Murrieta for a monthly mortgage that was half of their salary. (Sorry, I don’t feel bad for them.) But guess what? I don’t think you should be able to buy a home for nothing down – it’s absurd. I worked my tail off for ten years and scrapped and pinched every day to save up my twenty percent down payment. But I didn’t do anything great -- I just did what everyone before me did. And, we all know how well the mortgage lenders and bankers acted -- as soon as they say any sign of trouble they took the money and ran. And, they also stopped loaning money, even to the people who deserved it. While the folks in this chain may not represent the majority of Americans (which it clearly doesn’t), it’s enough of them to bring down the whole system.
On your UN Report quote, I would simply say that we often confuse quantity with quality. Being in your office all night means little, if you don’t actually do anything or provide increased value.
Brian, thanks for weighing in, I am curious if you believe that America hasn't changed a lot in the last twenty years? In other words, do you believe that we produce and manufacture the same kinds of innovative products that we used to? If so, please give me some examples.
Not Confused, you said something that I agree with, except for one caveat. You said that "there will be new, more creative, more efficient and effective entrepreneurs that will come in behind them to fill the void." I am very concerned that our government's intrusion into the markets, may prevent this from happening as they continue to prop up failed companies and banks. I just do not believe rewarding failure is the right thing and it may have some serious consequences. In other words, how can a new more innovative AIG or Citibank florish when the government is artificially keeping the old one around? In essence, haven't you tilted the playing field making it harder for the innovators to win the game.
Martin
Martin:
Your "Money for Nothing" essay is well done, and contains, as do all good polemics, spatterings of essential, self-evident truths.
For example, at the micro-level, it is true that humans, acting as both consumers and voters, have the same transactional power within their own hands. Namely to make their socio-economic-political market choices with either votes or dollars.
However, in both economic and political systems created by humans, there are huge attenuating forces at work. Often these forces can and do deflect, disrupt and channel the sum of millions of individual choices, in the aggregate, towards less than optimal outcomes from our individual moral, economic and/or political perspective.
In both cases, each individual's market and political choices are grounded in the complex calculus of human cultural, economic and political psychology manifested by their purchases and/or their votes.
Economically speaking, markets are nothing more nor less than the results of millions of answers to the questions posed by willing buyers and sellers as to perceived valuation.
Adam Smith may have been right in the abstract, but there never have been nor ever will be sufficient quantities of any tangible medium of exchange, be it gold, silver, platinum or diamonds, to determine some magical, absolute valuation of goods, services or any other economic transaction in the absence of perceived valuation.
Politically speaking, while it is also true in the abstract that if all voters took the time to be sufficiently informed, interested and introspective, the aggregate results of their electoral choices might likely elevate the so-called, “best man (and/or woman)” to electoral victory.
But, again, there always have been and always will be powerful interests helping to shape electoral group-think, especially amongst key political constituencies in vitally important electoral college states. Among such forces are the ever present pop-cultural, cult-anointments of the candidate d’jour by academic, cultural, economic, media and political elites.
To paraphrase John XII, 8, “..For the rich, powerful, haughty elites, always ye have with you..” And as T.S. Elliot reminds us, “..The rich truly are different than you and me..”
NostraDemus
Martin,
Good point. That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with the Obama administration's efforts to sustain these big companies that have knowingly put themselves at risk for failure, knowing full well that Uncle Sam will be there to save the day.
But, I also believe there's only so much you can do to save some of these big losers (like AIG, GM, & Citibank). In the end, I believe they're going to have to go out of business and there will be an opportunity for others to succeed in their place.
Another comment I have on your point regarding the entitlement culture in America is the mortgage loan crisis. I personally know real estate agents and people in the home mortgage industry that are actually recommending to their clients that rather than try and re-finance or restructure their existing home loans to lower their monthly payments, they should just stop making their monthly payments. They point out that the banks will be more willing to negotiate with them if they see they are in financial trouble than if they're not.
Now, what kind of twisted thinking is that?
of course things change but recent products or creations by Americans and American companies?
I would start off with IPODs, IPhones, Facebook, Myspace, and Google.
Many of the social changes in the last twenty years have created a more open and equitable society.
I think it was Aristotle that said;
The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.
-------------------------------------------
Our problems are all due to Republican avarice.
I challenge any of the Dennert bloggers to find me one loan officer or bank executive that is not a Republican.
