Boeing to cease 757 production

"Tom S." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.

If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
$300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.

(Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
Alternatives"???)

You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
"laboratory-grade water in every river". Whereas in the real world
*nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

In article , "Tom S."
writes:

False!

Oh? At this moment I'm in LA where the mechanics for public transit are on
strike. Seems that the union bosses ****ed away their pension money and they
want the taxpayers to bail them out. In the meantime, they're making (on
average) over $50k, have full health, and get to retire with full pension after
23 years. Not bad for a job that requires little more than a high school
education. If I hadn't listened to may parents and gone to college, I could
have been retired by now, or on to a 2nd career.

The grocery workers are also on strike. They are upset that they will no
longer get all their health care paid for. (most of those jobs don't even
require a high-school degree)

And you're wondering why jobs are going overseas?

John

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
If you look at another issue of the same publication:


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/....html#niskanen

You will see that there are a range of estimates on the cost of regulation
from $44B to $182B (1988 dollars) and most of these regulations have an
offsetting benefit to somebody. When the coal fired powerplant is
required
to install pollution control equipment that is revenue to the supplier of
the equipment, their suppliers employment for their workers ect.

That part was put in in jest; it's known as the "fallacy of the broken
windows".

Also, read the next paragraph:

"Most readers of Regulation will probably conclude that the authors of this
new study have grossly underestimated the costs of regulation. This study,
however merits the attention of the Regulation audience, both for its
contributions and its limitations. This note summarizes the approach,
conclusions, and limitations of this important new study. Those who wish to
pursue this issue further should read the original article. "

Additionally these costs must be netted out against the benefits. The
bottom line is that the cost of regulation to society is nowhere near
$800B.

For one thing, you're quoting a 1991 article; in the intervening years
(particularly the 90's), the amount of regulation has SKYROCKETED.

Further, regulation costs are hidden like high teaxes are hidden by
withholding from your paycheck.




Mike
MU-2


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
I also think that we have to question your numbers particulaly
the $800B one. There are less than 100MM tax returns representing
~$4.5T
in
taxable income filed in the US each year. I find it hard to
believe
that
$8,000 per family or over 15%$ of personal income is spent
complying
with
various regulations.

Believe it. (Why does it require two incomes to live as well as it
did
just
a couple generations ago...and don't confuse toys with REAL COSTS of
living).

$800B spread over 280M people is about $2400 per person, but it hits
higher
if what you buy comes out of manufacturing (more so than services).
The
cost
of regulation adds 50 cents to a gallon of gas, for instance, about
$25-50K
to the price of a house, about 25% to a grocery bill...

Please cite a credible source. Thanks.

Mike
MU-2
Here's a couple in just one issue (though others are spread around in
other
issues).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...4/reg14n4.html

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a
year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account
for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your
economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.

If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
$300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.

(Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
Alternatives"???)

You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
"laboratory-grade water in every river".

Actually, it's called "hyperbole" and 'reductio absurdum', but them you've
already drawn you conclusion

Whereas in the real world
*nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.

Really? You should take a look into who are the most influential "spokesmen"
from the environnuts.

at the very start.

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tom S."

writes:

False!

Oh? At this moment I'm in LA where the mechanics for public transit are
on
strike. Seems that the union bosses ****ed away their pension money and
they
want the taxpayers to bail them out. In the meantime, they're making (on
average) over $50k, have full health, and get to retire with full pension
after
23 years. Not bad for a job that requires little more than a high school
education. If I hadn't listened to may parents and gone to college, I
could
have been retired by now, or on to a 2nd career.

The grocery workers are also on strike. They are upset that they will no
longer get all their health care paid for. (most of those jobs don't even
require a high-school degree)

And you're wondering why jobs are going overseas?

I'm not wondering at all. (You need to be more careful snipping the post
you're responding to).

"Tom S." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news Lower cost labor and/or outsourcing to secure orders (Japan). Not
enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

Bull! EPA regs cost US business something like $300 bbbbillion a
year in
additional overhead. Other regs (OSHA, and the endless list) account
for
over $800 BILLION. Try competing with that hanging over your
economy.

Far, *far* better than not being able to drink the water or breathe
the air. Environmental preservation *should* be a basic conservative
issue -- it's as vital as your next breath.

If you want 99.9999% clean water at $300B instead of 99.999% clean for
$300M, then buy your won with YOUR OWN money.

(Where does everyone come up with the logic error of "False
Alternatives"???)

You're in an excellent position to investigate that question by
introspection -- because you are doing just that; you're pretending no
positions are possible except "unlimited pollution" and
"laboratory-grade water in every river".

Actually, it's called "hyperbole" and 'reductio absurdum', but them you've
already drawn you conclusion

Whereas in the real world
*nobody* argues for *either* of those positions.

Really? You should take a look into who are the most influential "spokesmen"
from the environnuts.

at the very start.

Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
the environmentalists. As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
positions, anyway!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." writes:



Lunatic-fringe groups like Earth First that really do feel that
preserving Earth in pristine form (not just inhabitable to people) is
the most important things are *not* the most influential spokesmen for
the environmentalists.

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

Did you happen to catch that guy (can't think of his name) that used to be a
Director with Greenpeace that just wrote a book of what they've turned into
during the past ten years?

BTW...speaking of environut influence, two words - Al Gore

As you yourself are demonstrating :-). Hmm;
well, they don't influence people *to adopt environmentally-friendly
positions, anyway!

No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

"Tom S." wrote:

No, they FORCE them...which is why they are aptly termed "EnviroNazis".

Yep. Talk to some of the people who bought retirement property in areas that
then got turned into National Parks and Forests. Who weren't even allowed to
testify to the decision committees while the Manhattan econazi groups from
2,000 miles away were given the spotlight.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

In article , "Tom S."
writes:

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
California are buring.
about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern Washington?

John

"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tom S."

writes:

Oh Yes they are. They and Greenpeace have MUCH more time testifying in
front
of Congress and in front of the mainstream media cameras.

You can also expect them to keep their profile low while the fires in
California are buring.
about the Sierra Club director who clear-cut his land in eastern
Washington?

This just in:

"But the Senate compromise is opposed by environmental groups as well as the
powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee. So wildfire-reduction
legislation remains stalled more than a year after President Bush called for
it."

Tue, Oct. 28, 2003

Fires might break deadlock over effort to thin forests
FEINSTEIN URGES SENATE TO PASS COMPROMISE, REDUCE RISKS
By Jim Puzzanghera
Mercury News Washington Bureau

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...al/7121359.htm