Suppose we had a company that made disinfectants, floor cleaners, bleach, etc.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Thank Goodness for Bottled Water!
I've heard plenty of people complain about consumerism in the United States. We're a consumerist cuture. Is that really all that bad though?
The main example I usually hear is the selling of bottled water. "Why should water be sold? It should be free!" "It's a precious resource God gave to us!" "We need it to survive, something so valuble shouldn't have a price."
And yet food is sold. Isn't it also valuble and necessary for survival? Tap water certainly isn't free since you have to pay the government for it. So, it's morally wrong to give a corporation money for water, but it's fine for the government to charge for it? Of course, I forgot, most people worship the state, so the state is the final arbiter on morals (assuming someone from your preferred political party is in office).
So, the only bad thing about bottled water seems to be a fuzzy moral line.
What is the good that is always overlooked?
Well, it helps in droughts, right?
And during disasters, it'll be there long after water stops flowing and you run out of emergency water.
While jogging, you could pick up a bottle.
Flavored water is always good if your tap supply happens to taste really bad. Or even when it tastes good.
No need to worry about terrorists doing anything funny to the water
Buying in bulk usually is much cheaper, so it's good for picnics.
Of course, there's plenty of other uses for bottled water, but these are the ones off the top of my head.
The main example I usually hear is the selling of bottled water. "Why should water be sold? It should be free!" "It's a precious resource God gave to us!" "We need it to survive, something so valuble shouldn't have a price."
And yet food is sold. Isn't it also valuble and necessary for survival? Tap water certainly isn't free since you have to pay the government for it. So, it's morally wrong to give a corporation money for water, but it's fine for the government to charge for it? Of course, I forgot, most people worship the state, so the state is the final arbiter on morals (assuming someone from your preferred political party is in office).
So, the only bad thing about bottled water seems to be a fuzzy moral line.
What is the good that is always overlooked?
Well, it helps in droughts, right?
And during disasters, it'll be there long after water stops flowing and you run out of emergency water.
While jogging, you could pick up a bottle.
Flavored water is always good if your tap supply happens to taste really bad. Or even when it tastes good.
No need to worry about terrorists doing anything funny to the water
Buying in bulk usually is much cheaper, so it's good for picnics.
Of course, there's plenty of other uses for bottled water, but these are the ones off the top of my head.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Subsidizing TV
I haven't seen much in the way of the DTV 2009 deal. Basically, everyone is going to be forced to get digital TV. Fret not though! The government will give you up to $80! That's right, it's basically the community paying for people to get their entertainment. People with compatible TVs and and digital cable are paying anyway. People without TV are paying. Sounds fair? Of course not! Here's a gem.
Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia
This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.
I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.
Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.
Broadcasters are transitioning to digital to provide important benefits to consumers. Because digital broadcasting is more efficient, broadcasters require less of the airwaves to provide a better television viewing experience. Once the DTV transition is completed, some television channels will be turned over to fire and police departments for emergency communication and others will be auctioned to companies to provide new wireless services.
Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia
Similarly, video recorders for analog signals (including both tape-based VCRs and hard-drive-based DVRs) will not be able to select channels, limiting their ability to automatically record programs via a timer or based on downloaded program information.
Also, older handheld televisions, which rely primarily on over-the-air signals and battery operation, will be rendered impractical since the proposed converter boxes are not portable nor powered with batteries.
This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.
Portable radios which feature the ability to listen to television audio on VHF channels 2-13 would also lose this ability, while television stations which formerly broadcast on Channel 6 (with analog FM audio on 87.75 MHz) would no longer be heard on standard FM broadcast band radios. These stations would lose the ability for commuters to listen to their broadcasts.
I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.
Were any new TVs to contain only an ATSC tuner, this could prevent older devices such as VCRs and video game consoles with only an analog RF output from connecting to the TV. Connection would require an analog to digital converter box, which is the opposite as what is currently being sold. Such a box would also likely introduce additional delay into the video signal. Fortunately, analog inputs suitable for connection to VCRs have remained available on all current digital-capable TV's.
Changes in signal reception from factors such as degrading antenna connections or worsening weather conditions may gradually reduce the quality of analog TV. The nature of digital TV results in a perfect picture initially, until the receiving equipment starts picking up noise or losing signal. Some equipment will show a picture even with significant damage, while other devices may go directly from perfect to no picture at all (and thus not show even a slightly damaged picture).
Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.
Some signals carry encryption and specify use conditions (such as "may not be recorded" or "may not be viewed on displays larger than 1 m in diagonal measure") backed up with the force of law under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and national legislation implementing it, such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Green Movement Encourages Internal Strife
I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site outlining the dangers of fluorescent lightbulbs. Pretty scary stuff. Then I decided to do a bit of research.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?
The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:
Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.
More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!
Gasp! The government making itself do something?!
So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)
Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.
I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.
Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!
Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!
And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!
More subsidies, more taxes.
More subsidies, more tax.
How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.
More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.
Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?
Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!
This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.
To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?
The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:
Increased CAFE standards. Automakers are required to boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg (14.8 km/l) by 2020. This applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks".
Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.
Improved vehicle technology and transportation electrification. Incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids.
More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!
New conservation requirements for federal vehicle fleets.
Gasp! The government making itself do something?!
Increased production of biofuels. The total amount of biofuels added to gasoline is required to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. The Energy Act further specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 2022 total must be derived from non-cornstarch products (e.g. sugar or cellulose).
So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)
Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.
Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.
Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.
I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.
New initiatives for promoting conservation in buildings and industry.
Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!
Requires all lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products.
Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!
New standards and grants for promoting efficiency in government and public institutions. New and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be "carbon-neutral" by 2030.
And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!
Accelerated research and development of solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.
More subsidies, more taxes.
Expanded federal research on carbon sequestration technologies.
More subsidies, more tax.
Green jobs - creation of a training program for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy workers".
How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.
Energy transportation and infrastructure. New initiatives for highway, sea and railroad infrastructure. Creation of the Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.
More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.
Small business energy programs, offering small businesses loans toward energy efficiency improvements.
Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?
Smart grid - modernization of the electricity grid to improve reliability and efficiency.
Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!
Pool safety - new federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.
This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.
To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)