Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

SUNDAY READING

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Peter G. wonders how EMR can stand to read WaPo, the flagship of Enterprise-owned MainStream Media in the Washington-Baltimore NUR.

Well, today’s edition provides plenty of reasons. Start with the front page:

“Federal oversight of subways proposed, Federal safety oversight of subways, light-rial systems proposed, METRO CRASH HELPED SPUR SAFETY PLAN, Obama administration to push for Congress to change law.”

This story documents that the current administration is light years from understanding the path to a sustainable future which includes Fundamental Transformation of governance structure.

No one thinks shared-vehicle systems should be unsafe. Few question the fact that METRO could be more safe and more efficient.

The major governance Agencies in the National Capital SubRegion – the federal district, Virginia, Maryland and their political subdivisions (aka, municipalities) – have done a shoddy job of insuring safe efficient operation or of providing a stable source of revenue.

Credit where credit is due – WaPo has done its share to make those shortcomings clear.

But what is the nation-state role in Regional and SubRegional shared-vehicle system safety?

Given the continental and intercontinental impact of aircraft operation it makes sense to have a strong federal role in the air. The same in true, but to a lesser extent, for interRegional and interMegaRegional rail.

Putting the federal government in the middle of safety on Regional and SubRegional shared-vehicle systems is short and long term foolishness. Beyond a requirement to keep statistics and some performance guidelines a strong federal role just removes another of the ‘sticks’ that could constitute the ‘bundle of sticks’ (aka, Critical Mass) of responsibilities that are needed to make Regional governance relevant.

Level of control at level of impact.

Fundamental Transformation of governance.

Also in today’s WaPo:

Neil Irwin does a wonderful job of identifying the real ‘freak’ in SuperFreakonomics – write books that sell Business-As-Usual because that is what uninformed citizens what to believe.

Also right on target in the Outlook section is the latest in the WaPo Five Myths series: “Myths about home sweet homeowership.” The Affordable and Accessible Shelter Crisis – and to a large part The Great Recession – is driven by these Myths and the misguided role of federal Agencies in promoting home ownership.

In the pre-canned Business section the front page has two nice items. One on the worlds largest gambling venue – “That upward stock market …” Did everyone notice the latest jump is based on the promise by The Fed to keep interest low and pump more cheap money into the economy to prolong the new bubble?

The second is a tongue-in-cheek guide to selecting a broker. Ask those 8 questions and THAT broker will not be YOUR broker.

Finally on the back page of Business, Warren Brown, does a nice job of comparing the new Mercedes S400 Hybrid ($87,950) with the Mercedes Smart Fortwo ($11,900).

And on that topic, anyone have a guess as to how many negative comments at ‘advertiser appreciation dinners and seminars’ it took to kill Warren’s (or someone with his knowledge) column on the Autonomobile industry?

Happy reading.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

33 responses to “SUNDAY READING”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Putting the federal government in the middle of safety on Regional and SubRegional shared-vehicle systems is short and long term foolishness. "

    wanna take this same approach with FDIC, or NTSB or CSPC or EPA?

    I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of or opposed to national standards for a given issue but I can give you countless examples of where you would not be a happy camper if the Feds were not doing the uniform standards.

    Want your aspirin to be different purity levels depending on which local governance decides?

    Don't want Melmanine or BPA in your food container?

    how about that meat that came from New Mexico… you want that not traceable when a problem occurs?

    I see EMR (and others) struggle with this issue of just what the Feds should be doing or not doing .. especially if they do it and not do it well…

    So… you don't care if that drug you take goes through clinical trials at all (as opposed to the Feds less than wonderful approach right now?)

    how about we just let the local governments decide what kind of drug trials are needed for your diabetes medicine…

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Red herring all.

    Level of Impact equals level of control. Multi-levels of impact? Shared control, NOT one level.

    Works in land use and transport, in health care and in all other Agency activites.

    EMR is not struggling.

    Must be someone else.

    Larry B

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Shared control, NOT one level."

    who is the arbiter of the standards?

    who decides what the drug trial will be?

    do you have a gazillion different localities "share" control of the decision?

    lead in toys?

    who determines how much is "ok"?

    mercury in tuna?

    should I go on?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – WMATA is a joke. It is so incompetent and tied to labor unions that even Virginia's last two Democratic Governors refused to let it build Dulles Rail. It's an ACORN-style jobs program.

