Howard Dean smellsAnyone interested in the upcoming US election might want to read this interesting post railing against Howard Dean. He gets in a bunch of solid hits.
4 comments He gets in a bunch of solid hits.
Do you really think so? I'm not a fan of Dean, but nothing in Greenspun's post seems like a particularly compelling critique. In fact, they're pretty stupid. These are his accusations, it seems to me:
Criticism 1: Dean's plan for accessible high-speed in rural areas is "just" a way to "shovel more money from people who live in cities to people who live on farms," which is a bad thing, and makes him "just like every other American politician." Greenspun wants Dean to "invest in [something] new," such as wireless internet.
Response: The whole point of having an organized society is to distribute (in)justice, so that people have equal opportunities and an acceptable standard of living. This isn't "shovel[ling ... money]" from the deserving city-dwellers to the underserving hicks - it's an issue of helping people who need it, in certain areas. I don't understand (at all) what's contemptable about that. Furthermore, a wireless internet infrastructure would be great for people like me - highly wired urbanites - but it's not much use for people like my grandmother, let alone for people living on farms in the Midwest. Not everyone longs to be able to browse the web from their couch, or from their tractor. I agree with Dean - better to make sure that the most people can take advantage of the wonders of the contemporary Net (ie, with broadband), than invest in something "new" but less pressing.
Criticism 2: "Honest politicians" would abolish the Department of Education, presumably making education an open market for private industry.
Response: This is absolutely idiotic! Is Greenspun a naive corporate whore, or what?! I mean, what the fuck? Sure, in a libertarian utopia, this might work ok. But let's be realistic for a second: low-income families are not going to receive a better education if big business is running the classrooms! Almost everything that's wrong with today's (pre-, post-, and secondary) education is due to an increasing emphasis on the bottom line.
Criticism 3: There's no point trying to help the Israeli government reach some sort of peace with the Palestinians, because the Palestinians are wife-beating illiterates who are having more babies than their GDP should permit.
Response: Man, what is wrong with the Palestinians? Partying and sun-bathing all the time! I wish they'd stop single-handedly perpetuating the Middle East crisis! Why don't they focus more on their reading, writing and arithmetic? And since Israel's giving so much support for political moderates, why do those rag-heads still let the fundamentalists run the show? Also: Helping the less fortunate is retarded!
Criticism 4: All Dean plans to do for the environment is to improve the fuel economy standard for cars. This is stupid because it won't have much of an effect for years and years: it would be better to tax oil and add a pollution tax.
Response: If you actually read the page in question, Dean commits to significantly reducing factory/power-plant pollution, enforcing heightened pollution standards for automobiles, encouraging solar/wind/biomass energy alternatives, and supporting the development of energy efficient vehicles in the private sector. Basically, he covers all the bases, paying attention to both the short- and long- terms. Greenspun's idiotic tax-the-oil solution would simply result in higher prices at the pump, which punishes consumers instead of spurring the development of environmentally friendly alternatives. | | |
you say: "the whole point of having an organized society is to distribute (in)justice"
I say: I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is the government's role to provide high speed internet to everything then would it not be their role to provide cars as well? Especially in rural areas, a car is almost a necessity. Highspeed internet is not a necessity. I am also not in favor of the gov paying for wireless internet in cities. The internet has grown at a tremendous speed once it was let loose. I have no doubt that it will continue to do so, especially if the government leaves it the hell alone.
you say: "low-income families are not going to receive a better education if big business is running the classrooms!"
I say: He didn't imply anything of the sort. He said the federal government is only responsible for 7% of funding. I don't have the exact figures but I'm willing to bet the that vast majority comes from the individual states. This is how it works in Canada, eh? Your comments completely missed the point.
you say: something about the middle east.
I say: I have stopped paying attention to israel/palestine issues. My attention was focussed on the domestic issues brought up.
you say: "Greenspun's idiotic tax-the-oil solution would simply result in higher prices at the pump, which punishes consumers instead of spurring the development of environmentally friendly alternatives."
I say: How does a higher price on gas not spur development of alternatives? People in the US drive the biggest cars with the worst mileage because gas is dirt cheap. It just doesn't matter to them. Taxing oil would make alternative power sources more attractive, lessen oil use and pollution, and provide money to the government. If the gov put that money into alternative energy research then the benefit compounds itself. Also, taxing oil wouldn't just be charging consumers. Businesses buy a shitload of oil/gas too. | | |
If it is the government's role to provide high speed internet to everything then would it not be their role to provide cars as well? Especially in rural areas, a car is almost a necessity. Highspeed internet is not a necessity.
Nobody's talking about giving internet away, or even forcing companies to provide service at a loss in rural areas. What Dean is proposing is that the government support and give incentives for the increase of broadband access in rural areas. If we consider internet connectivity - like cars - to be something important for businesses and people in today's world (which I do), then the increase of broadband access isn't like giving cars away - it's like building roads.
re: education. Your comments completely missed the point.
Yikes. Touche: i was way off base.
How does a higher price on gas not spur development of alternatives?
You're right. Sort of. But let's imagine that the gvmt created a tax on gas. Consumers are paying more at the pump. This hurts a lot of them in a serious way (and they're not doing anything wrong, per se, except using the only cars available to them). According to free market economics, this means that they will want alternatives to gas-guzzling cars. But whereas you feel this means the industry will respond with alternatives, I think it means that the industry will say "Gas is too expensive? Blame the government! They created a new tax!" Ford isn't being directly affected by a tax on consumer gas purchases, and as we've seen, they're so closely tied to the oil industry that they won't genuinely explore energy-efficient alternatives unless there's a massive incentive (ie, gvmt money). The oil people are paying them not to. People will continue to buy cars, and buy gas, even with a tax: they'll just have less money to spend on other things (like food). Taxing gas is regressive - you're hurting those who can least easily cope, and who have the least agency to change such a massive industry.
It seems obvious to me that the way to help the environment when it comes to pollution is to create and enforce tougher standards, and to spur industry developments through financial incentive. I think a gas tax hurts much more than it helps. | | |
Thought you could have a political/economic discussion without me? Ha, here i am.
To respond to the whole gas tax thread: It is important to note that tax already makes up a significant portion of fuel prices. It is also important to note that the most significant improvements in fuel efficiency have their source in the oil price spikes of the 1970's. As to the claim that consumers will complain at the government, and Ford will do nothing this may be true, and was in the 1970s and 1980s. But, the Japanese took note. They produced smaller much more fuel efficient vehicles and ate up huge chunks of market share in North America, at the cost of slumbering giants like Ford. A secondary point is to note the movements of the stock price of Ballard Power Intl. This hydrogen power cell company has seen its stocks move inversly to the price of oil on the world market. This implies that when oil prices are high people do look to alternative solutions for energy.
The current mania for SUVs seems to have abolished many of the lessons learned from the 1980s arguably due to the prospect of a cheap and stable supply of gasoline. I think putting another shock into the system, in the form of a higher gas tax, would be a good start in countering this trend. Unfortunately, any such actions are undermined by the current administrations tax credit given to small business owners to purchase heavy vehicles. This was intended to help them purchase delivery trucks and such, but due to the size of some SUVs ( the H2 for example) purchasers may now qualify for a tax exemption of upwards of $20,000 US. | | |
|
|
|
|
Vorg — Tag Cloud
Written by dustin Latest PhotoQuote of Now:FriendsPopular PostsComputer Games
|
