The EV is on fi Don't cut that orange wire

"hls" > wrote in
:

>
> "Tegger" > wrote in message >>
>>
>> I smell government employees trying to justify their department's
>> existence
>> and continued expansion...
>>
>> Don't cut the orange wire, cut government budgets instead.
>> Tegger
>
> I grouse as much as, if not more than, anyone else about the
> government's waste of money. But there is also another side....if
> they REALLY slowed their spending very much, our sick economy would
> get even worse.
>



That may seem intuitively obvious, but think about where governments get
their money from. They /produce/ nothing, remember.

They only have three ways of acquiring spending cash:
1) they can take it away from you (taxes);
2) they can borrow it from somebody else (debt);
3) they can invent it from scratch (new money).

1) If they take it away from you, then they're just moving money from
one place to another. To the extent the recipient is richer, you are
poorer. The dollar /you/ would have spent simply gets spent by /somebody
else/ instead.

2) If they borrow it from somebody else, it needs to get paid back. Plus
they're paying interest on the borrowing. And it's not like they ever
borrow and spend just the once, they keep on borrowing so they can keep
on spending. The debt mounts, and they ultimately end up needing to use
#1 or #3.

3) If they invent it from scratch, they damage the cash that's already
in the system. The economy remains exactly the same size, but all that
new cash still has to fit inside it. This means that every dollar has to
get a lot skinnier so they'll all fit into the same-size economy. It's
called inflation, and you're the one most hurt, because you spend the
dollar LAST.

I know the Keynesians talk about the "multiplier effect", but that's
pure bull****, and stands up not at all to any sort of rational
thinking.

Friedman was right: "stimulus" does in fact spur the economy. But only
in the short term. In the long term, "stimulus" always causes
distortions and bubbles. Then it makes politicians afraid to be at the
helm when the bubble bursts, so they do everything possible to keep the
bubble inflated as long as possible.

But that's not the worst part : The worst part is that they then
consider the /maximum-inflated/ size of the bubble to be the /baseline/.
ANY reduction from the baseline is "contraction", or "deflation", or a
"slow economy", and is really, really bad. The max-inflated bubble size
becomes the baseline that must be maintained no matter how many new
bubbles or distortions they create in the process. That, in a nutshell,
is the situation today in the US. It's the cause of the Japanese
deflationary malaise.

Government spending does serious damage to the economy in general, and
it must be kept at an absolute minimum. But we're many leagues away from
that absolute minimum these days, which is /precisely/ why we've got
that "sick economy".

Economies do best when governments do least.


--
Tegger

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:10:03 -0600, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"Tegger" > wrote in message >>
>>
>> I smell government employees trying to justify their department's
>> existence
>> and continued expansion...
>>
>> Don't cut the orange wire, cut government budgets instead.
>> Tegger
>
>I grouse as much as, if not more than, anyone else about the government's
>waste of money. But there is also another side....if they REALLY slowed
>their spending very much, our sick economy would get even worse.
>
>From a personal viewpoint, what does one do when he has spent beyond
>his ability to pay, cannot raise his income, and has his credit cards maxed
>out? We all know the answer, I think.


Maybe not what you are thinking of but where I would start would be to
cutting spending on any "program" that buys "stuff" if that "stuff" is
being made in some OTHER country. So if, for example, we are buying
$60billion worth of land mines from Austria, we stop. Let the
Austrians lose their jobs. You or whoever said it, is right, if we
just "cut spending" without regard to where we cut there will be some
significant negatives, like increased unemployment.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:44:51 -0500, "Steve W." >
wrote:

>Tegger wrote:
>> bob urz > wrote in :
>>
>>> http://eetweb.com/applications/EV_fi...111/index.html
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice to know, but not really "news".
>>
>> First Responders have been educated on such things since 2001, the first
>> year the Toyota Prius (274V battery) was on the market. The Volt isn't much
>> different than the Prius in that manner.
>>
>> Can't you find something actually /new/ to post?
>>
>
>
>http://www.albertavx.com/index.php?o...d=5&Ite mid=4
>
>http://www.sceneoftheaccident.org/ERGs.aspx
>
>http://www.emergencytrainingsolution...hicle_info.htm
>
>http://www.extrication.com/ERG.htm
>
>Are just a few of the training and resource guides out there.
>
>OH and the NFPA is great at developing guidelines that **** away money
>and cause no end to the grief for Emergency Responders. They are also
>REALLY good at coming up with ways to help companies make BIG money off
>the same people by ramming through legislation using friendly lawmakers
>that forces people to follow their "guidelines" (NFPA has NO AUTHORITY
>to write laws or regulations) by making it part of the state or federal
>laws.
>
>Case in point. A new "guideline" now requires a FD to throw out turn-out
>gear after 10 years regardless of actual use. Doesn't matter if it was
>never worn in a fire or even taken out of the box. 10 years after it was
>sold by the company it HAS to be tossed out.
>Doesn't sound like much of a big deal until you realize they mean ALL of
>the gear, IE: boots, bunkers, coat, gloves, hood, helmet. Total cost of
>the lowest end set - around $1,500.00 per fireman.
>
>Another standard wants fire engines, aerials and other vehicles replaced
>at 20 years, again regardless of use or condition, Average cost of one
>new EPA compliant Engine - $500,000.00 Care to guess how many of those
>will be getting replaced...


