Wind Turbine Human Health Scandal: New Evidence
In today's episode of "Big Government: the Triumph of Central Planning"...
More rumblings of possible links between wind turbines and human sickness. What follows predictably may be something like this...
1) more studies;
2) law suits;
3) more restrictive federal regulations;
4) collapse of private wind turbine investment;
5) federal incentives to "rescue" the wounded wind turbine industry;
6) increased taxes to fund the incentives and "promote green energy".
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
Guilty plea in bird deaths at wind farms a first - New York News
Guilty plea in bird deaths at wind farms a first - New York News
Here's Your government at work, and I'm not making any of this up...
Between 2009 and 2013 165 birds were killed by wind turbines belonging to Duke Energy Corp. Wind turbines... You know, those "environmentally friendly" 300 feet tall towers with giant, rotating blades, that are so wonderful to the feds that Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize their construction?
Well, federal law holds that when birds are killed by wind turbines this really is a BIG deal, and so the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department are cranking up some righteous indignation to prosecute the perpetrators of this carnage. In a nutshell, if a bird snuffs it by colliding with one of Your federally subsidized rotating blades, and You don't have a federal permit to kill birds with rotating blades, Your kiester's in the chopper. If You have the permit, it's still bad, but sort of permitted. But it's a serious enough offense that if a bird approaches one of Your wind turbines, You need to SHUT DOWN the turbine in time to prevent harming the bird. If this means installing bird-detecting radar, and hiring field biologists to watch for birds, so be it.
Duke has had to "plead guilty" and pay $1 million in fines. They also need to "draft a plan to reduce eagle and bird deaths" at its wind farms. Oh, and every bird killed must be reported to the feds.
Apparently wind turbines are very good for the environment, unless You actually operate them.
Question: Do wind turbines kill as many birds as buildings, planes, trains, and motor vehicles?
Here's Your government at work, and I'm not making any of this up...
Between 2009 and 2013 165 birds were killed by wind turbines belonging to Duke Energy Corp. Wind turbines... You know, those "environmentally friendly" 300 feet tall towers with giant, rotating blades, that are so wonderful to the feds that Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize their construction?
Well, federal law holds that when birds are killed by wind turbines this really is a BIG deal, and so the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Justice Department are cranking up some righteous indignation to prosecute the perpetrators of this carnage. In a nutshell, if a bird snuffs it by colliding with one of Your federally subsidized rotating blades, and You don't have a federal permit to kill birds with rotating blades, Your kiester's in the chopper. If You have the permit, it's still bad, but sort of permitted. But it's a serious enough offense that if a bird approaches one of Your wind turbines, You need to SHUT DOWN the turbine in time to prevent harming the bird. If this means installing bird-detecting radar, and hiring field biologists to watch for birds, so be it.
Duke has had to "plead guilty" and pay $1 million in fines. They also need to "draft a plan to reduce eagle and bird deaths" at its wind farms. Oh, and every bird killed must be reported to the feds.
Apparently wind turbines are very good for the environment, unless You actually operate them.
Question: Do wind turbines kill as many birds as buildings, planes, trains, and motor vehicles?
Saturday, September 08, 2012
National debt
National debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).
(By Jonathan Huntley, CBO Macroeconomic Analysis Division. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
national debt
(courtesy of http://zfacts.com/)
Unemployment, 2002-2012
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
By the end of 2008, at the end of President George Bush's watch, the economic nasty was hitting the fan. On president-elect Barack Obama's radio address of January 10, 2009, he observed, "...given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better." Fair enough.
But after almost four years in office, unemployment is worse than when President Obama took office.
It's fair to question why the economy tanked on President Bush's watch.
It's also fair to question President Obama's performance in light of today's economy.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Private Sector's Doing Just Fine

Yesterday on national television President Obama announced that "The private sector is doing fine." This wonderful news has come as a great relief to the millions of middle and lower class families facing unemployment, collapsing home values, increased taxes, a stagnant stock market, and crushing national debt. Later in the day, President Obama offered a clarification of his statement in the form of a this stirring ballad, just in time for the annual Country Music Television Music Awards:
-Barry O and the Good News Band-
The private sector's doing just fine.