    Witness the fact that Montgomery County, Arlington County, Fairfax County and the cities of Falls Church and Alexandria have expanded bus service outside WMATA because of its inefficiencies.

    I'd agree that the move to federal takeover of safety makes sense except that the Feds decided to fund Dulles Rail anyway even though it failed the established criteria. The Feds, having proved they will sell out taxpayers and commuters to appease Bechtel and the Tysons Corner landowners, would surely sell out the safety of passengers.

    Ronald Reagan was right — starve the beast.

    TMT

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…have done a shoddy job of insuring safe efficient operation or of providing a stable source of revenue. "

    Well, Gee, how about if the people who use it pay for it? That would be a stable source of revenue.

    Or, how about if the people who benefit, pay somewhat according to the benefits they receive?

    You know, like fees from auto drivers for all the congestion Metro has alleviated.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Don't want Melmanine or BPA in your food container?"

    Well, maybe not, but you do want your food container made out of SOMETHING. How about if we make our food conatiners out of all natural black walnut?

    Poisonous, of course, but all natural.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…who determines how much is "ok"?"

    Well, that's pretty easy. When the cost of prevention and cleanup is equal to the cost of the damage, then you have done all you can afford to do.

    If a sufficient number of idiots decide and decree that this is "not enough", then you can always spend some more, but it will cost you more than you gain.

    And you will lose the option of getting more benefits for your money doing something else.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…WMATA is a joke. It is so incompetent and tied to labor unions…. "

    Good comment.

    Winston and Shirley have an entire chapeter in their book on how management affects the efficiency of public transportation. Union pandering and outright patronage come high on the list of vices.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "ROCKVILLE, Md. – Over the next two days, Montgomery County will weigh different options on the proposed tolls for the new Inter-County Connector.

    The proposed tolls range between 25 cents to 35 cents per mile during rush hour, meaning drivers would have to pay more than $6 to ride the entire 18-mile road. The county council will make recommendations to the Maryland Transportation Authority, which have the final say on toll rates.

    Montgomery County Council member Nancy Floreen is concerned that the tolls could discourage people from using the road. Floreen is going to advocate keeping the tolls "as low as humanly possible."

    "We have to encourage drivers to get off the local roads," Floreen says.

    Floreen says she is open to talking about a discount for those living near the ICC.

    "It's clear we need to look at new ways to address community needs while at the same time finding a way to pay for this stuff," she says. "

    WTOP

    ——————————

    $0.35 cents per mile is equal to a gas tax of $8.75 per gallon.

    And what is this about a DISCOUNT for those living near the ICC? The people who get the most benefit should be the ones paying the most.

    And, we want to encourae driver to get off th elocal roads. So much for the grid street concept.

    And, Nancy Floreen is concerned that tolls might discourage use of the road. Genius, absolute genius. But then, isn't that the point of tolls: to discourage use of the road? What a great way to ensure that we get the most benefit from the road.

    (Hint, most benefit means greatest throughput, and that happens between 25 and 35 mph with three carlengs between cars.)

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Sadly, too many Americans define their “rights” in a very one-dimensional fashion, as in the right to receive government subsidies for housing, income, health care, retirement, reparations and whatever else seems to strike their fancy.
    Moreover, they assert this seemingly endless array of rights without the slightest regard for who else’s rights will be infringed or compromised just so their rights can be realized.
    Of course the missing ingredient here is responsibility – i.e. those attitudes, beliefs and actions that justify our exercise of rights and insure that they are available for future citizens.
    Fortunately, there are many among us who still understand what it means to be responsible and many of those are to be found among my most industrious and promising students.
    These are the young men and women who stand out not simply because they understand that rights come with responsibilities, they are additionally noteworthy because they possess a value system in which the fruits of their labor are sweetened by the knowledge that what they materially possess is ultimately a product of what they have earned.
    ……………………..

