the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

Much of that flood of inventory from China comes to consumers through California on trucks. This isn't going to stop that.

Oh noes! Now more stuff might get shipped by train!

That ... that would actually make sense. Can't have that.

POAC: the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

The board declared that the health benefits far outweighed the financial pain in a state that has the dirtiest air in the nation.

Of course, nobody will have a job anymore and California will be an abandoned wasteland ruled over by Omega man mutants and Republican road warriors but everyone will breathe far easier. So they have that going for them.

Weaver95: POAC: the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

The board declared that the health benefits far outweighed the financial pain in a state that has the dirtiest air in the nation.

Of course, nobody will have a job anymore and California will be an abandoned wasteland ruled over by Omega man mutants and Republican road warriors but everyone will breathe far easier. So they have that going for them.

or, the industry will adjust and find a way to work within the guidelines, and if the trucking companies can't figure it out, someone else will.

o noes, we be costing da industreez!! Everybodies panik!!

Seriously, there are worse things than 'costing industry'. The sooner governments get back to serving people - individuals, collectively, not just the captains of industry - the better we will all be.

Weaver95: ...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

Source?

POAC: the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

Source?

Of all the stupid trolling headlines, this is one of the worst attempts to tie Obama in to something completely unrelated. Also, we should only care about people's health when the economy is great? Awesome!

dj_bigbird: POAC: the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

Source?

That number was in TFA. I didn't see the $70 billion figure anywhere.

I just can't approve of finding better ways to do things in the long term if it means short term costs. Sorry... no go on this.

Yeah, fark health...let's concern ourselves with the trucking industry. Our kids can wear masks...or not...fark 'em...as long as the trucking industry is OK.

Gee, if only we lived in an innovative, science friendly society that seriously worked to find long-term solutions that were industry- and lung-friendly.

If only...

Mordant: I just can't approve of finding better ways to do things in the long term if it means short term costs. Sorry... no go on this.

Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, fark health...let's concern ourselves with the trucking industry. Our kids can wear masks...or not...fark 'em...as long as the trucking industry is OK.

in a market system, the consumer base just isn't allowed to say what isn't acceptable to them. they have to take whatever the businesses want to do and don't get a say in the matter. that's the way it works.

burndtdan: ...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

Not likely, this is really only going to kill long haul trucking (and I for one look forward to the day when they are no longer on the road). Short range trucking and freight trains will take its place with no long term disruption.

Weaver95: ...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

So it balances out. What's the problem?

burndtdan:
in a market system, the consumer base just isn't allowed to say what isn't acceptable to them. they have to take whatever the businesses want to do and don't get a say in the matter. that's the way it works.

I would actually disagree with this. However, it takes a strongly unified consumer base to make a choice.

There is also the problem that consumers often are unable to make a choice (or voice it) unless a competing company or the government steps in to voice their concern via a competing product or regulation.

This is an excellent example of the latter- how do "consumers" not buy products that were a product of long-haul trucking? How do you convince enough of them to make that decision?

sloppy shoes: This is an excellent example of the latter- how do "consumers" not buy products that were a product of long-haul trucking? How do you convince enough of them to make that decision?

Tragedy of the commons (sort of) - one of the many, many thorns in the side of libertarianism.

kmmontandon: Oh noes! Now more stuff might get shipped by train!

That ... that would actually make sense. Can't have that.

Not sure if you've noticed, but CA has _really_ piss-poor rail infrastructure. It would require a lot of new infrastructure and repairs to replace long-haul trucking.

As for TFA, two important points need to be made: First, CA still refuses to touch construction vehicles, which have little to no emissions restrictions, and are major polluters. Second, the cost of complying with this is going to be passed on to the consumers, of whom a great many are already struggling to make ends meet at this point.

I'm a lefty, pro-environment guy, but even I think this is a stupid move. What they should be doing is providing incentives to obtain cleaner vehicles, like tax-breaks and trade-in deals.

burndtdan: in a market system, the consumer base just isn't allowed to say what isn't acceptable to them. they have to take whatever the businesses want to do and don't get a say in the matter. that's the way it works.

Actually these days this is true for many things, especially when we are uninformed about them. Which items at the stores near you were shipped with clean fuel-efficient trucks? You have no f*cking idea.

Many decisions are made far from the consumer and we are completely uninformed about them. Your "let the market take care of it" assumes informed customers which we are not.

