Secrets of the City

The wind farm tax credit has become the latest victim of the pissin’ contest going on between AWOL and our Congress Critters.

Guess that’s the way the wind blows.

After all, there are lot better ways for Congress to spend the people’s money, right?

(sigh)

Three times in the last decade Congress has let the subsidy expire.

This would tell me, if I was building a wind farm, that I might not want to count on this subsidy. Doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.

Rat, you have an amazing skill of missing the point most of the time and being frustratingly passive about it.

This is a big problem; they SHOULD be able to count on this subsidy if we want to see more wind, and I think that we do.

There’s lots of big problems, but this I see as more of an inconvenience.

Lots of people are looking for things from the government. This group may be more deserving than others, but I’m saying that given the actions of Washington it appears to be a tough sell.

Good ideas don’t need government subsidy.

That’s everything that’s wrong with conservative thinking right there. In one sentence. You should get some kind of prize for summing it up so succinctly.

“Good ideas” = “profitable ideas” = energy from coal because it’s cheaper. And destructive. So you can either regulate or subsidize. That’s about all the options, and I’d rather the latter.

Rat, energy is about the biggest problem, because it affects all of the *other* problems. The citizens of this country need to figure that out, then light a fire under the collective asses of their representatives, and the “well, the government will do what the government will do” attitude makes this impossible.

“Good ideas don’t need government subsidy.”

You’re, right.

Apparently, only the bad ones get the subsidies.

Sure they can.

A cure for fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva would be a great idea, but it’s never going to happen without government subsidy because your hallowed free-market isn’t going to bother with a disease that strikes 1 in 2 million people.

And there are plenty of technologies that can need government subsidy to nurture them to a stage where the market will start to invest in them.

If you depend on government for anything, for whatever the reason, prepare to ride the rollercoaster.

Good ideas don’t need government subsidy.

I read a great article last night on Wired about how one product – the iPhone – has totally blew up the rule set for the cell phone industry in a way that will benefit consumers far more than any government regulation ever will (I’m looking at you, Amy Klobuchar). All it took was a company (Apple) to identify a need (itegration of mobile devices) to make a product (iPhone) to meet the need (millions of customers). If government felt the need to subsidize , I suspect we’d all be running around with Newtons.

kevin, I’m not unimpressed with how the free market and all its glory has brought us neat things like the iPhone. It’s a straw man to suggest that I think the government should subsidize crappy cellular phones. But if there’s an issue where something other than a company’s profit margin is at stake – say, oh, I dunno, the climate – then it matters. If the iPhone was the most popular phone because it was the cheapest because its operation consumed insane amounts of fossil fuels, while the Newton came equipped with a solar panel, then I think we could start talking about subsidy. Granted the example is a little silly, but I think what I’m saying is pretty clear.

And there are plenty of technologies that can need government subsidy to nurture them to a stage where the market will start to invest in them.
Exactly. We have microprocessors for this reason.

Jeff, I guess I was using regulation and subsidy interchangeably. That’s probably not a good tactic.

If you depend on government for anything, for whatever the reason, prepare to ride the rollercoaster.

If you depend on the market for anything that isn’t required by millions of people, be prepared wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.

A lot of the underlying technology of the iPhone was developed with governmental subsidies.

I should also note that Apple gave a big fat middle finger to millions of additional customers by refusing to incorporate hearing aid compatibility into the iPhone. (They took a questionable position that they are not covered by the regulations that require every other cell phone maker to make their phones compatible.)

the iPhone – has totally blew up the rule set for the cell phone industry in a way that will benefit consumers far more than any government regulation ever will

. . . but would the iPhone have been invented if it weren’t for the gahjillions in Gov’t subsidies that go to phone carriers?

That’s everything that’s wrong with conservative thinking right there. In one sentence. You should get some kind of prize for summing it up so succinctly.

Actually, the real award-winning one is even more succinct:

“Let the market decide.”

Let me sum that up in one word:

(Max makes a baby gurgling noise)

Those of us with real jobs in the private sector already know you government employees fear and resent the free market. It’s just amusing the lengths that you’ll go to to illustrate it.

Though that amount of subsidy troubles me, I don’t think the iPhone is widely utilized in rural areas.

Are you talking to Kevin? I don’t think he fears the free market.

oh, you WILL be fiightened…

I work in the private sector, maz. It’s just that many of us recognize that there are many needs that the market cannot, and will not meet either on its own or without some governmental subsidy.

