Volt pricing announced. Starts at $41,000*

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

I see private monopolies as more geared towards their own interests, whereas the "self-interested government" still has a conscience.

I'll leave you with this quote:

If one rejects laissez-faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action

Also, going back to your point on Standard Oil, while they weren't officially dissolved until 1911, I think you're underestimating all the activity that took place in the two decades before, following Sherman and all the lawsuits pushed against Standard Oil. If the government had never intervened, they would have maintained the monopoly.

To credit all reduction of market share to a few lawsuits by the government is simply not true. It may have slightly sped up the free market process, but only because Standard Oil had to spend money on hiring lawyers instead of using said money to help benefiting consumers. Standard Oil's methods of price cutting led to kerosene levels falling to all time record lows, which I believe it was a 1/6th of its previous level by 1870 (and still fell after that time period). Consequently, this was one circumstance that allowed many more entrepreneurs and businessmen being able to afford to enter the oil market, thus providing the competition needed to reduce Standard Oil's market share.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What I fear is an increase that quickly goes from affordable to un-affordable

You'll need to elaborate on this more for me to address it.

No, not force it to the point of being affordable. Plenty of people factor in the cost of gas vs transit pass, the time of the trip, and the coverage of the transit system, among other things. Eventually, there is a tipping point, where on the one side it makes more sense to use a car and on the other, to take public transit. Raising the cost of gas will shift the tipping point towards mass transit by making it a less expensive alternative and increasing the coverage of the routes (due to the increased interest in taking mass transit).

I understand your logic here, and which you're correct in using this logic, but my statement was more against your first few statements in the section I quoted;

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not too keen on rush hour traffic or urban congestion. It sorta takes the fun out of driving. In my mind, every person that carpools, takes the bus, or rides the train instead of driving their car means one less car clogging up the road, and the easier it is for everyone else to drive.

This implies that your only reasoning for "needing" to increase demand for mass transportation, is because you would still drive and it would become more fun to you. This doesn't factor in that other people would still like to drive, apparently more so than they would use public transportation. In Japan, it is common for people to use mass transportation because it meets their own needs better than driving to work, however its apparent that driving would better meet the needs of the American than mass-transit. The demand simply isn't here because Americans do not want it here, because it doesn't meet their needs.

Simply put, the only force in deciding the needs of the masses is supply/demand. Government incentives, which includes increasing taxes and purposefully inflating prices, that say otherwise should be wholeheartedly contested and fought against.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis

Excellent quote.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

This implies that your only reasoning for "needing" to increase demand for mass transportation, is because you would still drive and it would become more fun to you. This doesn't factor in that other people would still like to drive, apparently more so than they would use public transportation. In Japan, it is common for people to use mass transportation because it meets their own needs better than driving to work, however its apparent that driving would better meet the needs of the American than mass-transit. The demand simply isn't here because Americans do not want it here, because it doesn't meet their needs.

Simply put, the only force in deciding the needs of the masses is supply/demand. Government incentives, which includes increasing taxes and purposefully inflating prices, that say otherwise should be wholeheartedly contested and fought against.

Well, its not the only reason. But I figure its the best way to try and convince members of this particular forum. If I was talking to a bunch of kids at university, I'd probably bring up the economic and environmental advantages of mass transit. Another group, I'd discuss the problems with importing foreign oil.

All in all, increased usage of good quality mass transit can coincide with just about anyone's interests.

Originally Posted by a_Username

You'll need to elaborate on this more for me to address it.

I had a long post explain it, then I cut it down to one line, lol.

Basically, what happens when supply goes down and demand goes up? Price usually skyrockets, right? Well, if prices get too high too fast it can have a disastrous effect. So raise it early and get people better prepared for when it really gets bad. And when it is bad, you can slow down the increase by gradually dropping the tax.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Hold on though...Once you've established a monopoly, you pretty much control the industry. There are no competitors because simply put, they can't compete with you. Predatory monopoly just sounds like the stage before monopoly, the complete control of the industry.
Yes, monopolies can benefit consumers, but what about the small business-people? There is no room for growth/competition in the market because there is too dominant of a monopoly. If there is no room for competition, isn't that inherently against capitalism? Not to mention no room for growth is not beneficial to society in the long run.
One company in power is never a good thing.