Then you have the problem of people being deattached from the consequences and not even caring. As somebody mentioned, many goods are shipped from sea ports in California to destinations around the country. Most 'fly-over' areas don't have bad air quality, and many people would even laugh at the concept of paying more to have cleaner air for the libs to breath in CA.

DamnYankees: sloppy shoes: This is an excellent example of the latter- how do "consumers" not buy products that were a product of long-haul trucking? How do you convince enough of them to make that decision?

Tragedy of the commons (sort of) - one of the many, many thorns in the side of libertarianism.

Well yes. But there are a few Libertarian points I agree with. The main problem they suffer from is the same thing that many, many politicos in America suffer from: bipolar politics.

They'd have much more play if they tried to compromise and build power. I think they'd have a decent shot at trying to build a libertarian state. They should encourage a migration to one state. Or even better, they could all occupy a territory and perform a grand social experiment.

If it is a matter of your asthmatic daughter losing her life, perhaps you should not wait until 2011.

California wonders why the rest of the country thinks they are dumbasses, they are.

sloppy shoes: I think they'd have a decent shot at trying to build a libertarian state. They should encourage a migration to one state. Or even better, they could all occupy a territory and perform a grand social experiment.



/Sorry, just made me immediately think of this

You know, I recall the exact same arguments during the fight over refrigerator effieciency. The Californian government realized that the energy needlessly wasted on inefficient fridges was in the double digits and they could save a lot on energy costs and grid repair by mandating higher standards.

The companies that manufactured the units came in and complained and said the increases would drive them out of business and critically damage those that depended on cheap refrigerators (restaurants, hotels, meat packing... ect). They pissed and moaned and went through millions trying to block the legislation. It passed however, they all survived and now all current fridges are based of the Californian model. Most look back at the old models and wonder how we could stick with them for so long.

feckingmorons: California wonders why the rest of the country thinks they are dumbasses, they are.

...says the guy from Florida.

I think it's neat the way you managed to acquire a working knowledge of the language and the rudimentary skills to post on FARK. That's a HELL of an accomplishment for a Floridian! One gold star for you, Corky!

feckingmorons: If it is a matter of your asthmatic daughter losing her life, perhaps you should not wait until 2011.

California wonders why the rest of the country thinks they are dumbasses, they are.

Actually, I agree with the time constraint. It takes time to switch technology and upgrade, especially in a recession.

It's fair.


Naman: sloppy shoes: I think they'd have a decent shot at trying to build a libertarian state. They should encourage a migration to one state. Or even better, they could all occupy a territory and perform a grand social experiment.

/Sorry, just made me immediately think of this

I always laugh at that cartoon.

From a theoretical perspective, I think it would be interesting to give Libertarians-say the state of New Mexico- to see if their proposals will work better.

I mean, maybe we are all being foolishly deceived by the vices of the 'state'.

Weaver95: Of course, nobody will have a job anymore and California will be an abandoned wasteland ruled over by Omega man mutants and Republican road warriors but everyone will breathe far easier. So they have that going for them.

Of course, pollution is OK just so long as you get that small government. We had small government in the past, and we had cities so choked with pollution you couldn't breathe. By all means, lets return to that.

burndtdan: Weaver95: POAC: the measure would save Californians up to $68 billion in healthcare costs in the first 15 years.

...and cost them $70 billion in lost revenue within the first decade.

The board declared that the health benefits far outweighed the financial pain in a state that has the dirtiest air in the nation.

Of course, nobody will have a job anymore and California will be an abandoned wasteland ruled over by Omega man mutants and Republican road warriors but everyone will breathe far easier. So they have that going for them.

or, the industry will adjust and find a way to work within the guidelines, and if the trucking companies can't figure it out, someone else will.

Yes someone else will figure it out, they will abandon the California ports an favor of other ports where the local government has not implemented regulations that force logistics companies to raise their prices. Houston and SEA/TAC ports are well aware of this and improving their ports to accomodate larger vessels, and improve offloading efficiency.

So California will achieve its goal of reducing emissions but not necessarily by making trucks upgrade, but by driving commerce out of the state.

Lionel Mandrake: feckingmorons: California wonders why the rest of the country thinks they are dumbasses, they are.

...says the guy from Florida.

I think it's neat the way you managed to acquire a working knowledge of the language and the rudimentary skills to post on FARK. That's a HELL of an accomplishment for a Floridian! One gold star for you, Corky!

