Alternative energy and the Automobile Industry

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes markets tend to direct resources optimally. But it's not magic. It doesn't always happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very accurate statement. Some times it takes a little push, like NAFTA, which allowed the shipping of 1 million + manufacturing jobs overseas, however, a much cheaper labor pool was finally achieved.

They are now shipping many service jobs out of the U.S. For instance, tech support on computers and other areas, where it requires someone with specialized training.

They now have developed a program that removes a lot of the dialect out of their speech. For instance, I talk to "Derrick" in India (who works for a sub contractor for our company), and he speaks slowly, allowing the computer to capture his speech and smooth it out. His voice still has a dialect, but not nearly as strong as one from North Dakota.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Best possible solution for who? The problem here is you profess to know the best solution. The free market directs resources to their highest and best use through the profit motive. There are other electric batteries with more promise and electric cars are coming to market, Chevron did not stop electric car innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best possible solution means pareto optimal solution obviously. Srsly why not stop parroting every cliche you've heard on this forum and learn about economics a little. Yes markets tend to direct resources optimally. But it's not magic. It doesn't always happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know enough about economics to know that Chevron is not standing in the way of electric cars being produced. When your arguments turn away from facts and reasoned arguments and move towards name calling and insults then I think it is you who needs to learn more about economics so you can make better arguments to support your case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced. I've shown you how. It's bewildering that you can make such counter-factual statements.

Btw there is no name calling or insults in my post. I made a genuine suggestion as to how you could improve your understanding of these issues.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Best possible solution for who? The problem here is you profess to know the best solution. The free market directs resources to their highest and best use through the profit motive. There are other electric batteries with more promise and electric cars are coming to market, Chevron did not stop electric car innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best possible solution means pareto optimal solution obviously. Srsly why not stop parroting every cliche you've heard on this forum and learn about economics a little. Yes markets tend to direct resources optimally. But it's not magic. It doesn't always happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know enough about economics to know that Chevron is not standing in the way of electric cars being produced. When your arguments turn away from facts and reasoned arguments and move towards name calling and insults then I think it is you who needs to learn more about economics so you can make better arguments to support your case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced. I've shown you how. It's bewildering that you can make such counter-factual statements.

Btw there is no name calling or insults in my post. I made a genuine suggestion as to how you could improve your understanding of these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced in the same way as you are standing in the way of more people not working at McDonalds. Because a market participant chooses not to produce does not mean they are standing in the way of production. Look at any supply curve and you will see points below a market clearing price where suppliers don't sell. You are tring to create and define a "public" good, electric cars. Maybe I don't think that it is a public good to use "dirty" coal to generate electricity and then create a potential landfill nightmare with electric batteries. Maybe I feel Hydorogen cars should be produced and electric cars are a waste of resources. The point is You and I don't decide, market participants competing for scarce goods and resources decide. You may mot like the outcome, but that does not make the outcome sub optimal.

When you tell someone you disagree with, that they simply parrot others and need more education you are insulting. You don't know me, my educational or professional back ground yet you tell me "I" need more education. I am telling you things you should have learned in Econ 1.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced in the same way as you are standing in the way of more people not working at McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very serious allegation. Jamougha, why do you hate peace?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced in the same way as you are standing in the way of more people not working at McDonalds. Because a market participant chooses not to produce does not mean they are standing in the way of production. Look at any supply curve and you will see points below a market clearing price where suppliers don't sell. You are tring to create and define a "public" good, electric cars. Maybe I don't think that it is a public good to use "dirty" coal to generate electricity and then create a potential landfill nightmare with electric batteries. Maybe I feel Hydorogen cars should be produced and electric cars are a waste of resources. The point is You and I don't decide, market participants competing for scarce goods and resources decide. You may mot like the outcome, but that does not make the outcome sub optimal.

When you tell someone you disagree with, that they simply parrot others and need more education you are insulting. You don't know me, my educational or professional back ground yet you tell me "I" need more education. I am telling you things you should have learned in Econ 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you know some econ. Do you understand the difference between -

my personal preference and pareto optimality?
my not working at McDonalds and an actor with a licensed monopoly choosing not to produce a good for which there is proven demand at a profitable price?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced in the same way as you are standing in the way of more people not working at McDonalds. Because a market participant chooses not to produce does not mean they are standing in the way of production. Look at any supply curve and you will see points below a market clearing price where suppliers don't sell. You are tring to create and define a "public" good, electric cars. Maybe I don't think that it is a public good to use "dirty" coal to generate electricity and then create a potential landfill nightmare with electric batteries. Maybe I feel Hydorogen cars should be produced and electric cars are a waste of resources. The point is You and I don't decide, market participants competing for scarce goods and resources decide. You may mot like the outcome, but that does not make the outcome sub optimal.