It was ruined by George Bush but it's much better since '09.
The middle class is feasting on caviar and wine,
'cuz the private sector's doing just fine.
The private sector's strong, as you know,
even if investor confidence is low.
Those bankers are the problem and they really need to go.
I'd love to get my hands on their dough.
Some claim that unemployment's too high.
That's only 'cuz we're lacking jobs and now I'll tell you why.
Republicans would rather that those jobless folk just die,
so I sit here in the White House and cry.
I've got re-election on my mind,
but the economic indicators indicate a bind.
So I'll simply say that things are getting better all the time, that's why
the private sector's doin' fine.
Yes, that Mormon fellow's causing my pearly whites to grind,
but the private sector's doing just fine.
We could use more public spending, let's increase my credit line,
but the private sector's doing just fine.
(All rights reserved.)
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Clarendon Hills Middle School wind turbine blows $51,000
Middle school starts up new wind turbine — Hinsdale news, photos and events — TribLocal.com: "
Sanity check: $51,000 for a wind turbine that produces $582 per year will recover its initial cost in 87 years, if we naively assume it can be maintained at zero cost. Even if we assume steep growth in the cost of electricity (7% per year) and zero maintenance, the break-even point still is at least several decades, much longer than the equipment will actually survive. Economically this project is unjustifiable, and amounts to $51,000 that no longer can be spent usefully inside the school building on teachers, books, lab equipment, or computers.
Who are the wind turbine's biggest beneficiaries? Follow the money.
Sanity check: $51,000 for a wind turbine that produces $582 per year will recover its initial cost in 87 years, if we naively assume it can be maintained at zero cost. Even if we assume steep growth in the cost of electricity (7% per year) and zero maintenance, the break-even point still is at least several decades, much longer than the equipment will actually survive. Economically this project is unjustifiable, and amounts to $51,000 that no longer can be spent usefully inside the school building on teachers, books, lab equipment, or computers.
Who are the wind turbine's biggest beneficiaries? Follow the money.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Middle school wind turbine benefits equipment makers, not students
Turbine whips up interest - Triblocal - Voice of the town
Dear Editor,
The new, $24,000 wind turbine at Thomas Middle School poses some thorny questions: What is its economic value, and what is its educational value?
With a peak rated output of 2.4 kilowatts, this wind turbine can generate 57 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day if there is constant wind. But wind isn't constant, and wind turbines typically operate at about 30% peak capacity.[1] This offers the school electricity worth about $1.38 per day at today's electric rates. Let's figure out when the turbine will "pay for itself". We start with several assumptions biased in favor of the wind turbine:
Given these assumptions, our wind turbine will “break even” in the year 2044, when today's 7th graders are 46 years old: that is, after 34 years operation without repair or maintenance, and only after a hypothetical tenfold increase in electric rates. Using more realistic assumptions, there's no reasonable hope that this project ever will recover its cost to taxpayers.
How will the wind turbine benefit our students educationally? Will they learn how wind turbines generate electricity? Great! But this can be taught in the classroom, and in hands-on labs with much less expensive equipment.
Will the wind turbine be used to teach students how to think critically, how to estimate the costs and benefits of such a project? Will they learn that some projects advertised as "green" actually waste more resources than they conserve: that sometimes "green" is only skin deep?
True conservation, true "green renewal", requires good use of our resources, and minimizing economic waste is part of the environmental equation. Our science students need to learn this, and we can teach the concept, but wasting money on unneeded equipment teaches a perverse lesson: that waste is good. In fact, we can teach science much better without our own turbine, because the funds wasted on this equipment could be better used to augment faculty, books, and labs... or to supplement next year's budget.
The solar panels installed at the school three years ago failed to generate much interest. Their economic benefit also has been uninspiring: a total generated output of 1252 kWh[2], worth only $100. Dare we ask what the solar panels cost to purchase and install? Have they proved to be a good investment either educationally or economically? Who profited most from the solar panels: the students, or those who sold the system? What other educational opportunities were lost when the solar panels were funded? What reason is there to believe the wind turbine will provide any greater benefit than the solar panels? How long will the wind turbine capture attention before there are proposals to buy the next New Thing?
