InclinedPlane
Joined 17 years ago
Joined 17 years ago
Additionally, as a replacement for "drilling oil out of the ground" as the first step in everything that makes use of gasoline and similar products (so jet fuel, heating oil, diesel, gasoline, lubricants, plastics, etc.) this is a good thing, not just from an emissions standpoint but also from a pollution and environmental impact (drilling, crude oil transport, etc.) aspect.
Even more importantly, this is a way to bridge the "energy storage" gap for green energy sources like wind and solar. Base electric power generation is a very second by second thing, hydrocarbon production can easily be an "average output over a week or a month" sort of thing, which is where wind and solar do well.
Also, do you understand how withholding works and how you pay taxes with every pay check not just every year? And that if you have too low of an annual income to actually owe any federal tax you need to file in order to get your withholding back?
You missed it entirely. The argument is that it is unreasonable and unsustainable to expect that everybody should own one. We have normalized many of the costs of near universal automobile ownership today, but in many ways it is unsustainable, particularly as urbanization increases and particularly as cities are the main economic drivers in the modern era. We're killing ourselves with the idea that everybody not only should own a beach house but has to own a beach house in order to function in society and the economy, and there just isn't enough beach front property for that to be realistic.
That is an important point, especially in the 20th century, because the common nature of the automobile naturally leads all automakers towards sharing common cause on certain big issues (like road building and use; parking availability and cost; petroleum production, use, and taxation; land use; and so on), many of which differ strongly from the desires tied to other ways of meeting transportation needs or of the public at large. "Monopoly" is the wrong term, but oligopoly is accurate, and equally concerning.
Life is a resource network. There is production, and consumption. Economically people contribute to the economy and are paid money which is used to "take" goods and services back out of the economy. This is very different from a pyramid scheme.
There is no excuse for a company such as Boeing, working under the regulation of the FAA, to produce any version of any model of plane which is fundamentally unsafe to fly. Period. None.
We're done here.
Could be, and now I'm just spitballing here, but it could be the use of government backed currencies, the heavy degree of government oversight and regulation, and the federally insured deposits.