You say once you're a monopoly, people can't compete with you. You have that absolutely backward. It is because people can't compete with you that you have a monopoly. Businesses only become monopolies in a free market when all people choose only to buy from you and not your competitors. A free market monopoly must be good for consumers because it can only come to exist if it is the absolute best at serving its customers. You say a monopoly means there is no competition, but in reality, a monopoly represents the fiercest competition possible. Ironically, the artificial break up of monopolies reduces competition because it effectively limits how much one company is allowed to set itself apart from others.

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

I see private monopolies as more geared towards their own interests, whereas the "self-interested government" still has a conscience.

You speak as if no one in government is self-motivated. See prior quote.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What I fear is an increase that quickly goes from affordable to un-affordable

I understand the thinking behind this. However, the flaw is that this argument basically says that to prevent a disaster in the future, said disaster must be artificially induced today. It's like saying, I'm afraid I might get into a car accident sometime in the next ten years, so I better drive into a tree on purpose tonight.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No, not force it to the point of being affordable. Plenty of people factor in the cost of gas vs transit pass, the time of the trip, and the coverage of the transit system, among other things. Eventually, there is a tipping point, where on the one side it makes more sense to use a car and on the other, to take public transit. Raising the cost of gas will shift the tipping point towards mass transit by making it a less expensive alternative and increasing the coverage of the routes (due to the increased interest in taking mass transit).

Access to energy is positively correlated with standard of living. Artificially reducing access to energy by taxing it will result in an artificial reduction in standard of living. It won't make mass transit cheaper, it will simply make easier forms of transportation less available, making life more difficult. Ultimately, it will RAISE the cost of alternative modes of transportation too, because the increased demand for mass transit will result in increased prices.

Lastly, if access to gasoline where restricted by prohibitive taxation, how would I move about? Let's say....just for the fun of it.... I lived in a town of 9700 people in a relatively rural part of the country. Since such a small town is unlikely to have a large scale mass transit system, and many stores I shop at and my job are in a different city, what happens to me? Why should I take a hit just so someone in a good enough position not to need to worry about gas prices can enjoy a less congested commute, with "everyone else" off the roads and tightly stuffed into buses (on which at least 10 people might have a cold or the flu at any given time during the season) where they're not in the way? Forcing that on people with already marginal standards of living, who literally couldn't afford to drive at $7-8 a gallon is arrogant, immoral, and unfair, in my humble opinion. My old Oldsmobile has as much right to be on the road as the Audi the guy who works on the floor above me has.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I understand the thinking behind this. However, the flaw is that this argument basically says that to prevent a disaster in the future, said disaster must be artificially induced today. It's like saying, I'm afraid I might get into a car accident sometime in the next ten years, so I better drive into a tree on purpose tonight.




Access to energy is positively correlated with standard of living. Artificially reducing access to energy by taxing it will result in an artificial reduction in standard of living. It won't make mass transit cheaper, it will simply make easier forms of transportation less available, making life more difficult. Ultimately, it will RAISE the cost of alternative modes of transportation too, because the increased demand for mass transit will result in increased prices.

Lastly, if access to gasoline where restricted by prohibitive taxation, how would I move about? Let's say....just for the fun of it.... I lived in a town of 9700 people in a relatively rural part of the country. Since such a small town is unlikely to have a large scale mass transit system, and many stores I shop at and my job are in a different city, what happens to me? Why should I take a hit just so someone in a good enough position not to need to worry about gas prices can enjoy a less congested commute, with "everyone else" off the roads and tightly stuffed into buses (on which at least 10 people might have a cold or the flu at any given time during the season) where they're not in the way? Forcing that on people with already marginal standards of living, who literally couldn't afford to drive at $7-8 a gallon is arrogant, immoral, and unfair, in my humble opinion. My old Oldsmobile has as much right to be on the road as the Audi the guy who works on the floor above me has.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Well, its not the only reason. But I figure its the best way to try and convince members of this particular forum. If I was talking to a bunch of kids at university, I'd probably bring up the economic and environmental advantages of mass transit. Another group, I'd discuss the problems with importing foreign oil.