    On the other side of the battle lines are those who demand rights without committing themselves to being responsible toward the nation that renders them free. These citizens, some of whom are also former students of mine, perceive the world in terms of a struggle between an elite few who possess wealth and power – having acquired both illegitimately – and the masses who by one definition or another have been victimized by those more successful or affluent than them. As victims, they feel more than justified to demand reparations of one sort or another from those whose success they are convinced was purchased in one way or another at their expense.
    Such citizens go by many names – liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists; communists – but regardless of what they are called or call themselves, they uniformly seek the “redistribution” (a.k.a. “theft”) of resources from those who have seemingly illegitimately prospered at the expense of those who fail to prosper. "

    Eric Wimberly
    Naples News.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    According to RH:

    “Winston and Shirley have an entire chapeter (sic) in their book on how management affects the efficiency of public transportation. Union pandering and outright patronage come high on the list of vices.”

    Winston and Shirley have a whole book of chapters that are worthless because the authors do not factor in the controlling impact of the pattern and density of trip origins and destinations and transit.

    Until RH understands what that means he should stick to keeping jimpson weed out of his hay.

    JM

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    JM:

    Do not be so hard on RH. Every once in a while he comes up with a good point. You just have to ignore the rest.

    For example sometime ago he said that cows are a major cause of global warming. That was new information to many but it turns out it is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Today’s Wash Post has an op ed by a professor from Texas “Bellying up to environmentalism” that puts the whole food picture in focus.

    I am not sure all his numbers can be substantiated. However if he is only half right, you need to change what you eat.

    Yes, he documents why what you eat is not a personal choice that you have the right to make.

    In the process he also deconstructs the last paragraph by Eric in Naples.

    Until the last paragraph Eric was speaking the truth.

    How did he go so wrong?

    Oops that was posted by RH too.

    Perhaps you are right JM, he should stick to the jimpson weed patrol.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "that are worthless because the authors do not factor in the controlling impact of the pattern and density of trip origins and destinations and transit."

    Obviously you have not read the book, because that is PRECISELY th epoint they make: only about 2% of public transit has the pattern and density to properly support public transit.

    But, even if there is a workable public transit system, its effciency is undermined by kowtowing to unions and other forms of patronage.

    Even the best settlemnt conditions won't support a transit system with corrupt and ineffective management.

    There are no big screts to running a safe operation, but just like having a clean operation, it takes money.

    Since we do not have, for the most part, settlement patterns that support transit adequately, then we would have to consider the expense associated with any attemtp to build such a pattern as partly a subsidy to mass transit.

    It seems odd to me that we denigrate the pattern of settlement we have, saying that autos could not exist if it wer not for the subsidies that we have built into the pattern and infrastructure. And then we turn right around and say that we need to build this whole new settlement pattern – just so we can subsidise mass transit.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Moreover, they assert this seemingly endless array of rights without the slightest regard for who else’s rights will be infringed or compromised just so their rights can be realized."

    This strikes me as the very essence of the long running debate between Larry and myself. Anyone who asserts ans absolute right is asserting an absolute property right, which implies that no other rights are worth having or keeping or protecting.

    "As victims, they feel more than justified to demand reparations of one sort or another from those whose success they are convinced was purchased in one way or another at their expense."

    This is exactly the argument that Larry often repeats. And you have to give him credit: he is ingeious at inventing ways to portray himself as a victim, just so he can demand recompense.

    And I am all in favor of recompense, but I recgnize that it only goes so far as someone else's rights will be compromised in order to make your claimed restitution.

    All I'm campaigning for is common sense, justice, and equality while protecting the environment. I do not believe that a just cause justifies stealing – even Che Guevara had sense enough to recognize that.

    Economy, Environment, Equality. I don;t see why keeping the three of those things in balance strikes such fear into the heart of so called environmentalists, unless they fear it will curb their "right" to steal in the name of the people who own our enviromental assets.

    I think Eric makes some good points. You can open any environmental newslettter or blog and read or hear someone going off on an environmental tear about excess profits. I'll post a few examples and you will see that they are remarkably similar to EMR's recurring theme of taking profits from the (insert bad boys of the dsy here).

    RH

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " what you eat is not a personal choice that you have the right to make."

    Someone is claiming the ultimate property right: the right to avoid damage caused by what someone else eats. They may as well claim ownership of that persons mouth and stomach because such a claim is tantamount to slavery.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Joke about Jimpson weed or Johnson grass, or middle eastern thistle all you like.