Nobody, it’s not every day that someone quotes Aristotle so here’s another one:
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”
I do not believe that Aristotle was focused on the two-party system. Maybe you’re kidding with your comments on their not being any Democratic bankers but if you’re not, then honestly I only wish the world was as simple as you make it seem. Regardless, I will not take the bait and make every political discussion one based upon party affiliation. I will, however, assert that there are hundreds of Congressmen who are responsible for the state of this country, past and present, and leave it at that. Perhaps, the main difference in our viewpoints is that I believe Congress is just as responsible as the bankers.
NostraDemus, thank you for your comments, however, I am not too embarrassed to say that your post may be over my head. I learned very early in life that if I didn’t understand something, I should say so. So I am saying so, please explain. For instance, I like the phrase “electoral group-think” but I just don’t know what it means.
Brian, those are some good examples. Apple is clearly an innovative American company. Indeed, as I wrote to you that was the only company that popped into my mind. I will say, however, that there was a time when America had a thousand companies like Apple. To give you an example of how I think we are not necessarily as good as we once were (and this doesn’t mean we cannot get back there): America has declared that it will get off foreign oil not only because it is hurting the environment but also because it is a national security concern as well as the simple fact that we cannot afford to send our hard earned dollars over seas. Put simply, it is critical to national security that we produce our own energy. And, one of the largest new energy sources is the lithium battery. Indeed, the lithium battery is critical to all hybrid technology as well as hundreds of other applications. But guess what? We don’t really have any innovative companies leading the way on lithium battery technology. In fact, all the big ones, the leaders, are all in Europe or Asia. So even if we are successful in weaning off foreign oil, to the extent we are relying on the lithium battery, we are right back to square one: Depending upon foreign energy sources.
Not Confused, I had not heard that mortgage brokers were encouraging folks to not pay their mortgage so they could get a better deal. If that's not a "money for nothing" mindset, then I don't know what is.
I used to think that maybe people just didn't understand the ramifications of their actions (i.e., if they didn't pay then that cost would be shifted to rest of us) but now I am convinced they just don't care. Again, not everyone but certainly enough of them that it has created this crisis. And, I also worry that the current government is creating a whole new generation of people that don't want to earn their way.
Martin,
For car companies to adapt they need markets for their products. Why is it that almost every hybrid I see with a bumper sticker has a Barack Obama logo but rarely any Republican stickers? I have see a few McCain stickers but I don't recall seeing any other Republican stickers.
If it a national security issue then why isn't there more demand for a car like the Prius from conservatives?
The other companies I mentioned like Google and Facebook are doing amazing things. Many of the innovative products and technologies start off here in California.
Brian,
First, I do not agree with the proposition that only Democrats care about the environment and therefore buy hybrids. Indeed, as you know from my earlier essays, I strongly believe that our obsession with Democrat or Republican labels is hurting our ability to govern effectively and to confront our current challenges. Yes, there is a large contingent of people that do not believe in climate change but I think this group consists of members of all groups. If there is some tilt where it may be that more democrats on average buy hybrids, it is probably because some Republicans politicized “climate change” instead of keeping it a purely scientific issue (this also answers your last question). In other words, in order to defeat Al Gore they wanted you to believe he was crazy. And, if this is true, it proves my point that this whole Democrat-Republican thing is hurting our ability to move forward.
While I personally do believe in climate change (and I own a hybrid), I do not think that I can force others to have my belief. Rather, I take an “education” approach, one person, and one argument at a time. Indeed, I have a theory of life that I use in politics, economics and even social situations. It is what I call the “footnote” theory of knowledge. Put simply, if you have a belief or a conviction, what is your footnote (i.e., your sources) that led you to that understanding? In the climate change context, I can tell you that nearly everyone that thinks it is a hoax has not directly read any scientific report on the subject. Usually, they have only listened to a radio talk show host or the news. To me, this is unacceptable. You must challenge all assumptions whether we are talking about climate change or spending $4 trillion to save the banks.
Lastly, I do not need to have read every single IPCC report (and I have) to know that we should live in harmony with nature and not take more than we need.
Martin,
It isn't a proposition, it is a fact. I have seen a few McCain bumper stickers but the overwhelming majority has been for Barack Obama on hybrid vehicles. Do you really think that Prius owners split their vote down the middle between the candidates?
Being against partisanship doesn't alter reality of demographics.
"I challenge any of the Dennert bloggers to find me one loan officer or bank executive that is not a Republican."
