|
Quote:
Can't make this shit up. |
Quote:
Quote:
Here are some examples, but there are hundreds that can be found online, and I challenge you to name a state that isn’t authoritarian by your lose definition. https://www.usatoday.com/list/news/n...-0fec193d389e/ |
Quote:
This is the key point from your article: “Some ethanol producers burn coal and natural gas for heat sources in the fermentation process to make fuel ethanol, while some burn corn stocks or sugar cane stocks.” Plus land use, fertilisers etc. mentioned in the article, the Porsche process does not have this. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The big advantage might be land usage, but we are already exporting 10-20% of our corn each year, so even if 40% of our corn is used for biofuels, we could just use more corn for ethanol. |
Quote:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/29/...r-scott-walker Quote:
'They demolished my house for this?' Residents outraged by the Foxconn factory that fizzled https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...psm-story.html Quote:
|
Quote:
My point regarding the Porsche 'miracle fuel' is that it's not really a 'miracle'. Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen was discovered 1789. The Sabatier reaction to make methane from hydrogen was discovered in 1897. My comment was that this basic chemistry has been around for a long time. The twist with Porsche's could be if you powered the reactions with renewable energy, theoretically it could be a carbon-neutral form of liquid fuel for IC engines. But if it was manufactured with energy off a standard power grid, it would seem to be pointless (it would be more efficient to just use the fossil fuel directly in a car rather than generate electricity with it to then get hydrogen from water and complex it with carbon etc.). Of course, you could also use renewable sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) to generate electricity to then charge batteries in BEVs. But at the current state of technological development, IC engines and liquid fuels still have several advantages over BEVs. Such as, greater range (not everyone can afford the $70,000 for a Tesla S 100 kWh), refueling time (3 minutes at a gas pump beats even a 'fast charger'), and may be more practical for people who don't have ready access to a charging station (such as those who live in apartments). Taxing fossil fuels more heavily is an economic option but not a technological solution. Unless the tax revenues were somehow used to pay for converting the power grid to renewables, build more charging stations, and and subsidize BEV purchases for people who can't afford them (great idea but could you imagine the U.S. government actually doing that?), all it would do is put a disproportionate financial burden on those least able to afford it. If gas suddenly was taxed to $10 a gallon tomorrow, or was made illegal, what would everyone who cannot afford a BEV do? Mass transit is the standard go-to answer, but most people can't get to where they work using mass transit. Even if somehow magically everyone was given a BEV, net use of fossil fuels wouldn't change that much right now, because 2/3 of electricity in the U.S. is generated with fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Then there's also the elephant in the room that the current electric distribution grid couldn't handle the additional loads if everyone suddenly had a BEV instead of an IC car. The cost of expanding electricity distribution capacity is usually not factored in to the price of going to an all-electric future. The ultimate answer which underlies any prospects for a future for humanity is the need for the electric power grid to be generated from renewable sources and not fossil fuels. That's when BEVs truly make sense, when the batteries are charged by wind, solar, etc. and not from generating plants burning natural gas or coal. If we want to save the planet, and save ourselves and the future of most forms of life in the process, we will have to stop getting most of our energy from burning carbon-based sources dug out of the ground. Unfortunately, the ultimate pesky reality is always the same: money. I've seen estimates that the cost to convert the U.S. electric grid to renewables is about $5 trillion. Cost over-runs and the usual graft and corruption with major projects like that would probably increase it substantially. The payback time would be far longer than most corporations could bear (shareholder pressure is fierce to maximize short-term profits), so it would take some kind of government funded effort. Given the massive long-term damage being done to the world economy thanks to the pandemic, that won't be easy. The U.S. is already adding trillions of dollars worth of long-term debt with economic bailouts that must be paid back. It's hard to see where an extra $5 trillion+ could come from. I'd love to see our power grid generated entirely from renewable sources. But there's no easy one-click solution to achieve this. If there was, it would have happened. That's always the problem with utopian ideals - they run into the painful brick wall of economic realities. As long as this country (and most of the world) remain fundamentally capitalist where profit is the most important (and often only) priority, money will decide what happens and when. |
Fify
Quote:
|
Quote:
Poor leadership or is stuff expensive because there is a high standard of living with a short supply and high demand situation. Idaho's land is expensive, the workforce is expensive, taxes are expensive compared to Somalia, so does that mean that Idaho has poor leadership? Businesses will always do what is in their best interest. If they can get away with evading taxes all together by setting up a shell company in Ireland or exporting work to foreign countries where labor is cheap then they will. If they could get away with using slaves, dumping pollutants in rivers and never paying taxes they surely would because capitalism. Asking companies to pay their fair share for an opportunity to have front door access to one of the largest markets in the world is fine by me. You say California doesn't do stuff to lure businesses to come to their state, through what, low or no business taxes or tax-payer incentives? I'm sure those exist too, not in a broad sweeping way of course, but California has invested heavily in public projects and green technologies, among other things. Instead of just giving tax payer money to businesses or eliminating taxes, California has reinvested in companies with grants and projects. https://time.com/5553039/green-new-deal-california/ |