Education dollars are precious and we can't afford to squander them. For the sake of our children we need to urge our schools to sharpen their priorities and make the best possible use of the available funds. We shouldn’t tolerate wasteful spending at the expense of our children.
________________________________________
[1] American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html.
[2] As of 9/13/2010. Arlington Heights School District 25: http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us/schools/thomas/science/solarPanel.php, http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?view=PV/detailDC/HostedAdmin&eid=88637.
Dear Editor,
The new, $24,000 wind turbine at Thomas Middle School poses some thorny questions: What is its economic value, and what is its educational value?
With a peak rated output of 2.4 kilowatts, this wind turbine can generate 57 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day if there is constant wind. But wind isn't constant, and wind turbines typically operate at about 30% peak capacity.[1] This offers the school electricity worth about $1.38 per day at today's electric rates. Let's figure out when the turbine will "pay for itself". We start with several assumptions biased in favor of the wind turbine:
- The equipment never requires repair or maintenance -such an assumption wouldn't be optimistic so much as foolish.
- The total upfront cost of the installation is $24,000, or $10,000 per kW. Yes, $10,000 of this came through a State of Illinois grant, but we taxpayers still foot the entire cost. And let’s assume that if this sum were invested elsewhere, it could earn about 3% annually.
- All the generated power is used productively by the school or returned to the grid. (Whether this is the case, the Trib article doesn't reveal.)
- The cost of electricity today is about 8 cents per kWh. Let's assume it will increase steeply at 7% every year.
![]() |
| "Honey... did we buy the extended warranty?" |
Given these assumptions, our wind turbine will “break even” in the year 2044, when today's 7th graders are 46 years old: that is, after 34 years operation without repair or maintenance, and only after a hypothetical tenfold increase in electric rates. Using more realistic assumptions, there's no reasonable hope that this project ever will recover its cost to taxpayers.
How will the wind turbine benefit our students educationally? Will they learn how wind turbines generate electricity? Great! But this can be taught in the classroom, and in hands-on labs with much less expensive equipment.
Will the wind turbine be used to teach students how to think critically, how to estimate the costs and benefits of such a project? Will they learn that some projects advertised as "green" actually waste more resources than they conserve: that sometimes "green" is only skin deep?
True conservation, true "green renewal", requires good use of our resources, and minimizing economic waste is part of the environmental equation. Our science students need to learn this, and we can teach the concept, but wasting money on unneeded equipment teaches a perverse lesson: that waste is good. In fact, we can teach science much better without our own turbine, because the funds wasted on this equipment could be better used to augment faculty, books, and labs... or to supplement next year's budget.
The solar panels installed at the school three years ago failed to generate much interest. Their economic benefit also has been uninspiring: a total generated output of 1252 kWh[2], worth only $100. Dare we ask what the solar panels cost to purchase and install? Have they proved to be a good investment either educationally or economically? Who profited most from the solar panels: the students, or those who sold the system? What other educational opportunities were lost when the solar panels were funded? What reason is there to believe the wind turbine will provide any greater benefit than the solar panels? How long will the wind turbine capture attention before there are proposals to buy the next New Thing?
Education dollars are precious and we can't afford to squander them. For the sake of our children we need to urge our schools to sharpen their priorities and make the best possible use of the available funds. We shouldn’t tolerate wasteful spending at the expense of our children.
________________________________________
[1] American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html.
[2] As of 9/13/2010. Arlington Heights School District 25: http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us/schools/thomas/science/solarPanel.php, http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?view=PV/detailDC/HostedAdmin&eid=88637.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Got Hope? The change will cost us another $1.9 trillion
Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit -Yahoo! News
The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.
But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.
"WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.
The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation."
The Democrats' insatiable appetite for spending exceeds even the Republicans of the previous administration, who became intoxicated with the vision of a federal government as a limitless source of cash and solution to every problem.
But the Republicans apparently were Small Potatoes compared with the current Democrat administration, whose desire to control and consume All Things reminds me of a python preparing to swallow a goat.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Caritas Internationalis clamors for climate control?