Turns out most of Wall Street wasn't this last election cycle.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1
Brian, yes, I stand corrected, it is a fact that you have observed that here in California more Obama supporters put bumper stickers on their Prius. The key part in that statement is that “you have observed it.” But just like Hollywood and Washington D.C. have been accused of seeing the world in a very insular way, I might suggest that you are doing the same. There are a lot of people that live outside of California and I do not think that their opinions are being adequately represented. Indeed, I believe that there are millions and millions of the silent majority that have been too busy working and raising families to make their voices heard. But, that’s starting to change as this economic crisis has engaged millions of the silent majority. So to answer your question, yes, I believe that if you actually obtain a true sampling of Americans, party affiliation will not necessarily be predictive. Please also keep in mind that there are many independents (like me) as America is not divided up between just two parties. Maybe I am being naive but that’s my belief. But regardless, let’s just assume you’re right. Then what? Do we just ignore those that have a different opinion or do we try to redefine the argument and get them the real facts. I truly believe that if people had an opportunity to see the real facts and how reducing our carbon emissions will also protect us, they will gladly do it.
Martin,
An insular way? Fine, you tell me what you have observed. Have you seen a balance in the political leanings of hybrid owners or does it seem to tilt to one side?
I never said it was just in California. Do you really think there are enclaves of George W. Bush supporters driving Prius cars out of proportion to the local base of the Republican Party?
If you really want to fix a problem you should figure out what the problem is first. You want more people to drive hybrid vehicles but you attack thought that tries to understand the reasons behind it as partisan.
You have already identified part of the problem as the right wing attacking Al Gore and trying to diminish the threat climate change can pose to our communities.
To educate and convince people of your viewpoint you should figure out their current viewpoint first.
I understand that America isn't a Democratic or Republican country. The largest group of voters is Democratic, than independent, then Republican currently. That's will continue to shift as it always has shifted. I am fully aware that most people don't see themselves as a member of a party first and foremost. Let's move on from that point as I agree and I understand it.
Brian, I am probably thick headed (I know my kids accuse me of it) but I am not even sure what we’re arguing about. If someone doesn’t believe in climate change how is knowing their party affiliation going to help me expose them to the correct information so they can view the issue in an objective manner? Climate change is based upon science. While science, in general, may have different theories, only one theory can be correct. Science by definition can be proved, over and over again. Once it’s proved, it moves from scientific theory to scientific fact. If people reject it after it has been proven, then there’s no way we will convince them and we should move on. Maybe your point is different (and I am just being thick headed), if so, please just spell out it for me.
There is a difference of opinion among some scientists to the causes of climate change. Although a clear majority of them believe it is influenced by humans, not all of them do.
I can look at their reports and data myself. But I am not an expert. So, which scientists am I to believe? Should I have them vote and majority rules? Which scientists should be able to vote?
Most of us look towards people we trust to at least shape their opinions. When I am talking to a conservative that isn't sure of their opinion on climate change I mention that John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush all think it is real and human caused. That way it doesn't just look like just another liberal issue. If leaders of both parties agree and most respected scientists more people that don't have the time to analyze the data themselves are likely to support action to minimize our impacts on the Earth.
Sorry, guys, but this is a lame argument. Who cares about what bumper sticks are on whose cars? Let that one drop, please...
The same thing with bankers and loan officers being Republicans. Where did that come from? Who cares what party they belong to? The point is that loan officers are making recommendations regarding refinances of loans that tie right into the entitlement mentality Martin speaks of in his essay.
And it really all comes back to the Obama administration's propagation of government intervention and freebies for people who should never have signed on the dotted lines for loans to begin with.
Mr. Breen,
I believe it was Plato who said:
“Excess generally causes reaction, and produces a change in the opposite direction, whether it is in the seasons, or in individuals, or in governments.”
------------------------------------------
Our excess has caused the environment to go in the opposite direction. Republicans see protecting the environment as a threat to their avarice.
Brian and Martin,
You both believe in human caused climate change. So I challenge you both to tell us what the optimum temperature should be for the planet.
Why is Carbon Dioxide considered a pollutant and a major cause of the climate change, when the amount of water vapor and methane both have a much larger effect on climate?
How do you explain the increase in temperature and shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars?
Why are the biggest proponents of man made climate change (aka global warming) so hypocritical in their own behavior?
Did you turn off all your electrical appliances Saturday from 8:30 to 9:30?
The company that can produce a car battery that can hold enough charge for 150-200 miles of travel before recharging, is light/small enough to fit in any size car, can recharge fully over-night and can be recycled will make a whole lot of money.
If another technology like hydrogen or fuel cells or something nobody has thought of yet can be made relatively cheaply it might get the nod instead.
It would really be nice if this was a US company instead of somewhere else.