    I have a reasonably fair idea what weeeds cost me in loss of product, loss of sales, and lossin value for what I do sell. It is not perfect, but it is reasonably accurate. I know I could get a better estimate with enough labor.

    But say it is a really lousy estimate: all I can tell is that it is costing me somewhere between $2500 and $10,000 a year where the margin of error is -$2500 and plus $5000. My most probably loss is around $5000, but with that margin of error it could be costing me as much as $15,000.

    How much should I spend on weedkiller?

    I'm certain that my loss is at least $2500, so I can afford to spend $2500 on weed killer, if it will prevent that damage. But, for every dollar I spend above that amount it becomes lesss and less likely that I will see a dollars worth of benefit.

    For $15,000 dollars I can be pretty certain that I can prevent ANY loss, but the cost is going to be equal to the loss, at least.

    If I am actually taking a $15,000 loss and I spend $15,000 to prevent it, then next year I break even.

    But suppose I spend the $15,000 and my actual losses were only $5000. I'll prevent the $5000 loss next year, but I'll still be $10,000 worse off than if I had spent only $5000. In fact, I'll be $10,000 worse off than if I had done nothing.

    But if I listen to Larry's argument about what MIGHT happen, then I would assume my losses were $15,000 and I'd assume that I was on the low side because of the margin of error. "Better safe than sorry".

    He would assume that because my loss "might be" as high as $20,000 that I can afford to spend that much on prevention —- even if my crop is only worth $15,000 to begin with.

    If the clenup or cure costs you more than the loss, it isn't worth doing, and that assumes you have the money to begin with. But if you kill all the profits,you won;teven have that much,

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    who is the arbiter of the standards?

    "…who decides what the drug trial will be?

    do you have a gazillion different localities "share" control of the decision?

    lead in toys?

    who determines how much is "ok"?"

    This morning on NPR we had another example of this question in action.

    The story concerned a proposed food and drug regualtion that would require that oysters intended for raw consumption be treated to kill an organism that occurs naturally in warm water oysters. This organism is responsible for the death of approximately 15 people every year, and they are generally people with other health issues to begin with.

    An uproar from the state of Louisiana killed the regulation, in spite of the fact (or because of it) that there already exist some comapanies that provide treated oysters.

    The argument was that the government has no business ensuring that we live in an entirely risk free environment, and they were messing around with long standing Louisana culture and business. It would cost a lot of money that small businesses don;t have, and also the treatment process does change the taste and consistency or raw oysters.

    The counter argument was offered by a woman who had lost her father to diseases caused by the oyster parasite after he had raw oysters for his 60th birthday.

    "I can't understand", she said, "how anyone could put a monetary value on someone's life."

    That is an easy sentiment to understand, and yet, precisely what she and FDA are advocating is that we do just that.

    We KNOW that this organism kills fifteen people a year. WE know or we can pretty well estimate how much treating every oyster in Louisiana will cost.

    Divide one by the other and that is the statistical value you have put on the price of a life. And yet that same woman can't understand how it is done.

    If it costs $15 million to save fifteen lives, then that is a bargain compared to the usual EPA and other agency standards. But if it winds up costing $200 million, then it isn't a bargain compared to other life saving efforts.

    The FDA effort was beaten back by Louisana fishery lobbyists, so the current value of those fifteen lives is apparently zero.

    It is the same problem with Metro Safety. Somewhere between haveing a totally risk free system and having a system where people ride on the roofs of the trains there is a correct price for the efforts we expend on safety.

    If we spend too much on one kind of safety we are left with less to spend on someone else's safety, and consequently we are telling them that their lives are not worth as much as someone else's.

    Your own life is about as basic a property right as there is, so if someone is telling you that your life as an oyster eater is worth more (or less) than your life as a METRO rider, then they are making an unsubstantiated claim for superior property rights of one group over another.

    RH

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    who determines what the statistical life is worth for regulation purposes?

    Louisiana? each county in Louisiana, any county in the US that would allow importation of the oysters?

    so who decides?

    Bonus Question:

    What if instead of regulating, you just want a rule that requires the label to disclose the existence or that risk?

    Again, who decides?