Caritas charges Japan, Russia attempting to subvert climate talks -Catholic Culture
Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?
Caritas Internationalis-- the consortium of Catholic relief agencies-- has charged that Japan, Russia, and other wealthy nations are attempting to subvert climate negotiations in Copenhagen by sidelining the controversial Kyoto Protocol. Referring to poorer nations' "fear that rich countries are trying to kill the strongest legal climate agreement we have," an Irish Caritas representative said, "As heads of state come to Copenhagen in this second week, it's up to rich countries to get the talks back on track by re-committing to the Kyoto Protocol."
"Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be a step back for all countries, but especially for the world’s poorest. For them the negotiations are a matter of survival," added a Caritas representative from Scotland. "Vulnerable communities across the world need a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement, of which the Kyoto Protocol is an essential element."
Caritas is pushing for the Kyoto Protocol? How will the world's poor be better off if the world's largest wealth-producing economies are strangled to death? Who, then, will provide the goods, services, and consumer markets that developing nations need in order to develop and prosper?
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The worst scientific scandal of our generation?
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
Whoops! It looks like the Warmers have been caught with their temperatures down. See who's feeling warm now.
But the Warmers are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from yoking the world to their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give, give, give until it hurts.
...Perhaps the most obvious [revelation]... is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws...
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction - to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards...
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods...
...Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Whoops! It looks like the Warmers have been caught with their temperatures down. See who's feeling warm now.
But the Warmers are still after the greenbacks, so they won't easily be dissuaded from yoking the world to their Gospel of Warmth. To save the world, we and our children's children will have to give, give, give until it hurts.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Cash for Clunkers: spreading debt and chaos the socialist way
Cash for Clunkers Ends Monday
The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:
Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.
And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.
The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:
- All taxpayers are compelled to shoulder the cost of subsidizing the purchase of new cars for a few taxpayers. That's called, "spreading the wealth", and our president likes to do that.
- The "clunkers" are cars that were being used; they were working. They had some value. But now they will be destroyed, discarded not because they are worthless, but because the law requires it. Destroying private property and replacing it with federally funded property: our president likes that too.
- Car dealers benefit from this program -at least if they actually ever receive the promised rebates. Yet, other businesses and industries do not enjoy these benefits. Mr. President, how is it fair to use tax money to selectively benefit only certain sectors of the market?
- We are supposed to believe that the program benefits the environment and will save energy. Yet will energy actually be saved? How much energy was used to manufacture the new cars that will be sold to people who otherwise were not prepared to purchase a new car? How much energy is wasted in the premature destruction of the functioning "clunkers".
- Many citizens using this program perhaps would not have purchased a car at this time had the program not been in place. Why? Because for many, buying a new car is a big expense, and they had not judged it wise to make such a purchase at the time. Does a $3500 or $4500 reduction in the upfront cost of the car mean that it's no longer expensive to buy that new car? Of course not. So, many buyers will have been wooed by the program to make an expensive purchase at a time when things financially are pretty tough for many people.
Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.
And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens
US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News
How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.
Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?
The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.
But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.
Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.
What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.
If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.
The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.
In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com
How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.
Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?
The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.
But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.
Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.
What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.
If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.
Monday, June 01, 2009
U.S. government carjacks automotive industry
GM Files for Bankruptcy Protection - WSJ.com
Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?
This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.
The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.
When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?
Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a 'viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.'
Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?
This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.
The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.
When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Media supports administration's interference in auto industry
Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:
"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."
-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.
"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."
"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?
And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Company of the Living Dead
Critics blast AIG as flap escalates over bonuses - USATODAY.com
AIG isn't alone, but it's a good symbol for the financial house of cards which is collapsing in ruins around us. Surely the government, banks, investors, and insurers were not powerless to see that a collapse was likely if not inevitable.
Yet government policy encouraged and rewarded an unsustainable orgy of risky lending and unrealistic valuation of debt.
