"Rentseeking"/"Crony-Capitalism"

[Dak]

This is what it looks like:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html

A federal safety board called Tuesday for a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving.

The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past 10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable electronic devices -- recommending bans for novice drivers, school bus drivers and commercial truckers. Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.

It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said.

The recommendation would not affect passengers' rights to use such devices.

And then, at the end we have an example of doublethink, or an outright lie, however you want to classify it.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Or these:

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/...Furnaces_135024738.html?storySection=comments

Lincoln May Require Efficient, Expensive Furnaces

* * * * *

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111213/NEWS01/712139891#gop-plan-would-allow-rerouting

WASHINGTON — A Republican proposal to speed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would preserve ongoing efforts to route it around Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sand Hills.

GOP lawmakers have tucked the pipeline hurry-up into a broader piece of legislation that includes extension of a payroll tax cut, saying the country needs the pipeline jobs immediately.

* * * * *

Just a couple of examples from my local news sources.

 

[Dak]

Yup. The upcoming ban on incandescents and recent ban of drop-side cribs are other perfect examples.

 

[Draehl]

The one that bothers me the most is the incandescents. The fluorescents give me a headache

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

And of course, if you knew what CF bulbs were made of, you wouldn't even consider calling them "environmentally friendly". Same thing with nickle/cadmium batteries in hybrid cars and solar panels.

 

[Dak]

The irony of making items out of extremely toxic materials to prevent more carbon (which plants breathe) from getting into the environment is lost on most.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

But... BUT. Climate change is a reality. And I think it has more to do with destruction of ecosystems rather than CO2. We're probably on pace to completely eliminate all the earth's rain forests by the end of this century. Without all that plant biomass using up carbon in photosynthesis, we'll see some disastrous results.

 

[Dak]

Climate change is a reality. It's cyclical. It's caused by sun and celestial alignments. Volcanos can also play a limited short term role.

 

[Draehl]

I'm more inclined to believe the above, but if there is any man made change I'd also agree with SN 2 posts up. Little ice age, etc.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Yeah, it certainly wouldn't hurt to go a little easier on the environment. Less of this maybe?

 

[Draehl]

Though our #1 problem long term is population.

 

[Dak]

Wrong. Most of the world is looking at sub-replacement fertility rates.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Wrong. Most of the world is looking at sub-replacement fertility rates.

Even if that's true at the moment, it shouldn't be more than a bump in the long term curve.

My suggestion is a world wide ban on families with more than 2 children.

 

[Dak]

Even if that's true at the moment, it shouldn't be more than a bump in the long term curve.

My suggestion is a world wide ban on families with more than 2 children.

Move to China, they already did that. You will love it there. Hell, why stop there? Lets just kill everyone. "Problem" permanently solved.

Edit: This thread was for rentseeking and crony capitalism. If you want to discuss population and environmental concerns, make another thread pretty plz.

 

[Vimana]

Even if that's true at the moment, it shouldn't be more than a bump in the long term curve.

My suggestion is a world wide ban on families with more than 2 children.

The only problem would be the shift in dependency ratio.

Move to China, they already did that. You will love it there. Hell, why stop there? Lets just kill everyone. "Problem" permanently solved.

You stop there because it's generally accepted that human society wants to keep going... It makes a lot of sense to have population control. Even if the more developed countries have dropping birth rates, the earth's population is still rising and we're still messing up the planet. We need less people to consume less resources so that we don't end up with the setting of Wall E.

 

[Dak]

Can we get a mod to split this thread?

 

[Einherjar86]

The article cited above, and the efforts being made by the National Transportation Safety Board, clearly demonstrate government intrusion in this case; but what objections would we raise if this was an agreement between private enterprises?

Say, for simplicity's sake, these restrictions on cell phone use in vehicles are passed; now, one particular manufacturer strikes up a deal with another particular cell provider, so that those who wish to buy their vehicles also must agree to the plans dictated by the provider. I could see this eventually being the case even without government regulations on cell phone use. My question is: what objections could we raise against this, since it appears to me to be two independent corporations agreeing to a business deal, even if that deal forces users of the car manufacturer to also use that specific wireless provider?

 

[Dak]

Without the requirement to use a manufacturer-installed speakerphone system, who cares? You may simply choose a different new vehicle, or not make any purchase at all. If it is a feature many people want, then it will be a good deal for both companies. If many do not want it, the feature/deal demand will soon go away.

If it is unsafe to talk using non-installed handsfree devices, then it is unsafe to talk with installed versions. If it is unsafe to talk or hear while driving, lets ban radios/cd/mp3 players and passengers. If it is not unsafe to listen to the radio, or talk to passengers, or to even talk to a non passenger while using one handsfree device, then why ban built-in phone features or bluetooth, etc.?

 

[Einherjar86]

The whole emphasis behind "crony" capitalism, though, is that corporations team up, for lack of a better phrase. This could bypass market demands, in my opinion, if the corporations are wealthy enough. If all major car manufacturers strike up deals with wireless providers, it streamlines what products people can use, and the matches might not suit everyone's demands. Now, over time, these corporations might swap, or break their contracts, or what have you; but these dealings will gravitate toward an eventual combination that results in the greatest number of pleased customers. Which is fantastic; but then you have the issue of this particular car/wireless enterprise having a monopoly on the industry.

 

[Dak]

First: Without government/force intervention, there is no monopoly in the market. No product or service is going to appeal to everyone or be the best at everything in perpetuity, so there will always be competition forming.

Second: In the event that without government involvement, a particular product has so fully realized consumer need/demand/want, and so fully outstripped their competition's offerings, that they achieve an overwhelming share of the market in that product or service: So what?