    I've got more after you answer this one.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Or, if you don't like that argument, consider the current noise about mammograms for women over forty.

    Presently, it now appears that what we once thought was cost effective, wasn't.

    Amazing what happens once data displaces opinions.

    RH

    RH

  20. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    It's the same data. The data did not change.

    And there are multiple groups looking at the same data – and coming away with different thoughts.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "It's the same data. The data did not change."

    I don't think so, because the study included women who had regular mammograms, since that became the standard suggestion, and compared it to those who ignored the suggestion.

    But the important fact is that someone went back and studied whether the policy had the intended effect. If we do not do that, we can waste enormous amounts of moeny and effort that could be put to better use.

    It is true that groups like the American Society of Radiographers are putting their spin on this, but that only goes to prove my point: we do not have an agreed upon procedure designed from the ground up to consider multiple cost or benefit constituencies and still produce unbiased results.

    It can be done. We write detailed procedures for tasks that are a lot more complex than that. We follow those procedures and they work almost every time. When they fail, we add a new step to the procedure, but we don't scrap the whole thing because someone has an opinion.

    RH

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you're misinformed RH

    " The organization says it looked at virtually the same data as the task force but came to a different conclusion. "

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/16/mammography.recommendation.changes/index.html

    and remember – this is ONE organization

    there are others

    so I ask you again – who decides?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you're misinformed RH

    " The organization says it looked at virtually the same data as the task force but came to a different conclusion. "

    ————————–

    No, we are talking about two different things.

    At one time some data was used to determine that mammograms were a good idea, and a policy of encouraging annual mammograms after 40 ensued. Since then we have collected new data.

    That new data has been studied by different groups who have interpreted it differently.

    As Bernard Shaw said about religion, "At most, one of them is correct."

    So, here we are at round two: we go collect more data and find out who is right. Eventually we get to a position no reasonable person can argue with. May be you start mammograms at forty-four and have them every 14 months instead of annually.

    Who knows? But there IS an answer.

    Regardless of WHOSE policy we put in place we will do two things: spend some amount of money, and do some amount of good (or harm).

    Once we put that policy in place we have, in effect put a price on people's lives, well being, and ultimately their property.

    Therefore there is NO POINT in arguing that we do not know what the benefit cost ratio is, that we cannot make policy on that basis, or that we have to consider excessive risk conservatively.

    Just like the oyster example above. "I don't see how anyone can put a price on these lives, so I think we should spend X dollars to save them."

    That's a pretty stupid argument.

    RH

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    where did you think the "new" data came from?

    how often do you think "new data" will be available?

    whose "new data" will be deemed authoritative?

    In cases where there is disagreement who will be the arbiter and what criteria will they use to pick between competing analyses?

    how will you know when there will be no more "new data"?

    I'm not arguing against cost/benefit but I'm showing you that it's not near so simple as you say it is.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    where did you think the "new" data came from?

    I don't know, but my guess would be that it was collected under some kind of government grant.

    ——————————

    New data ought to be available after every policy change. We should fund the data collection as part of the regulatory change. Otherwise we have no quality control.

    However, in this case there is no regulation to enforce, only a policy "suggestion". Nothing is stopping any woman who wants more radiation from getting it.

    Having created this policy change, whoever funded the last data collection ought to fund the next round of analysis, after the new policy has been in effect long enough. Presumably that is done by a neutral party.

    ——————————-

    How do you know when there will be no new data?

    No one ever said this process is cheap, but part of the procedure for doing a cost analysis is deciding when to stop. When does the transaction cost become higher then the value of the information gained?

    hopefully there will always be new and better data. The trick is to make sure it isn't politically tainted.

    ——————————-

    "In cases where there is disagreement who will be the arbiter and what criteria will they use to pick between competing analyses?"

    Only one analysis can be right. It should not be too hard to figure out which one. Either more women who skip or postpone mammograms get cancer, or they don't.

    We already made two iterations on this, so the space for disagreement must be getting smaller.

    Someone is going to have to propose a test or experiment acceptable to the other side.

    Or else some third party will do the test as they see fit and the disagreeing parties will be in an awkward position. They would have to propose a test the third party is likely to fail, but which also does not invalidate their own argument.