In the meantime, why do we not allow entry into this country of cars like the Ford Fiesta (Europe) or any of the other cars available in Europe that get 60-70 MPG without being hybrids.
A friend of mine once noted that we didn't progress out of the stone age because we ran out of stones, we just found something better.
Brian - you ask which scientists to believe.
here's how it works, the computer models used to predict first global warming, now called climate change, have to be able to actually predict climate change going both forwards and backwards.
The problems that the models have had is that they can't. The models should be able to go backwards in time and predict the changes that have already occurred and they can't.
Al Gore made a bold political statement about global warming. But that's all it was. The science is not settled. The science he based his statements on has not proved true. If you follow the money, he's personally making a killing.
Earth Day was a reaction to predictions of a coming new ice age. - contemplate that one for a while.
Brian, I'd like to address the issue of the lack of republican stickers on the bumper of hybrid vehicles. I personally know quite a number of people who drive hybrid vehicles. It is true, as you say, that pretty much all of them are liberals. So I would say that it is pretty accurate that the vast majority of Prius drivers are democrats who support Barack Obama.
However, I think that there are other demographic similarities as well. This group also tends to be very affluent. Most of my liberal friends who drive hybrids also live in upscale neighborhoods, send their kids to private schools, and buy expensive, organic food. I don't say this to mock them, as all of these folks tend to be very nice people. But it has occurred to me that most people who drive hybrid vehicles are making a social statement as much as an environmental statement. Driving a Prius has become somewhat of a fad among affluent environmentalists, who enjoy being seen driving their hybrid car to the mall while wearing a pair of gucci shoes.
Personally I'm not convinced that driving a Prius is environmentally conscious at all. When you look at the environmental impact of a motor vehicle you have to look beyond just its consumption of gasoline. There are other factors as well, such as the energy used to manufacture the vehicle and the materials used for construction. You also have to look at disposal costs after the vehicle has reached the end of its lifespan. There was an interesting analysis of the Prius that showed that it took 50% more energy to build a Prius than to build a Hummer. The nickel used in Prius batteries have to be mined, smelted and refined, a process which also generate a high level of sulfur dioxide. You know, that stuff that causes acid rain.
If you really wanted to drive an environmentally friendly car then you would be better off with a Toyota Scion or Chevy Aveo, as both get mileage that approaches the Prius but have far less impact on the environment in terms of construction and disposal.
I would also submit that the price of a Prius or any other type of typical hybrid vehicle is well out of the range of the average American. Which is why those who purchase these vehicles tend to be very upscale buyers. It is hardly a price point that is going to sell a lot of vehicles, and it is a segment that has so far not been particularly profitable for manufacturers, except in terms of positive press.
I do think that consumption of foreign oil is a national security issue, but the answer is not the Prius. People should use more mass transit and drive non-hybrid vehicles that get good gas mileage. It would also be better if we purchased fewer cars and simply kept the ones we had on the road and well maintained. That is the real answer. But the Prius seems to me to be more of a yuppie status symbol, driven by affluent liberals who feel guilty about their environmental footprint. To me it's kind of like watching overweight people drinking diet soda while snacking on "guiltless" fat-free cookies.
Bubba,
If your liberal friends are from Simi Valley where are these private schools they are sending their children to at?
You seem pretty condescending to those that are trying to do something to help. I know many people that drive hybrids and none of them are rich, nor do they live in expensive communities. They made sacrifices to buy a more expensive vehicle to be responsible and to help subsidize emerging technologies. A friend of mine that commutes everyday lives in a modest townhouse but paid more because he cares for to set an example and do his part. I don't know anyone personally that I can think of that wears Gucci shoes, but I don't really pay attention to shoe choices.
KoeJoes,
I don't really care if some people are hypocrites. A test to see if people are hypocritical isn't science. No matter how much Al Gore does or does not pollute it doesn't change the actual science behind climate change.
The climate changes all of the time throughout human history. The difference though this time is that many scientists believe it is human influenced. The same natural fluctuations applies to other planets.
The temperature of the Earth is of course going to naturally fluctuate and it is obvious that will continue. I am more concerned with what impacts humans might have on changing temperatures.
I don't see any evidence that Earth Day was started because of some scientists predicting global cooling. Feel free to share a link with us though.
Do you think humans influence climate change?
How did you choose scientists that happen to support your ideology?