I just live and work here (albiet part of the year) I was not born in Florida and do not claim to be 'from' Florida.

You seem a bit defensive, have you taken your medicines today?

sloppy shoes: Well yes. But there are a few Libertarian points I agree with. The main problem they suffer from is the same thing that many, many politicos in America suffer from: bipolar politics.

I actually a bigger problem for libertarians is that so many of them have the underlying assumption that "less government" and "more free market" are the same thing. A free market is not the absence of government, but the absence of coercive transactions in the presence of fully informed traders. The government needs to help *create* this just as much as it needs to stop itself from interfering.

sloppy shoes: feckingmorons: If it is a matter of your asthmatic daughter losing her life, perhaps you should not wait until 2011.

California wonders why the rest of the country thinks they are dumbasses, they are.

Actually, I agree with the time constraint. It takes time to switch technology and upgrade, especially in a recession.

It's fair.

I was talking about doing something about the kids health, not changing the trucks over today.

feckingmorons:
So California will achieve its goal of reducing emissions but not necessarily by making trucks upgrade, but by driving commerce out of the state.

They may transfer some business elsewhere, but in the end California is still one of the largest economies on the planet, let alone the states. So, since trucks will still have to go there, they will either upgrade for the entire country (or at least the Western half) or they will stop doing business with CA. Which do you think is more likely?

Further, other states may take note of CA's change, and they may change too.

Some business will be lost, some business will change, and some business will be created by forcing the change.

sloppy shoes: burndtdan:
in a market system, the consumer base just isn't allowed to say what isn't acceptable to them. they have to take whatever the businesses want to do and don't get a say in the matter. that's the way it works.

I would actually disagree with this. However, it takes a strongly unified consumer base to make a choice.

There is also the problem that consumers often are unable to make a choice (or voice it) unless a competing company or the government steps in to voice their concern via a competing product or regulation.

This is an excellent example of the latter- how do "consumers" not buy products that were a product of long-haul trucking? How do you convince enough of them to make that decision?

i was being sarcastic, but you summed up what i was thinking well.

there are scenarios where the only viable option for consumers to voice their discontent is through government. this works especially well in a democracy, where the government is ultimately the voice of the people.

Lionel Mandrake: ...says the guy from Florida.

no, we KNOW why people think we're dumbasses.

feckingmorons:
I was talking about doing something about the kids health, not changing the trucks over today.

Oh. Sorry. Makes sense now.

DamnYankees:
I actually a bigger problem for libertarians is that so many of them have the underlying assumption that "less government" and "more free market" are the same thing. A free market is not the absence of government, but the absence of coercive transactions in the presence of fully informed traders. The government needs to help *create* this just as much as it needs to stop itself from interfering.

Well yes. Obviously I have many disagreements with Libertarians on Fark here. To say that government has no right to interfere, I need merely point to the American case of Africans. From slavery to the denial of services via government or the refusal of businesses to deal with them, you simply cannot say that a "totally free market" is ideal.

And it wasn't until the Federal Government made a conceited effort to force businesses to operate with them that conditions began to change and dramatically improve.

And ultimately, I don't think the experiment I'm proposing would work. But, I'd still like to see it. It would provide a lot of interesting economic data, something economists cherish more than priests cherish little boys.

sloppy shoes: feckingmorons:
So California will achieve its goal of reducing emissions but not necessarily by making trucks upgrade, but by driving commerce out of the state.

They may transfer some business elsewhere, but in the end California is still one of the largest economies on the planet, let alone the states. So, since trucks will still have to go there, they will either upgrade for the entire country (or at least the Western half) or they will stop doing business with CA. Which do you think is more likely?

Further, other states may take note of CA's change, and they may change too.

Some business will be lost, some business will change, and some business will be created by forcing the change.

As I noted previously, the same thing happened with refrigerators. No one could just pull out of a market the size of California, and most companies decided it was too expensive to try and make /market two versions of the same product for different states, so they just switched over everywhere. Now, if this was,say, Delaware trying to pull this off, it probably would fall on its face.

feckingmorons: So California will achieve its goal of reducing emissions but not necessarily by making trucks upgrade, but by driving commerce out of the state.

yes, i'm certain that california, one of the most populated states with huge amounts of capital and a near monopolistic access to the pacific coast, will stop having commerce and shipping commerce specifically. that's a definite risk.

burndtdan: Lionel Mandrake: ...says the guy from Florida.

no, we KNOW why people think we're dumbasses.