I'm not surprised. At the state level our safety people (don't know
if they dreamed it up or it was some new regulation) said we had to
replace ALL hard hats every two years and the interior suspension
every one year. To have a couple guys climb over a guardrail and do a
little work on a slope they wanted us to spend $32,000 on a "safety
class" that would teach them to be safe on unstable ground. We had to
spend $4000 with a hazardous waste company to dispose of 50 pounds of
zeolite, which had been tested for asbestos and came back clean just
because "maybe your sample missed the asbestos". The whole safety
culture has gone well past the point of absurdity.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:44:51 -0500, "Steve W." >
> wrote:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> bob urz > wrote in :
>>>
>>>> http://eetweb.com/applications/EV_fi...111/index.html
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice to know, but not really "news".
>>>
>>> First Responders have been educated on such things since 2001, the first
>>> year the Toyota Prius (274V battery) was on the market. The Volt isn't much
>>> different than the Prius in that manner.
>>>
>>> Can't you find something actually /new/ to post?
>>>
>>
>> http://www.albertavx.com/index.php?o...d=5&Ite mid=4
>>
>> http://www.sceneoftheaccident.org/ERGs.aspx
>>
>> http://www.emergencytrainingsolution...hicle_info.htm
>>
>> http://www.extrication.com/ERG.htm
>>
>> Are just a few of the training and resource guides out there.
>>
>> OH and the NFPA is great at developing guidelines that **** away money
>> and cause no end to the grief for Emergency Responders. They are also
>> REALLY good at coming up with ways to help companies make BIG money off
>> the same people by ramming through legislation using friendly lawmakers
>> that forces people to follow their "guidelines" (NFPA has NO AUTHORITY
>> to write laws or regulations) by making it part of the state or federal
>> laws.
>>
>> Case in point. A new "guideline" now requires a FD to throw out turn-out
>> gear after 10 years regardless of actual use. Doesn't matter if it was
>> never worn in a fire or even taken out of the box. 10 years after it was
>> sold by the company it HAS to be tossed out.
>> Doesn't sound like much of a big deal until you realize they mean ALL of
>> the gear, IE: boots, bunkers, coat, gloves, hood, helmet. Total cost of
>> the lowest end set - around $1,500.00 per fireman.
>>
>> Another standard wants fire engines, aerials and other vehicles replaced
>> at 20 years, again regardless of use or condition, Average cost of one
>> new EPA compliant Engine - $500,000.00 Care to guess how many of those
>> will be getting replaced...
>
>
> I'm not surprised. At the state level our safety people (don't know
> if they dreamed it up or it was some new regulation) said we had to
> replace ALL hard hats every two years and the interior suspension
> every one year. To have a couple guys climb over a guardrail and do a
> little work on a slope they wanted us to spend $32,000 on a "safety
> class" that would teach them to be safe on unstable ground. We had to
> spend $4000 with a hazardous waste company to dispose of 50 pounds of
> zeolite, which had been tested for asbestos and came back clean just
> because "maybe your sample missed the asbestos". The whole safety
> culture has gone well past the point of absurdity.

The guys who sell helmets and the guys who run 'training'
classes and the guys who are in the hazmat racket think it's
all 'essential safety protocol'.

Did you buy a congressman or an EPA rules writer when the
rules were being written? They did.

None of these sorts of things would pass on a referendum.
It's all done quietly in government offices with 'expert
testimony' skewed to the guys who show up. They make a great
effort but the public at large cannot. Once the damage is
done, reversal is much much harder.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> I'm not surprised. At the state level our safety people (don't know
> if they dreamed it up or it was some new regulation) said we had to
> replace ALL hard hats every two years and the interior suspension
> every one year. To have a couple guys climb over a guardrail and do a
> little work on a slope they wanted us to spend $32,000 on a "safety
> class" that would teach them to be safe on unstable ground. We had to
> spend $4000 with a hazardous waste company to dispose of 50 pounds of
> zeolite, which had been tested for asbestos and came back clean just
> because "maybe your sample missed the asbestos". The whole safety
> culture has gone well past the point of absurdity.