It’s not the role of government to subsidize markets.

Tell that to the farmers.

Well, there goes the military industrial complex.

’bout time!

I have told that to farmers. And the military, which is a constitutional provision, does need weapons, and the government shouldn’t be in the weapons business either. So they have to buy them from someone who makes them. That’s not a subsidy.

So they have to buy them from someone who makes them.

China? If we buy Chinese bullets, do we we still have to worry about lead?

I know, I know. The government should only spend money on what directly benefits you, and shouldn’t spend any money on anything else.

That which benefits me, benefits you. Trust me.

You can, you know. He’s not with the government…

But it is the role of government to provide for the common defense.

There are a lot of roles of government.

I’m going to advise against eating bullets.

That which benefits me, benefits you. Trust me.

Any one can say the same thing about their own government benefits or subsidies.

But it is the role of government to provide for the common defense.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 12:44 PM on January 10

There are a lot of roles of government.
» Submitted by »»» msparber at 12:44 PM on January 10

Which includes promoting the general welfare.

right. If I wasn’t paying for Jeff to play at university scientist, he might be robbing a 7-11 and I’d have to pay for his incarceration.

I promote the general welfare just by being on this planet. But it doesn’t mean it should cost anyone any money for the pleasure.

But it doesn’t mean it should cost anyone any money for the pleasure.

What about all the other costs?

The subsidy money has run out three times before. The wind farmers will probably get it again. If a Democratic president takes power, maybe it will be easier for them. I’m not saying I’m against it, I’m saying that with all the setbacks, i wouldn’t write it into a business plan.

So that task ahead is to get a Democrat elected. And I’m not talking about Dennis Kucinich, or thinking your doing something by voting for someone from the Green Party.

right. If I wasn’t paying for Jeff to play at university scientist, he might be robbing a 7-11 and I’d have to pay for his incarceration.

Or, his research at the University might lead to some scientific insight that serves as the foundation for the next technological advance.

Are you saying that because democrats love to spend everyone else’s money? or that they have a history of subsidizing markets that should be left to succeed or fail on their own?

I still oppose eating bullets. Want to be very clear on that.

Or, his research at the University might lead to some scientific insight that serves as the foundation for the next technological advance

or not.

I still oppose eating bullets. Want to be very clear on that.

If yer agin it, I’m fer it.

I tend to avoid loaded questions, Maz.

It’s true. The Rat still hasn’t answered the question about whether he is still beating his wife.

Fair enough, max, as long as you’re not on state-funded dental care.

Does such a thing even exist?

All maz can do is repeat over and over how “it isn’t the role of the government…. ” blah blah without dealing with what I pointed out: that if doing things the cheapest/free market way has severe environmental consequences, your hands are tied, you regulate or subsidize.

If I wasn’t paying for Jeff to play at university scientist, he might be robbing a 7-11 and I’d have to pay for his incarceration.
Fuck yeah. I might just do it anyways.

Jeffy, the free market doesn’t result in the cheapest way, it results in the best way. And the best way is the one that most people want … whether it works best, looks best, costs less, or is most environmentally friendly.

That distinction is determined by the people who buy products that they want, for whatever reason, not by governments deciding what should be made, for perhaps the wrong reason.

Maz, that’s like saying democracy guarantees that the best candidate always wins. The “people” aren’t aways right. Just because the free-market results in the products that most people want, hardly means it results in the best product.

The “people” aren’t aways right.

Uh, that’s exactly what it means. The people chose that person for their reasons. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong? Afterall, you get another chance in the next election.

If the “product” doesn’t deliver you can “buy” a different one in a few years. Uncle Fidel knows that truism all too well, which is why they don’t have a choice down there.

Just because the free-market results in the products that most people want, hardly means it results in the best product.

It does eventually. If the product doesn’t perform, the people buy a different one until they get it right.

I call BS. Go out and buy a regular soft 40 bristle toothbrush. It is nearly impossible. Why? It isn’t because there are “better” toothbrushes. There have been no substantial improvements in manual toothbrush technology in over 30 years. However, what has happened is that toothbrush manufacturers have a bottom line to meet. They stick worthless features onto their toothbrush and charge more. Thus, the profit margin is greater, but the item may in fact be inferior to a regular toothbrush. However, if everyone makes a greater profit, the item is more desirable to both retailer, and manufacturer. If the consumer has no choice, then they must buy the more expensive toothbrush. Thus, the “best” product is no longer manufactured or is made in smaller numbers. This is but one example of your market NOT producing the best product.