When you tell someone you disagree with, that they simply parrot others and need more education you are insulting. You don't know me, my educational or professional back ground yet you tell me "I" need more education. I am telling you things you should have learned in Econ 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you know some econ. Do you understand the difference between -

my personal preference and pareto optimality?
my not working at McDonalds and an actor with a licensed monopoly choosing not to produce a good for which there is proven demand at a profitable price?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think Chevron is a monopoly then you don't know the first thing about the oil industry.

natedogg

[HoldingFolding]

[ QUOTE ]
without harming the automobile industry?


[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly believe that given 25 years the US auto industry will have gone the same way as the UK auto industry. The US capitalist system is simply not 'set up' to enable the long-term investment required of that industry over the short term concerns of their shareholders etc. Non-US companies are far less beholden to the many factors that seem to hold back US manufacturers. I also think the US government will realise that it's painting itself into a corner when countries outside the US start making serious economic progress on the basis of alternative energy.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Chevron is standing in the way of electric cars being produced in the same way as you are standing in the way of more people not working at McDonalds. Because a market participant chooses not to produce does not mean they are standing in the way of production. Look at any supply curve and you will see points below a market clearing price where suppliers don't sell. You are tring to create and define a "public" good, electric cars. Maybe I don't think that it is a public good to use "dirty" coal to generate electricity and then create a potential landfill nightmare with electric batteries. Maybe I feel Hydorogen cars should be produced and electric cars are a waste of resources. The point is You and I don't decide, market participants competing for scarce goods and resources decide. You may mot like the outcome, but that does not make the outcome sub optimal.

When you tell someone you disagree with, that they simply parrot others and need more education you are insulting. You don't know me, my educational or professional back ground yet you tell me "I" need more education. I am telling you things you should have learned in Econ 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you know some econ. Do you understand the difference between -

my personal preference and pareto optimality?
my not working at McDonalds and an actor with a licensed monopoly choosing not to produce a good for which there is proven demand at a profitable price?

[/ QUOTE ]

pareto optimality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Many people believe that electric cars will never be a viable option for personal transportation and our resources and efforts should be directed elsewhere.

I do not believe Chevron has a monopoly on electric cars. But let's suppose they do. Lets further suppose that their technology will make oil obsolete (simplified example). Their patents expires in 2014. What would be their most profitable course of action? I certainly don't think sitting on the patents would be their best course of action at all. Developing the car and becoming a leader in an industry that will wipe out oil would be a huge money maker. Since oil companies, as we all know, are greedy its hard for me to believe Chevron would make such an obvious blunder.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I've read, ethanol seems like a scam. We can't seem to make it in such a way as to be energy positive and the amount of land needed to switch from gasoline to ethanol would be incredibly large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ethanol from sugarcane seems to be fairly effective in Brazil. The ethanol from corn production being done in the US is a complete boondogle, courtesy of the farm and agribusiness lobbies (ADM et al). Depending on whose numbers you believe, the ethanol from corn scheme produces approximately zero net energy. It takes approximately as much energy to grow the corn, ferment it and distill it as you get from burning the ethanol. Where does that energy come from? Oil gas and coal, mostly. Obviously this would have no economic viability without massive government subsidies.

Another problem is that a lot of agricultural production is being diverted to it, putting upward pressure on food prices. This illustrates a fundamental problem with just about any form biomass energy production. It's going to compete for limited agricultural resources with food, fiber or lumber. IMO, photovoltaic or solar-thermal energy on desert land is a much more viable renewable energy strategy than biomass. However, biomass using waste materials (use the corn for food and the stalks for energy), may have some benefit, if the kinks can be worked out. IMO, methane from biomass(possibly convereted to methanol to fuel cars), is likely more viable than ethanol for this.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Ethanol from sugarcane seems to be fairly effective in Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says. "But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay?"

Reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0329132436.htm