All in all, increased usage of good quality mass transit can coincide with just about anyone's interests.

I'm sure there are advantages, but regardless the American people (the consumers in our national market) have shown they do not want to use public transportation. The options to use public transportation are there, however they haven't brought sufficient demand to justify building more and more mass transportation facilities.

Also, people seem to forget that the market changes to better suit consumer demand. If the day comes when oil is depleted (or gas prices simply become too high), then innovation and entrepreneurship will follow that doesn't require the need of oil.

I had a long post explain it, then I cut it down to one line, lol.

Basically, what happens when supply goes down and demand goes up? Price usually skyrockets, right? Well, if prices get too high too fast it can have a disastrous effect. So raise it early and get people better prepared for when it really gets bad. And when it is bad, you can slow down the increase by gradually dropping the tax.

Correct, but you must specify who the situation is disastrous for. In general, this inflation will lead people to become "hoarders." These hoarders will save their money and not spend as much, thus bringing down demand and lowering prices (deflation). The market will correct itself, given the time needed to do so. The free market tends to have the quickest fix, while implementing government interventions tend to stretch out that time period, assuming the interventions eventually work.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Apparently you overestimate the power of a monopoly. Like in my previous post, competitors do arise again.

This was actually proven correct in the last 10 years or so.

The Clinton Administration sued Microsoft for being a monopoly, and won. So legally, Microsoft was a monopoly. But the fact is that even though the Government never 'broke up' the Microsoft monopoly like they have done with other companies in the past, Apple's market share has consistantly grown over those ~10years.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

I see private monopolies as more geared towards their own interests, whereas the "self-interested government" still has a conscience.

LMFAO!!!

My father is a disabled Vietnam veteran (Purple Heart recipient), and the way the VA has treated him has been an absolute disgrace.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I understand the thinking behind this. However, the flaw is that this argument basically says that to prevent a disaster in the future, said disaster must be artificially induced today. It's like saying, I'm afraid I might get into a car accident sometime in the next ten years, so I better drive into a tree on purpose tonight.

You make it sound as if I want the price of gas to be $8/gal right now. Not at all.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Access to energy is positively correlated with standard of living. Artificially reducing access to energy by taxing it will result in an artificial reduction in standard of living. It won't make mass transit cheaper, it will simply make easier forms of transportation less available, making life more difficult. Ultimately, it will RAISE the cost of alternative modes of transportation too, because the increased demand for mass transit will result in increased prices.

Lastly, if access to gasoline where restricted by prohibitive taxation, how would I move about? Let's say....just for the fun of it.... I lived in a town of 9700 people in a relatively rural part of the country. Since such a small town is unlikely to have a large scale mass transit system, and many stores I shop at and my job are in a different city, what happens to me? Why should I take a hit just so someone in a good enough position not to need to worry about gas prices can enjoy a less congested commute, with "everyone else" off the roads and tightly stuffed into buses (on which at least 10 people might have a cold or the flu at any given time during the season) where they're not in the way? Forcing that on people with already marginal standards of living, who literally couldn't afford to drive at $7-8 a gallon is arrogant, immoral, and unfair, in my humble opinion. My old Oldsmobile has as much right to be on the road as the Audi the guy who works on the floor above me has.