Actually there is new toothbrush technology just about to hit the market!

Titanium toothbrush!

There have been no substantial improvements in manual toothbrush technology in over 30 years.

Nonsense. There’s never been more consumer choice in toothbrushes.

I stopped brushing my teeth by growing teeth that met my demand for producing less tartar.

Well, I for one won’t stand by while we free-market ourselves right into the ground.

I’m all for free market, but in reality there are many things I don’ think it would handle well e.g. fire departments, police, roads.

Maz, you are a true prophet.

It must be true, because he is not honored in his native land…

Those are choices that were made by the taxpayers/voters. But in some areas of the country, there are still privatized versions of those things because the people prefer it that way.

There have been no substantial improvements in manual toothbrush technology in over 30 years.

Nonsense. There’s never been more consumer choice in toothbrushes.

That’s not his point. The point is that that $100 electric toothbrush does nothing better than the $2 one.

because he is not honored in his native land…

How many eagle feathers do you have, Bob? I’ve got two. heh

That’s not his point. The point is that that $100 electric toothbrush does nothing better than the $2 one.

But without the free market, someone (you perhaps?) would decide which toothbrushes were worthy to be on the shelf. Your “wisdom” effectively limiting the consumers’ choice. The free market simply allows all the toothbrushes to be for sale … until the people decide through their purchases which ones they don’t want.

Nonsense. There’s never been more consumer choice in toothbrushes.

Ah! But there have been NO clinical studies that even show any improvement over a regular 40 bristle soft toothbrush. Choice is greater, but the toothbrushes are not better. In fact, they perform equally as any other brush, they just cost more.

The market will never guarantee a better product. They only thing it will guarantee is a product with a higher profit margin. If something can have the appearance of “New and Improved” while costing the exact same as the old and unimproved to manufacture, a company will manufacture the one with the higher profit margin.

Do you think the SUV market did so well because SUV’s were superior vehicles? No, they did well because they cost the same to produce as a pickup truck, but they could charge a great deal more. Thus, SUV’s have a higher profit margin. Marketing took care of the rest. You can’t even buy a car with 50MPH. Not because the technology is not available, but because the profit margin is so small on these cars.

Hence, the market will only occasionally provide the best product. More often, it’ll be something that is cheaper to make and could be sold for more than the previous product. That is your only guarantee.

That distinction is determined by the people who buy products that they want, for whatever reason, not by governments deciding what should be made, for perhaps the wrong reason.

Even if you accept that, you can’t ignore the consequences of the “markets” choices.

When it comes to Betamax vs. VHS< or BluRay vs. HD, or a $2 40 bristle soft tooth brush vs. a $100+ wireless electric one, it's simply a matter of settling for different levels of quality or paying for useless gimmicks.

But there are a lot of market choices that have/had severe consequences that can’t be ignored: leaded paint, or the failure of the “market” to serve segments of the population (racial discrimination, refusal to provide accommodations for people with disabilities). I could go on and on.

The point is that that $100 electric toothbrush does nothing better than the $2 one.

You’d have to buy one and compare to know that wouldn’t you?

They wouldn’t have taken the risk if they didn’t think someone was willing to pay $100 for it.

I suppose you might make a value judgement on the people who would spend that money, but in the end, it’s their money and they can spend it any way they want.

Well, for Bob’s continued non-incarceration, I sure hope he has no eagle feathers.

Maz: How many eagle feathers do you have, Bob? I’ve got two. heh

Bob: What does eagle taste like, dennis?

Maz: A lot like Spotted Owl… (rimshot)

Well, for Bob’s continued non-incarceration, I sure hope he has no eagle feathers.

Don’t worry, I only eat crow…

justpbob, you’re not helping here . . . I want this thread to turn back into toothbrush arguement.

They only thing it will guarantee is a product with a higher profit margin.

That’s simply not true. The higher the quality, generally the lower the margin. But high quality products do exist in the marketplace because there is a demand for them. Manufacturers make them because some profit is better than no profit.

Walmart exists. But so does Neiman-Marcus, because both markets exist.

I think you’re all failing to consider the very real possibility that the toothbrush is perfect as it’s been for decades.