Quote:
Comparing Idaho to one of the stupidest counties on earth: was that supposed to insult me? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid nursing student. |
Quote:
Money really isn't an issue; it is demand. It might cost $5 trillion to switch our system like you say, but what will it cost to not make the switch now, but later? Making the switch is inevitable, so it is just a matter of figuring out when we want to get there. If we wait then we could be facing the economic costs of more floods, rising sea levels on coastline cities, extreme climate complications, air quality problems, etc. We might need to spend to save. Also, the economy is an ecosystem of give and take. Stimulating the economy with change and spur investment in new fields in green technologies that lead to economic prosperity and growth. Name a business that didn't first spend money before it made money. There is no need for a doom and gloom outcome. California is pushing forward with renewables. Other countries have done the same. It isn't an impossible task. |
Quote:
And what county would that be because I didn't mention any counties. I mentioned a country called Somalia, which is a place I mentioned because it is often a location where businesses will set up factories for cheap labor. I never said they were stupid, nor would I, so if you are taking that as an insult, it is because you are insulting Somalia, and obviously you are unable to get my point, so let me explain it again. If you think having cheaper wages, less taxes and having cheaper land is the best thing for businesses like Idaho does compared to California then you must also think Somalia is doing a better job than Idaho because they too have cheaper wages, less taxes and has cheaper land. Do you think that Mexico, China, Taiwan, Somalia, etc are equally as better and smarter for creating a pro-business market than Idaho, as Idaho is better and smarter than California? Do you get the fallacy in your logic yet? BTW, California's GDP is 1st in the US at 2.9 trillion and Idaho's is 42nd at 77 billion. If we compare per capita then California is 6th/7th, depending on the inclusion of DC, and Idaho is 46th. But you know, California should really be looking to Idaho for business advice. |
Quote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amer...ness-2019.html Quote:
This is why Cali is losing major corporations. You can value what you want, but when the business environment turns to shit companies will take it on down the road. We are seeing that happen. |
Always amusing to see someone attempting to defend the mess that is California. Most of the disasters that occur in CA are manmade (and I'm not referring to anything related to an invisible odorless trace gas).
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Where does it stop? We provide tax relief and incentives. We give land away. We provide corporate welfare by giving tax payer’s money to these businesses. They take all the handouts and then keep the money and the profits. They outsource jobs, try to prevent unions, raise executives bonuses, offer crap benefits. The income gap keeps growing. I really don’t get this line of thinking. |
Quote:
I work with plenty of coworkers who were traveling nurses who settled here because the pay is so good, even relative to the high cost of living. This isn’t true of everyone. Many areas are saturated because demand is so high and housing supply is so low that workers aren’t staying here. My area has laws to avoid urban sprawl by limiting development. Even if it was more open, housing development is going to be low in a hot housing market that can burst like it did in 2008. There is a simple supply and demand here. Eventually that balance will flatten or even reverse. This is normal market conditions and isn’t a reflection of poor policies. It is natural corrections. What would you suggest? Lived here my whole life. I have family in other states like Georgia, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota and as south as San Diego and north as Mendocino. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
How do you distinguish between taxation and other things highlighted above using the same logic that the consumer will ultimately pay for everything they impose? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
California isn’t pushing corporations out of the state. If they are leaving then it is because those corporations have a better offer or want to go to a state where they can pollute more, pay workers less, not have to pay workers healthcare or whatever. Again, the same thing that is driving any corporations to other states will also drive them to other countries. It is a slippery slope. What corporations are leaving? It is the internet. There is just as much information about the problems of deregulations. |
Quote:
Look, I'm not going to argue it with you other than to say anything can be taken to the extreme you are taking it because ultimately, yes the consumer pays for everything in a quasi-free marketplace. My point is that if a company has a specific profit margin in mind, they are not going to reduce that if you tax them to pay the tax. They will build it into the cost of their product. |
Quote:
The problem is we have a culture problem where we accept this behavior and allow it. The only way around it is through regulations. We do this at the national level all the time. We have a 25% tariff on trucks that are imported. If we didn’t have tariffs pr other regulations then US manufacturing would end or wages would drop to the standards of the lowest bidding country. Right now, other states are catabolizing standards created in other states by luring businesses to their states with substandard offers. It is what it is. If people want to point their finger at California then it is entirely possible to point a finger back at them along the same vein. It is crazy that a corporation like Amazon with a $2 trillion valuation and with Bezos worth $182 billion needs to have workers on government assistance or needs to have tax-payer incentives to set up shop. Obviously they will pay as little as possible, so why do we allow this? It is crazy. AOC stood up and they left then they came back because being in New York is in their interest regardless because of the economy, work force, market hub, etc. In the end, if they can pay less they will. If someone or some state allows them to avoid taxes or pay less, they will. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...2-fallout.html |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I started out in the sciences, focused on ‘data’ and ‘the right things to do’, but learned some tough love hard lessons along the way: nothing happens unless someone pays for it. That’s the way it is. Even the former Soviet Union couldn’t make a command economy work. There are generally three potential sources of money: private, public, and philanthropic. I have no experiences with philanthropy and can’t comment on that, but it seems unlikely to get $5 trillion in donations to make the U.S. power grid renewable - https://www.instituteforenergyresear...ewable-energy/ The hard reality is that most investors these days demand returns in a very short time. Most aren’t interested in waiting a year, a month, or even a week, but want to make money right now. Today. I was the C.E.O. of a (small) public biotechnology company and experienced this first-hand. You would think in an industry with product development times of 10-15 years, and where many investors have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees they would have realistic expectations. Even the supposedly ‘patient, long term’ venture capital investors weren’t willing to wait more than two years before trying to squeeze out one of their hallowed ‘liquidity events’, because that’s how they make their bonuses. Once, after we went public, an angry investor loudly harangued me on the phone, screaming that he had ‘been in the stock for almost a month’ and ‘how long did I expect him to hold on to it’? Money is just not patient, especially in uncertain, turbulent times. It’s hard to see how enough money to make a difference could be raised from private investors. The time for a return on their investment would simply be too long for them. Public money means taxes, and faces its own challenges. We live in a country where a significant chunk of the population refuses to wear masks in a raging pandemic, something that could save their lives. Many of these people, and as a result the legislators in Congress they elect, vehemently refuse to consider a national healthcare plan because their taxes would increase (even if they would save much more money by eliminating healthcare insurance than they would pay in higher taxes). These same people have been relentlessly trying to eliminate the ACA. Especially given the trillions of dollars already spent on economic support in the pandemic, and the trillions more that must come, it’s hard to see how an additional $5 trillion in taxes would be supported by the majority of people and more so in Congress. That leaves it to individual states. Some have made strides, such as developing large-scale offshore wind power in New England. But California is probably not a viable example for most states to follow. California’s economic model is unique in that it depends on a lot of extremely wealthy people, both billionaire tech bros and those who merely make mid six-figure salaries, being willing to pay very high income tax rates. Most states don’t have that kind of base of wealth, and most people don’t make Silicon Valley salaries (or have tech bro money). Someone who makes a mid six-figure salary might not mind paying an extra 5% income tax for renewable energy, but I suspect most people who make 1/10 of that literally couldn’t afford it. It hasn’t been all milk and honey in California either. It’s human nature to squander money, use it for personal interests, and build empires. California has done a lot with renewable energy projects, but is also home of the biggest bureaucracy in the country with the most and highest paid government employees - https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...le4815915.html including having it’s own EPA, it’s own FDA, state employees in jobs of questionable importance who make breathtaking six-figure salaries while barely working 20 hours a week (like several I know), and a massive unfunded pension liability – https://calmatters.org/commentary/da...debt-unfunded/ I’m all for soaking the rich, and think those who make seven-plus figure salaries and have eight-plus figure net worths should pay a lot more in federal income tax. But when there are such big differences in state income tax rates, even Silicon Valley billionaires will leave if they feel squeezed too hard - https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/tech/...ami/index.html which means that even California might not be able to throw around big piles of money in the future. There are big differences between what can be done (and maybe should be done), and what makes financial sense. My undergraduate thesis in the late 1970’s was on photovoltaic solar power (a diversion from biology) and ways to power the entire U.S. grid that way. It was technologically feasible even back then over 40 years ago, but wasn’t cost effective. It’s become much less expensive over that time, but investors have also gotten much more short-sighted and demanding of immediate returns. In any conflict between wishful thinking (or denial) and reality, reality always wins. Every time. Having an electric grid based on renewable energy sources would be wonderful to have, and would be in the best interests of the planet and its inhabitants. But it won’t happen unless the money comes from somewhere, and it doesn’t seem to be a priority for the U.S. right now. European countries are a very different situation, different values, different cultures, which sadly does not extrapolate much here. It’s not going to happen in my lifetime. You’re probably a fair bit younger than I am. It may happen in yours, and I sincerely hope it does. But you’ll still have to find someone to pay for it. |
Quote:
https://www.politico.com/states/cali...bon-tax-740266 I’m curious if Tesla is still going to be able to sell carbon credits. They made more than half a billion selling carbon credits last year. https://stockdividendscreener.com/au...edits-revenue/ I try to provide references when necessary. I don’t know of a list that says which corporations left and for what reason they left, so if you have that list then referencing it would be nice. I don’t believe in deregulation. It doesn’t work. I’m for sensible legislations and regulations. If anything, we need more antitrust laws. |
Quote:
https://www.hoover.org/research/cali...tate-thousands Quote:
It’s not a list so much as naming the big players leaving but here’s a few. https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...year-with.html Quote:
It’s a matter of the pros outweighing the cons. I believe there is a middle ground, a balance between the two poles and a balance is healthy. I’m not saying the dept of commerce, trade, defense and FDA should get lost. I’m saying over regulating causes companies running tight profit margins to take their business where they can function on less operating expenses. I believe they should have every right to do so. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true You say we should deregulate more when we live in a time of some of the largest corporate monopolies and oligarchies in history. We live in a time with massive wealth inequality. We live in a time where corporations are free to dodge taxes, free to use substandard conditions in third world countries to make more profit, are given massive corporate welfare, bailouts and handouts, and your idea is more deregulation. The corporations and their lobbyists have passed out a lot of Kool-Aid. |
Quote:
Cheaper workforce happens when your cost of living decreases - see locality pay. I give two poops ab TX or CA - I’ve lived in both and they both have their pros and cons. I’m objective enough to see these issues from the outside. Quote:
Wealth inequality happens for a variety of reasons with endless variables and that conversation will take us down a rabbit hole that won’t end. So let’s just avoid that and focus on the point of our discussion. Offshoring is bullshit and I detest it. Administrations have tried to stop it but have yet to be successful. I said I support a healthy balance of regulation and deregulation. My underlying point is that when the corporations within your state start relocating because of over regulation, it means something is wrong with the business climate and you should observe this as competition for the market. Just as if your insurance rates are increased, do you not shop around for a new provider? This isn’t something new, it’s been happening for almost a decade. I’m not saying I have the key to balance, I’m just saying CA has all the right elements to success but they are willfully throwing the people who create opportunities under the bus and I’m not surprised they are leaving. |
Quote:
Now the only problem left is to find the other $4.999999 trillion needed to finish the job. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Again, they can say it is because of over-regulation, but is that the case? They can say it is California doing this or that to businesses, but they aren’t saying what other states are offering or what these corporations have been planning. There are a lot of assumptions pointed at California. Maybe supply and demand reaches a tipping point and starts to tip the other way to make a market correction. Maybe some businesses leave. I’m just saying there may be more to things than just “there are idiots running California” like many people say. I get your point that it is possibly subjective. Maybe this isn’t the worst time for monopolies and oligopolies in history. Maybe it is. It is pretty bad. Bad enough that more regulations are what we need at this time. We need to break up these multinational conglomerates among other things. |
Quote:
Cliff notes: Corporation fees, corporate tax rate, real estate cost, in some municipalities in CA there are payroll taxes, and financial services tax. It is dependent on what state you go to and that article above tells you Texas’s alternatives. Well that is definitely an opinion regarding needing more regulations on monopolies. I’m not sure what you are claiming is bad so I can’t agree with you. Multinational conglomerates? Have you ever worked for one? I have. They offer their employees some of the best benefits. No complaints from me. |
Quote:
https://boycewire.com/oligopoly-definition/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/hbr.org...trust-movement https://spoonuniversity.com/wp-conte...AM-670x419.png https://content.fortune.com/wp-conte...7/med_0071.png https://growthrocks.com/wp-content/u...nfographic.jpg https://i.insider.com/5d0b8e5f638af2...jpeg&auto=webp |
Quote:
Using their position and wealth to eliminate competition? Give me an example. Just to help nudge this conversation along, I believe it's important to recognize that "mergers and acquisitions" are not an abuse of power, they are agreements between two companies and happen for MANY reasons. Also your perception of M&As are subjective. Let's look at one of the more recent mergers (that impacts a lot of people)- Amazon buying Whole Foods for $13.7B. https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/16/inv...ods/index.html Quote:
https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2018...-foods-merger/ Quote:
|
Quote:
There are so many specific and general examples and so many things to discuss that I wouldn’t know where to start. Quote:
Limited market options, limited ability for work mobility, price fixing, lobbying power, competition buyouts, location saturation, unfair competition, price gouging, lack of variety of products, scale of industry impacts, etc. I could go on and on. Look up any major company and type in antitrust or controversies, and you will find a lot. Monsanto, Amazon, Verizon, Apple, Tyson, any of them. I’m actually surprised Tmobile and Sprint were allowed to merge when Tmobile was denied previously. I’ll have to look up how that happened. Crazy we only have three major carriers and a bunch of tertiary companies piggybacking off the networks of the big guys. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.