I live in a rural town too, though its less than half the size of your town. Though we do have a mass transit system. It consists of several tractors shuttling people around town during the annual Poultry Fest. The nearest cities are about half an hour away, and thats where a lot of us work and shop. So you and I are pretty much in the same boat with regard to commuting. If anything, my situation is worse because I pay over $1/gal more for gas than you do. As for the cost of transit going up, it would -diesel isn't free. But the cost of mass transit wouldn't rise as quickly as the price of gas since the cost of operation as well as profit is added into the ticket price.

My view is that gas will hit that unaffordable $8/gal point eventually. Where people truly are forced to abandon their cars for something else. Its better to prepare for it while people can still choose, rather than scramble afterward. Epanding rail service takes quite a while. Bus service can grow a lot quicker, probably several months to a year for a decent expansion. But even then, as you've pointed out there are too few buses running so most are crowded and you can't always get where you want to go.

I certainly don't advocate over-crowded buses and trains. I've been on them and its terrible. I say get more buses and trains running and reduce the crowding on each. Major urban bus routes could go from having one bus every 15 minutes to every 10. Other buses would go to previously un-serviced areas. Some trains could run every half hour instead of every hour. Expanded platforms could add a couple cars to each train.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You make it sound as if I want the price of gas to be $8/gal right now. Not at all.

I'd like to but-in on this discussion between you two to point out a few things.

Again, you run into the economic calculation problem that arises when asserting a "should be" price without the price being objects of exchange. You can't rationally allocate resources without this price mechanism.

I live in a rural town too, though its less than half the size of your town. Though we do have a mass transit system. It consists of several tractors shuttling people around town during the annual Poultry Fest. The nearest cities are about half an hour away, and thats where a lot of us work and shop. So you and I are pretty much in the same boat with regard to commuting. If anything, my situation is worse because I pay over $1/gal more for gas than you do. As for the cost of transit going up, it would -diesel isn't free. But the cost of mass transit wouldn't rise as quickly as the price of gas since the cost of operation as well as profit is added into the ticket price.

If gas prices become so important that they necessarily stop consumers from buying cars, then the market will correct itself to meet these new needs of consumers by multiple ways. One of these could be factoring out the need of oil all-together by consumers buying fully-electric vehicles. Another could be buying more fuel-efficient cars, or some will use mass-transit systems. Or it could be all three of these working together at once. However, this concept that mass-transportation deserves all the business is, at best, an unfounded one. I'm assuming that you point to it being more environmentally friendly in using mass-transportation instead of personal transportation. However, you're forgetting that mass-transportation are also at mercy to oil prices and will continue to be unless you force upon a law that forbids the usage of gasoline-burning engines. All these problems, plus problems of convenience, effectiveness, etc. would arise.

My view is that gas will hit that unaffordable $8/gal point eventually. Where people truly are forced to abandon their cars for something else. Its better to prepare for it while people can still choose, rather than scramble afterward. Epanding rail service takes quite a while. Bus service can grow a lot quicker, probably several months to a year for a decent expansion. But even then, as you've pointed out there are too few buses running so most are crowded and you can't always get where you want to go.

I certainly don't advocate over-crowded buses and trains. I've been on them and its terrible. I say get more buses and trains running and reduce the crowding on each. Major urban bus routes could go from having one bus every 15 minutes to every 10. Other buses would go to previously un-serviced areas. Some trains could run every half hour instead of every hour. Expanded platforms could add a couple cars to each train.

It is possible that gas could reach unaffordable heights for the masses, but the market would recognize any new consumer demand and adjust accordingly to it. Ironically, you're the one who would try to take away from a consumer's choice. It also seems you're condemning being reactionary for the sake of being reactionary.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

LMFAO!!!

My father is a disabled Vietnam veteran (Purple Heart recipient), and the way the VA has treated him has been an absolute disgrace.

Government is a construct of man, and as such it is subject to all of the imperfections and flaws that man is subject to. Left to its own devices, government becomes as selfish and corrupt as any tyrant or dictator. To consider the government as a selfless and benevolent entity is very naive.

This is why the framers put up firewalls and limits on the power of the government. To prevent it from growing powerful enough to be able to take away the liberties of the citizens.