Brian, my circle of friends extends well beyond Simi Valley. I also didn't accuse all people who drive hybrid vehicles of not trying to help the environment. What I am saying is that many of them have been misled into choosing a vehicle that is not nearly as environmentally friendly as it appears at first glance. Actually, the Gucci shoe comment was just to make a point. But I still stand by my statement that the Prius has also evolved into somewhat of a yuppie status symbol for affluent liberals, and not all owners have purely altruistic motives for purchasing one.
Perhaps I should give you a recent example of noble environmentalism gone tragically wrong to make my point. There has been a push for many years to increase the production of ethanol in order to produce cleaner burning fuel and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (I'll ignore the Bush Administration's real motive of rewarding large corn producers for the moment). Congress eventually passed legislation that mandated increased levels of ethanol blended into gasoline. This resulted in the following sequence of events:
- Increased demand for corn production
- Corresponding inflationary increase in worldwide food prices, leading to shortages and foot riots in 3rd world counties
- Farmers began shifting more crop production to corn because of federal subsidies that guaranteed higher profits
- US soybean production plunged because it is now less profitable to produce in the USA than corn
- Lower US soybean production resulted in increased soybean prices world wide
- Brazilian farmers began increasing soybean production because of increased profits
- In the interest of increasing land area to produce more soybean crops millions of areas of rain forest were subsequently bulldozed
So through the natural law of unintended consequences, efforts to reduce vehicle emissions by increasing ethanol production indirectly led to the destruction of millions of acres of rain forest, something that has been ecologically devastating. By the same token, the ecological cost of production and disposal of the large batteries used to power hybrid vehicles will more than offset their ecological benefits. We are better off buying conventional internal combustion powered vehicles that get high gas mileage, i.e. subcompacts. And the practice of manufacturing new vehicles has a negative environmental impact, so we should focus on keeping our vehicles well maintained and running longer. We are over-thinking the solution to the problem.
If every citizen of China and India lives by the standards outline above what happens to c02 output and what could happen with climate change? Tinkering with slightly better cars is a short term solution and doesn't address global problems. We need to get serious with new technologies.
Bubba, do you believe that humans are influencing climate change?
Brian - define influence.
Explain the changes to temperature on Mars that correspond to temperature changes on Earth
As you know, scientist predicted a coming ice age in the 70's using the same histerical language as global warming advocates do now. Those scientists were wrong, what makes you believe that the group that is theorizing global warming now is more accurate?
How much CO2, Methane, etc is the volcano that is currently erupting in Alaska spewing into the atmosphere and what effect does that have compared to the amount of human caused generation of those gases?
So you find it OK that the biggest advocate of human caused global warming is a hypocrit about his own behaviour as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions.
I ask again, what is the optimal temperature for the Earth?
I don't believe the scientists that are predicting catastrophe because the computer models they are using can't predict what they proport to predict. The input data that has been used has been shown to be faulty as well.
They can't take the computer models they use and predict climate changes in the past.
One of the big reasons its now climate change instead of global warming is because the temperature has been decreasing for the last few years - so which is it?
I was joking about earth day.
Here's an interesting site about global climate change:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
Here's a quote:
Attribution of the warming trend to human activities. The consensus scientists believe their models can replicate reasonably enough the contribution of human-caused greenhouse gases and thus they can be used to estimate future warming. The other scientists believe this is not the case. The reasons vary among the scientists, but the most common ones are: CO2, the target gas, pales in its abilities to impact temperature compared to water vapor and solar variability (not just radiation but also magnetic flux (which controls cosmic radiation and cloudiness) and orbital mechanics). Some scientists believe that CO2 is actually a cooling gas and we need to look elsewhere. Additional factors that some skeptics believe are not adequately considered are the natural contributions of CO2 and other gases that dwarf the human component and the impact of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds. Also, it is not clear to some scientists whether CO2 increases lead to warming or whether warming leads to CO2 increases. To many skeptics, the over valuation of CO2 as a causative agent, particularly in light of it having a logarithmic function that decreases impact with the amount of CO2, is an indication of a policy agenda meant to deter the use of fossil fuels, not understand climate change.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) has almost completed a sports stadium-sized facility in order to bring 192 intense laser beams with a total energy of 1.8 million Joules together on a 3 mm fuel pellet that sits at the center of a 1 million pound target chamber that is 10 meters in diameter. O.k... This isn't you Father's Oldsmobile...
In a few years two gallons of sea water will produce thirty times more energy than one gallon of gasoline.
Most of the employees are liberals.
Although I a sure Bubba Kidd will tell us Tony Strickland is way way ahead of them in the alternative energy game...
Brian,
It appears you're experiencing a mild Denial Of Service attack.
Wow - this sux
Is this an early April Fools joke?