When was the last time they made a design change to the hammer? Another perfect tool.

When they made a nail gun.

touche’

A nail gun is not a hammer. A nail gun is a better way to pound nails, but that doesn’t make it a hammer.

It does eventually. If the product doesn’t perform, the people buy a different one until they get it right.

Again, this is my point. The market NEVER guarantees the best product. NEVER. You are completely wrong by making that assertion. The market is good at certain things, but it never guarantees that products will improve. The toothbrush example was merely that — and example. There are tons of others.

but it never guarantees that products will improve

Perhaps, but it’s the only mechanism that enables products to continuously improve as companies compete against each other in the marketplace. Version 2.0 is ostensibly better than Version 1.0.

Companies that don’t improve their products soon find themselves out of the marketplace, having lost the battle to companies who do improve theirs.

Unfortunately, I never get to see a version 2.0 in government programs because they don’t compete in the marktplace.

Kevin is right. A better mousetrap has not been invented. It has been unchanged for a long time. If it were a larger selling commodity, I can guarantee you that the market would alter it in a non-beneficial way and charge more for it. (Perhaps it would have lasers on it!)

The same goes for the toothbrush. It’s design was elegant and perfect. However, the market decided that it would “bend it like a dental instrument”. (A mirror not a dental toothbrush). This non-improvement was marketed as an improvement so that it could be sold for more, but it did not cost any more to produce. Thus, the end of being able to buy the best toothbrush began. All it needed was the appearance or a marketing strategy to fool the public into believing that it was an improvement and the regular toothbrush’s days were numbered.

Maz, just because it’s your perception that the market will eventually guarantee the best product, you are wrong, WRONG, WRONG. Just because you believe it’s true, doesn’t make it true. The market works the same way, it’s based upon perception. If you percieve that a product is some new and improved version of the old one, you may spend an extra few dollars on something you really don’t need. We’re usually emotional buyers, not always practicle. Just because we believe it’s true, doesn’t make it so. You’re a marketers dream, Maz. Heh. Heh.

My toothbrush has a little thing on the bottom for scraping mah toungue. That’s pretty cool, especially if I’m making out.

Unfortunately, I never get to see a version 2.0 in government programs because they don’t compete in the marktplace.

Sure they do, they’re called elections. Unfortunately for you, you’re on the wrong side of the market’s choice. Just like Douglas is on the toothbrush.

Perhaps, but it’s the only mechanism that enables products to continuously improve as companies compete against each other in the marketplace. Version 2.0 is ostensibly better than Version 1.0.

However, a “free market” does not have any impedance on forming monopolies. Thus, there may not be a company B to compete with company A. Thus, no improvement is necessary because no one is competing.

There are ways to give incentives for improvement and the market is one way to provide those improvements. However, it is not the only way. Further, it does have drawbacks.

kevin, the bristles will do a fine job on your toungue. You paid for that toungue scraper when you didn’t need it, and it cost the manufacturer about a penny, not even. So there you have it.

Haven’t any of you people ever heard of the continuous improvement business model? Do you all work for the gubmint? I guarentee you that the products I produce this year are much better than the ones I built last year. My customers expect it. If I didn’t continuously improve my products they’d go elsewhere. Business mgmt 101, people.

You obviously haven’t made out with me lately.

Baby, don’t tell me you forgot about last night already. Your tongue was amazing. On second thought, keep scraping.

If I didn’t continuously improve my products they’d go elsewhere. Business mgmt 101, people.

That is definitely not always the case. If my barbar can already competently cut my hair the way I want it, there’s no need for him to make any changes.

If my toothbrush already works, unless some clinically proven modification comes forward, there’s no need to change it, and I’m going to keep buying it as it is.

All it needed was the appearance or a marketing strategy to fool the public into believing that it was an improvement and the regular toothbrush’s days were numbered.

This is why I refuse to buy an electric toothbrush. That and I hate that buzzing feeling in my mouth.

/shut up kevin.

“Companies that don’t improve their products soon find themselves out of the marketplace,“

Or shovel a few million into some key legislator’s campaigns, get laws rewritten to give them an advantage. Or if they are big enough, they can just wait to go bankrupt and have the government bail them out.

This is why I refuse to buy an electric toothbrush. That and I hate that buzzing feeling in my mouth.

That doesn…

/shut up kevin.

Busted.

I dub thee . . . Toothbrush Economics 101