    There is also an issue of time. It is possible that both studies are right. maybe we cleaned up the environment enough in the last thirty years that fewer women get beast cancer, and therefore we need fewer tests.

    RH

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I don't think the analyses is ever "done".

    It's a continuum.

    there are so many variables that keep changing over time.. that you're always in data collection mode and you're always looking at the trends…

    there may be a "theoretical" correct answer but not a practical one.

    Some companies will pay for annual mammograms, some may not.

    Some might depending on how much you pay in premiums while others will not.

    Some companies will rely on one study while others might rely on other studies.

    this is no benevolent dictator who will say from on high – "The truth is _____ I decree it".

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I don't think the analyses is ever "done".

    It's a continuum."

    My point, exactly.

    You are the one that has said the analysis has been done, the people have spoken.

    I agree it is a continuum, but each time you go around you get half way to the wall. You never get there, but at some point it doesn't make a difference.

    Some problems are more nebulous than others and take longer to solve.

    But really, how much are we willing to spend to prevent 15 deaths from voluntarily ingesting raw oysters?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "..there may be a "theoretical" correct answer but not a practical one.

    Some companies will pay for annual mammograms, some may not."

    Of course there is a practical answer.

    That money is going to be spent.

    Do we spend it wastefully, or not?

    Do we know the answer, or not?

    Do we bother to look, truthfully, or not?

    Or do we just accept a politically and financially motivated answer that is virtually guaranteed to be wrong?

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…this is no benevolent dictator who will say from on high – "The truth is _____ I decree it"."

    There is no benevolent dictator who will say it, but there is a truth.

    So if we have a benevolent dictator who says you will treat all oysters, then the truth is that we will spend x dollars to save y lives.

    If it costs a hundred million dollars to treat all the oysters and we have no oyster related deaths, then we have a cost that is on a par with other environmental safety programs.

    But if we spend $100 million and six people die anyway, because they caught their own oysters, or because the system was not as good as planned, then those lives saved cost twice as much as some other lives.

    I don't think we can afford to make that kind of bad decision, time after time.

    I don't think it is fair to the people who weren't saved for $1 million because we spent $15 million on someone else.

    I think that those who demand that $15 million be spent on their behalf are making an unfair property rights claim against other people, who could have been saved for less.

    RH

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Today's read: Montgomery likes light rail, not tolls
    Corridor Cities Transitway: The Montgomery County Council endorsed building a light rail line and adding two reversible highway lanes to ease traffic congestion along the Interstate 270 corridor. (Katherine Shaver)

    Tolls too high, says council: It's just a recommendation, but the Montgomery council also is writing to the Maryland Transportation Authority saying the toll rates proposed for the Intercounty Connector would be too expensive for many motorists and would leave the highway with too few users to justify its costs. (Katherine Shaver)"

    WAPO

    ——————————

    Tolls would mean the road has too few users to justify its costs.

    Now there is an interesting take. Apparently the road is worth more if more people use it, regardless of whether they pay to use it.

    I agree, and I would saythe same thing for Metro: more people would use it and it would be a more valuable asset, the the cost for using it waas the same as the roads – free.

    Free, not meaning free of course, but publicly supported rather than user supported.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "One is not sure whether tragedy or justice has come to New London, Conn. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. has announced that it will close down the $300 million research and development facility it built on the outskirts of the town a decade ago."

    Orange County Register

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "On the list, supercomputers No. 89 and No. 90 belong to the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. They are using IBM-powered clusters to study and predict climate change patterns.

    The Met’s supercomputer generates about 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, making it one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters in the nation."

    Gotta love it. the irony is rich.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "As countries get richer, they can afford to adopt environmentally friendly technologies. The environment is a luxury item, this is clearly shown in stats that countries get richer, their pollution per capita decreases and they get more efficient in GDP/pollution measures.

    Over time, the US and all of humanity has become more and more resource efficient. It takes less and less resources to produce one unit of GDP as time goes on. There is no reason to assume that this will not continue forward. It is entirely likely that a population of 10 billion in the future will consume the same amount of resources we are currently consuming. "

    —————————-

    Not really, it is also extremely likely as the effort and resources to produce a unit of GDP become less, that we can afford to consume more GDP per person.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More