Oh, so do we.

Then, we wait a few years, and watch everybody follow us...:)

sloppy shoes: To say that government has no right to interfere, I need merely point to the American case of Africans. From slavery to the denial of services via government or the refusal of businesses to deal with them, you simply cannot say that a "totally free market" is ideal.

I've had conversations with quite a few libertarians who argued that it was the government that caused Jim Crow by refusing to let people deal as they wanted with black people. So companies which wanted a competitive advantage by hiring the skilled black man were unable to do so due to law, or that slavery would have become economically unfeasible, and the institution would have faded away as a market practice.

burndtdan: near monopolistic access to the pacific coast

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

DamnYankees: sloppy shoes: To say that government has no right to interfere, I need merely point to the American case of Africans. From slavery to the denial of services via government or the refusal of businesses to deal with them, you simply cannot say that a "totally free market" is ideal.

I've had conversations with quite a few libertarians who argued that it was the government that caused Jim Crow by refusing to let people deal as they wanted with black people. So companies which wanted a competitive advantage by hiring the skilled black man were unable to do so due to law, or that slavery would have become economically unfeasible, and the institution would have faded away as a market practice.

i highly doubt that the institution of producing goods without labor costs would have become economically unfeasible. it had a distinct competitive advantage.

DamnYankees: burndtdan: near monopolistic access to the pacific coast

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

Ohh... the Pacific Northwest is myth. Eugene, Oregon? Come on, no way that's a real place.

DamnYankees: burndtdan: near monopolistic access to the pacific coast

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

First of all, Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Canada, Alaska, and Central/South America do not count.

DamnYankees:
I've had conversations with quite a few libertarians who argued that it was the government that caused Jim Crow by refusing to let people deal as they wanted with black people. So companies which wanted a competitive advantage by hiring the skilled black man were unable to do so due to law, or that slavery would have become economically unfeasible, and the institution would have faded away as a market practice.

I spent much of my college career in a race relations club exploring history and the present day. People's understanding of race relations and the treatment of black people (and Native Americans) is just so stupified and politicized that our sense of history has been somewhat lost.

I had to have an argument with my own father (who grew up in Detroit) about whether or not a wall was literally built on 8 mile to "keep the blacks out." I mean, you don't even need to go to the South and Jim Crow. You can look at Michigan- which has an obvious historic black population and analyze Detroit, 'redlining' and many other business and political practices of white people.

DamnYankees: burndtdan: near monopolistic access to the pacific coast

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

in the US it isn't. it would be a little cost prohibitive to ship everything in through oregon and washington, then drive them around the country (especially southern states) without crossing through california. or dealing with the process of bringing the shipments in through foreign ports and across the border.

and even if the trucking companies wanted to do that, i doubt the 2/3 or so of the pacifc coastline in california and all those available ports wouldn't just end up being put to use by people who found a viable solution that worked within the guidelines. it doesn't seem that likely that the ports would just go to waste.

no matter what, california has the geographical assets that someone will put to use.

burndtdan: i highly doubt that the institution of producing goods without labor costs would have become economically unfeasible. it had a distinct competitive advantage.

I think the idea is that people would refuse to deal with them out of moral disgust, and so they would have to change to survive economically.

But I'm no expert on this nonsense.

sloppy shoes: First of all, Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Canada, Alaska, and Central/South America do not count.

Not to mention Japan, China, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, the Philipines, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam.

DamnYankees: I think the idea is that people would refuse to deal with them out of moral disgust

i could think of two really good arguments against that.

1) the people who would have this moral disgust were the same people who found it perfectly acceptable enough to not make it illegal, both in reality and especially in this theoretical construct where the government is specifically not being utilized.

2) the option to avoid slave-tainted goods wouldn't necessarily be realistically available. the lower costs of production would provide a competitive advantage that would make those goods nearly ubiquitous in the market, and as someone pointed out earlier in regards to buying goods that are or are not shipped by truck, how would they know if it was connected to slavery anyways? a "made by slaves" label?

DamnYankees: sloppy shoes: First of all, Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Canada, Alaska, and Central/South America do not count.

Not to mention Japan, China, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, the Philipines, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam.

i meant for shipping purposes in the united states.

you could also throw the north pole in there, but i don't think the US commercial trucking industry does much business there.

DamnYankees: burndtdan: i highly doubt that the institution of producing goods without labor costs would have become economically unfeasible. it had a distinct competitive advantage.