Sounds like the law in NY requiring ALL Firefighters to have a bail out
rope kit. The law was put in place after some NYFD guys got trapped in a
building and couldn't get out.

At the time NYFD didn't "require" the crews to have bail out ropes, it
was STRONGLY encouraged though. This crew didn't bother.
The result ALL firefighters have to have the ropes or you're in
violation of OSHA. The kicker, any department that serves a population
over 1 million is exempt from the law!!!! Care to guess how many people
live in NYFD jurisdiction... So the people who pushed for the law and
rammed it through the legislature are exempt from it.

The law has a few things that does allow for exemptions IF you're SOP is
written a certain way or you don't EVER send someone in the building you
can get around it.
BUT if you have interior training you have to have a rope, doesn't
matter what your current job is either. For instance if you're on scene
and directing traffic but could possibly be put into the fire then you
need a rope.

The ropes - 50 feet of special NFPA rope, Carabiner, Descent device,
belt or harness = About $500.00 each.
For a device that will likely NEVER be used. You also need a second one
that is used ONLY for training. the one you carry is a one time use item!


--
Steve W.

Tegger wrote:
>
> "hls" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Tegger" > wrote in message >>
> >>
> >> I smell government employees trying to justify their department's
> >> existence
> >> and continued expansion...
> >>
> >> Don't cut the orange wire, cut government budgets instead.
> >> Tegger
> >
> > I grouse as much as, if not more than, anyone else about the
> > government's waste of money. But there is also another side....if
> > they REALLY slowed their spending very much, our sick economy would
> > get even worse.
> >
>
> That may seem intuitively obvious, but think about where governments get
> their money from. They /produce/ nothing, remember.
>
> They only have three ways of acquiring spending cash:
> 1) they can take it away from you (taxes);
> 2) they can borrow it from somebody else (debt);
> 3) they can invent it from scratch (new money).
>
> 1) If they take it away from you, then they're just moving money from
> one place to another. To the extent the recipient is richer, you are
> poorer. The dollar /you/ would have spent simply gets spent by /somebody
> else/ instead.

The problem is after the crash of 2008 nobody was inclined to spend
anything.
Without the massive US government spending
there would have been another Hoover depression.

Personally, I would vote for a deep depression.
The western world needs to be knocked on its ass
because it has lost track of where its ass is

But you are going to have a hard time convincing
the majority and get them to vote for that.


>
> 2) If they borrow it from somebody else, it needs to get paid back. Plus
> they're paying interest on the borrowing. And it's not like they ever
> borrow and spend just the once, they keep on borrowing so they can keep
> on spending. The debt mounts, and they ultimately end up needing to use
> #1 or #3.

The real problem is not government and its debt.
The government debt is small compared to private debt.
Private debt has grown exponentially in the last 20 years.
Government debt has in the past been higher than it is now
but private debts has never been even close to this high

The value of private debt of western nations
is several times their GDP and in comparison
government debt seems puny


>
> 3) If they invent it from scratch, they damage the cash that's already
> in the system. The economy remains exactly the same size, but all that
> new cash still has to fit inside it. This means that every dollar has to
> get a lot skinnier so they'll all fit into the same-size economy. It's
> called inflation, and you're the one most hurt, because you spend the
> dollar LAST.

If the world's assets and wealth grow, but the money supply stays
constant
then what do you have?

The answer is the people who hold money increase in power
and the people who produce goods and labor
will work their butts off for little or nothing in return

Increasing the money supply as the economy grows is a given
unless you want to return to middle age feudalism


>
> I know the Keynesians talk about the "multiplier effect", but that's
> pure bull****, and stands up not at all to any sort of rational
> thinking.

So what rational suggestions have you made?
You have proposed nothing rational
you are just parroting somebody else's babble
that you don't even begin to comprehend

The US voting public is not very bright
but they have a pretty good sense that the libertarians
would lead them where they don't want to go.


-jim

>
> Friedman was right: "stimulus" does in fact spur the economy. But only
> in the short term. In the long term, "stimulus" always causes
> distortions and bubbles. Then it makes politicians afraid to be at the
> helm when the bubble bursts, so they do everything possible to keep the
> bubble inflated as long as possible.