Now AIG has already collapsed, although the mountain of freshly printed cash shoveled into the abyss is supposed to fool us into thinking AIG has been "rescued". The entity moves, walks, talks, and spends as though the orgy were still in full swing, but the soul has already left the body. The federal government, with its 79.9% ownership of this corporate corpse, is the animating principle, the Doctor Frankenstein behind the pathetic creature. But the creature proves to be a hideous embarrassment, refusing to play politely its assigned role as subservient ward of the state.
Frankenstein's monster ran amok, but at least Frankenstein created only one. Governments are rarely satisfied to produce only one hideous, overreaching disaster. As the "rescue" of AIG will prove to be somewhat less successful than was hoped, the meddlers surely will not repent of their dreams, but will redouble their efforts to realize them, meddling more and more with whatever remains of the economy. They'll create more and bigger monsters, uglier and more destructive: impotent, and doomed to wander the economy as insatiable zombies, tethered to their capricious and increasingly useless rulers, leaving a pestilence of poverty and servitude behind them.
AIG isn't alone, but it's a good symbol for the financial house of cards which is collapsing in ruins around us. Surely the government, banks, investors, and insurers were not powerless to see that a collapse was likely if not inevitable. Yet government policy encouraged and rewarded an unsustainable orgy of risky lending and unrealistic valuation of debt.
Now AIG has already collapsed, although the mountain of freshly printed cash shoveled into the abyss is supposed to fool us into thinking AIG has been "rescued". The entity moves, walks, talks, and spends as though the orgy were still in full swing, but the soul has already left the body. The federal government, with its 79.9% ownership of this corporate corpse, is the animating principle, the Doctor Frankenstein behind the pathetic creature. But the creature proves to be a hideous embarrassment, refusing to play politely its assigned role as subservient ward of the state.
Frankenstein's monster ran amok, but at least Frankenstein created only one. Governments are rarely satisfied to produce only one hideous, overreaching disaster. As the "rescue" of AIG will prove to be somewhat less successful than was hoped, the meddlers surely will not repent of their dreams, but will redouble their efforts to realize them, meddling more and more with whatever remains of the economy. They'll create more and bigger monsters, uglier and more destructive: impotent, and doomed to wander the economy as insatiable zombies, tethered to their capricious and increasingly useless rulers, leaving a pestilence of poverty and servitude behind them.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Congress just can't spend it fast enough
Pelosi's Auto-Rescue Plan Sets Up Clash With Bush -Bloomberg.com Politics
Congress: Leave GM alone. Leave the insurance companies alone. Leave the investment firms alone.
Stop squandering public money on Your favorite businesses.
Congress: Leave GM alone. Leave the insurance companies alone. Leave the investment firms alone.
Stop squandering public money on Your favorite businesses.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Warren Buffet: a good time to invest in stocks
Op-Ed Contributor - Buy American. I Am. - NYTimes.com:
Warren Buffet: "I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over."
Warren Buffet: "I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Believe the anger, John
Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally
"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."
Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.
A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.

"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."
Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.
A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The cost of socialist policies
World finance chiefs heading for Washington for crunch talks
For years the federal carrot and stick program -mortgage lending guarantees coupled with the class-baiting dogma that minority home ownership was "disproportionately low"- pressured lenders to make loans that they otherwise would not have risked making.
Once this engine of capital redistribution was in place, it was ripe for exploitation.
Lenders milked it for quick profits. High-risk borrowers milked it for more expensive homes than they really could afford. Congressmen milked it for votes, campaign contributions, liberal credentials, and sometimes favors of an even less savory sort.
Numerous lenders permitted the irresponsible federal policy and opportunity for quick profits to override good judgment. They made millions of high risk loans to borrowers, and neither lenders nor borrowers seemed really to care whether the loans could or would be repaid.
Lenders weren't overly concerned about this, since federal loan guarantees meant that ultimately the lenders weren't gambling with their own money. The government saw to it that these these loans were purchased from the lenders, their true risk camouflaged, and the resulting toxic investments funneled back into the economic food chain. A time bomb was formed and its fuse lit by a combination of bad government policy, market forces, greed, recklessness, and even fraud on the part of government officials, lenders, and borrowers. The default rates on these loans was enormous, yet the engine roared ahead unchecked.