I think the idea is that people would refuse to deal with them out of moral disgust, and so they would have to change to survive economically.

But I'm no expert on this nonsense.


That was probably part of the argument. However, the cost of maintaining the slaves, increased cost of obtaining new ones (via the restricted trade- though it certainly still existed), and simple fact that oppressing people restrains growth.

(I don't mean to bring the union/labor hate into this thread), but one of the best arguments for GM/Ford/Chrysler having factories here that pay decent wages is that growth does flow up. When your workers can afford your product, you get more business and more growth. However, if you treat them as a cost and not simply a customer, then you restrain yourself.

burndtdan: 1) the people who would have this moral disgust were the same people who found it perfectly acceptable enough to not make it illegal, both in reality and especially in this theoretical construct where the government is specifically not being utilized.

I guess the reponse is that societies change, and its not the job of the government to force that change on people.

I don't think this is a standard libertarian argument, though. Any libertarian (or human) with an ounce of sense would realize that the government was being strongly ANTI-libertarian in allowing slavery and denying basic rights to black people.

burndtdan: 2) the option to avoid slave-tainted goods wouldn't necessarily be realistically available. the lower costs of production would provide a competitive advantage that would make those goods nearly ubiquitous in the market, and as someone pointed out earlier in regards to buying goods that are or are not shipped by truck, how would they know if it was connected to slavery anyways? a "made by slaves" label?

Sounds like the China situation, except for the slavery part.

sloppy shoes: That was probably part of the argument. However, the cost of maintaining the slaves, increased cost of obtaining new ones (via the restricted trade- though it certainly still existed), and simple fact that oppressing people restrains growth.

(I don't mean to bring the union/labor hate into this thread), but one of the best arguments for GM/Ford/Chrysler having factories here that pay decent wages is that growth does flow up. When your workers can afford your product, you get more business and more growth. However, if you treat them as a cost and not simply a customer, then you restrain yourself.

I think libertarians have a very tough road to hoe even defining when a government is interfering in the market versus freeing it up. Labor unions are a very good example. Some people blame labor union legislation for getting in the way of contracts made between employers and employees and interfering in private negotiations by forcing the companies to allow labor unions. Others (including me) would say the government was merely pushing back against undue power the companies held, and that you couldn't truly have free and fair negotiations between employer and employee unless the government forced employers to allow, recognize, and bargain with unions.

There's no bright line between these things.

DamnYankees:
I think libertarians have a very tough road to hoe even defining when a government is interfering in the market versus freeing it up. Labor unions are a very good example. Some people blame labor union legislation for getting in the way of contracts made between employers and employees and interfering in private negotiations by forcing the companies to allow labor unions. Others (including me) would say the government was merely pushing back against undue power the companies held, and that you couldn't truly have free and fair negotiations between employer and employee unless the government forced employers to allow, recognize, and bargain with unions.

There's no bright line between these things.

Well, most of advanced economics is about the tricky cases. This essay (new window) actually goes into one of those cases from a former libertarian who got a PHD in Econ.

One messy case that impressed me was milk. Milk is heavy, so shipping costs are high. It is perishable, must be processed (pasteurized, bottled) and sold quickly. It is produced by cows, which cannot be temporarily laid off; you must feed them or slaughter them. Because of the shipping costs, milk processors are typically local monopolies. Free-market negotiations between processors and farmers would be very one-sided; the processor, by refusing to buy, could drive a farmer out of business in days. Further, cows are subject to a disease called Brucelosis, which can be passed to humans (lots of them children) in milk; the disease in humans is not fatal but nasty and hard to cure, and can cause permanent damage. Pasteurization is not enough, herds must be kept free of it, contaminated milk discarded. In the real world, the government regulates prices and practices, and inspects herds; with all my background, I could see no better way.

And that is exactly the problem with an ideological stance on government interaction as you have described: it can't fit all cases.

I have come to believe that government (in most cases) needs to be transparent. Further, it needs to know moderation, prudent policy, and the ability to understand their population. It's a no-win scenerio though because the private industry will always create failure and bad policies and so will government. The only thing we can do is remain vigilant and constantly try to improve our lives and the lives around us.

/But I'm sure you know all that. Always respect hearing your opinion on Fark.

sloppy shoes: /But I'm sure you know all that. Always respect hearing your opinion on Fark.

Your socks are a silly color.

How's that for an opinion?