>
> But that's not the worst part : The worst part is that they then
> consider the /maximum-inflated/ size of the bubble to be the /baseline/.
> ANY reduction from the baseline is "contraction", or "deflation", or a
> "slow economy", and is really, really bad. The max-inflated bubble size
> becomes the baseline that must be maintained no matter how many new
> bubbles or distortions they create in the process. That, in a nutshell,
> is the situation today in the US. It's the cause of the Japanese
> deflationary malaise.


>
> Government spending does serious damage to the economy in general, and
> it must be kept at an absolute minimum. But we're many leagues away from
> that absolute minimum these days, which is /precisely/ why we've got
> that "sick economy".
>
> Economies do best when governments do least.
>
> --
> Tegger

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message > Maybe not what you are
thinking of but where I would start would be to
> cutting spending on any "program" that buys "stuff" if that "stuff" is
> being made in some OTHER country. So if, for example, we are buying
> $60billion worth of land mines from Austria, we stop. Let the
> Austrians lose their jobs. You or whoever said it, is right, if we
> just "cut spending" without regard to where we cut there will be some
> significant negatives, like increased unemployment.

I think everybody had good points.

Personal debt may have been the big factor that caused the Great Depression.
And the theory goes that personal debt rises because
too much money is locked into the hands of very few people.

There is not enough money being earned such that an increase in
taxes will have a very noticeable effect.

Spending has to be brought down..especially irresponsible spending.
Personal debt also has to be brought under control.

The nation really cant afford to do the thing that my hypothetical
individual would do....declare bankruptcy and stop servicing the
debt.

We can get through this mess, but not if the government just keeps
on peeing money away, and we keep running our personal debt
beyond the horizon.

It is complicated.

"hls" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message > Maybe not what
> you are thinking of but where I would start would be to
>> cutting spending on any "program" that buys "stuff" if that "stuff"
>> is being made in some OTHER country. So if, for example, we are
>> buying $60billion worth of land mines from Austria, we stop. Let the
>> Austrians lose their jobs. You or whoever said it, is right, if we
>> just "cut spending" without regard to where we cut there will be some
>> significant negatives, like increased unemployment.
>
> I think everybody had good points.
>
> Personal debt may have been the big factor that caused the Great
> Depression. And the theory goes that personal debt rises because
> too much money is locked into the hands of very few people.




The Great Depression was caused primarily by a severe contraction of the
inflation of the 1920's.

One part of that inflation was the vast amount of cheap credit issued by
the Fed.
The other big part was the bank reserve requirements of the time: Each
dollar in-house meant that 10 could be issued as credit. By 1935, that
ratio had completely reversed, and there was an exponential implosion in
the amount of cash in the economy.

Artificial credit kept World War 1 going for 4 years instead of the 6-
months that everyone expected. Artificial credit destroyed the very-
healthy banking system that existed right up until December 1913, which
is when the Fed law was passed.



>
> There is not enough money being earned such that an increase in
> taxes will have a very noticeable effect.
>
> Spending has to be brought down..especially irresponsible spending.
> Personal debt also has to be brought under control.



Then you need to stop inventing credit and pricing it artificially,
whihc is what governments do when you want to "stimulate" the economy.


>
> The nation really cant afford to do the thing that my hypothetical
> individual would do....declare bankruptcy and stop servicing the
> debt.
>
> We can get through this mess, but not if the government just keeps
> on peeing money away, and we keep running our personal debt
> beyond the horizon.
>
> It is complicated.
>


Only from a political perspective. Fiat money and invented credi have
created a monster that nobody wants to try and kill, since killing it
would result in a painfl correction as distortions are worked out of the
economy. No politician wants to lose his job over that.

--
Tegger

Tegger wrote:
>
> That may seem intuitively obvious, but think about where governments get
> their money from. They /produce/ nothing, remember.

You are entirely incorrect on that last bit.

Governments produce public infrastructure such as:

- Roads / highways
- Parks and recreation areas
- Dams, levies, drainage and erosion control
- Navigation aids (marker buoys, GPS, air traffic control, etc.)
- Weather monitoring and hazard warning (NOAA / National Weather
Service, weather satellites, Radar, weather radios)
- National defense (army, navy, etc.)
- Emergency management (FEMA, nat guard)
- Research and development (DARPA, NIST, NREL, etc.)
Etc.

Yep, the government does indeed waste some of your tax dollars, however
they do indeed provide a lot of infrastructure bits you take for
granted.

On Jan 24, 6:56*pm, bob urz > wrote:
> http://eetweb.com/applications/EV_fi...111/index.html
>
> bob

+So...correct me if I'm wrong, but arent first responders equipped
with insulated cable cutters?
Seems like quickly breaking the high voltage circuit would make things
safer..
Ben