The socialist dogma used to justify such widespread, high-risk lending was that if some individuals can't afford to buy homes, then it is government's job to force others to subsidize the cost of providing them. Such heavy-handed meddling in the lending market meant that many bad borrowers would receive loans, and this diversion of capital meant that many good potential borrowers were denied loans, while others simply paid more for the loans they obtained.
Now the time bomb has exploded. Banks are collapsing, people are losing homes, and the radius of destruction expands. Predictably, congressmen blame their opposing parties. But let's not waste time blaming each other, they say: It's time to fix the problem! Yes, the federal government, rarely content to leave bad enough alone, has stepped in with another scheme: Let's reward the guilty and punish the innocent with yet another gigantic redistribution of capital, controlled by our new demigod, the Trillion Dollar Czar.
The show's far from over. John McCain, supposedly the more conservative of our two presidential candidates, now has suggested that the federal government should go further to "stabilize the housing market", buying up homeowners' failing mortgages and replacing them with new "manageable" loans, as decreed by some magical process to be administered by bloated bureaucrats inhabiting some new bloated bureaucracy. Undoubtedly these will include many of the same meddlers (and their disciples) who brought about this current crisis in the first place.
Yet history shows that government schemes to control or "stabilize" market prices of any commodity -including homes- almost always cause far more harm than good, and prove to be giant failures and destroyers of wealth due to their unintended negative consequences. (For an eye-opening explanation, see the classic "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.)
This plan, if adopted, will be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current disaster which is already unfolding.
For years the federal carrot and stick program -mortgage lending guarantees coupled with the class-baiting dogma that minority home ownership was "disproportionately low"- pressured lenders to make loans that they otherwise would not have risked making.
Once this engine of capital redistribution was in place, it was ripe for exploitation.
Lenders milked it for quick profits. High-risk borrowers milked it for more expensive homes than they really could afford. Congressmen milked it for votes, campaign contributions, liberal credentials, and sometimes favors of an even less savory sort.
Numerous lenders permitted the irresponsible federal policy and opportunity for quick profits to override good judgment. They made millions of high risk loans to borrowers, and neither lenders nor borrowers seemed really to care whether the loans could or would be repaid.
Lenders weren't overly concerned about this, since federal loan guarantees meant that ultimately the lenders weren't gambling with their own money. The government saw to it that these these loans were purchased from the lenders, their true risk camouflaged, and the resulting toxic investments funneled back into the economic food chain. A time bomb was formed and its fuse lit by a combination of bad government policy, market forces, greed, recklessness, and even fraud on the part of government officials, lenders, and borrowers. The default rates on these loans was enormous, yet the engine roared ahead unchecked.
The socialist dogma used to justify such widespread, high-risk lending was that if some individuals can't afford to buy homes, then it is government's job to force others to subsidize the cost of providing them. Such heavy-handed meddling in the lending market meant that many bad borrowers would receive loans, and this diversion of capital meant that many good potential borrowers were denied loans, while others simply paid more for the loans they obtained.
Now the time bomb has exploded. Banks are collapsing, people are losing homes, and the radius of destruction expands. Predictably, congressmen blame their opposing parties. But let's not waste time blaming each other, they say: It's time to fix the problem! Yes, the federal government, rarely content to leave bad enough alone, has stepped in with another scheme: Let's reward the guilty and punish the innocent with yet another gigantic redistribution of capital, controlled by our new demigod, the Trillion Dollar Czar.
The show's far from over. John McCain, supposedly the more conservative of our two presidential candidates, now has suggested that the federal government should go further to "stabilize the housing market", buying up homeowners' failing mortgages and replacing them with new "manageable" loans, as decreed by some magical process to be administered by bloated bureaucrats inhabiting some new bloated bureaucracy. Undoubtedly these will include many of the same meddlers (and their disciples) who brought about this current crisis in the first place.
Yet history shows that government schemes to control or "stabilize" market prices of any commodity -including homes- almost always cause far more harm than good, and prove to be giant failures and destroyers of wealth due to their unintended negative consequences. (For an eye-opening explanation, see the classic "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.)
This plan, if adopted, will be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current disaster which is already unfolding.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)



