Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Like a centipede waiting for the other shoe to drop in [The Economy] thread

17172747677

Posts

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Ford, Honda, BMW, and VW signed a deal to comply with California's Vehicle emission standards, because its good for their business.

    SOOOOOOOO.........
    The Justice Department has reportedly launched an antitrust investigation into four automakers that defied the Trump administration in signing a deal with California on vehicle emissions standards.

    The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the situation, said DOJ lawyers are looking at whether Ford Motor, Honda Motor, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG “violated federal competition law by agreeing with each other to follow tailpipe-emissions standards beyond those proposed by the Trump administration.”

    jfc

    Make. Time.
    BullheadOneAngryPossumSleepCaptain InertiaXaquinCantideDuke 2.0LovelykimeCommunistCowElldrenVeagleThe Saucejdarksunchrishallett83Stabbity StyleTNTrooperbrynhrtmnFencingsaxGONG-00Gennenalyse RuebenEmerlmaster999jkylefultonOghulk
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Ford, Honda, BMW, and VW signed a deal to comply with California's Vehicle emission standards, because its good for their business.

    SOOOOOOOO.........
    The Justice Department has reportedly launched an antitrust investigation into four automakers that defied the Trump administration in signing a deal with California on vehicle emissions standards.

    The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the situation, said DOJ lawyers are looking at whether Ford Motor, Honda Motor, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG “violated federal competition law by agreeing with each other to follow tailpipe-emissions standards beyond those proposed by the Trump administration.”

    jfc

    Isn’t the principle that states are generally free to impose stricter restrictions than those outlined in federal law?

    If not, why hasn’t California been dealing with lawsuits over this issue for decades?

    DoodmannOrcaMoridin889ElldrenschussFencingsaxRickRudeLoisLaneGennenalyse RuebenOghulk
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Ford, Honda, BMW, and VW signed a deal to comply with California's Vehicle emission standards, because its good for their business.

    SOOOOOOOO.........
    The Justice Department has reportedly launched an antitrust investigation into four automakers that defied the Trump administration in signing a deal with California on vehicle emissions standards.

    The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the situation, said DOJ lawyers are looking at whether Ford Motor, Honda Motor, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG “violated federal competition law by agreeing with each other to follow tailpipe-emissions standards beyond those proposed by the Trump administration.”

    jfc

    Isn’t the principle that states are generally free to impose stricter restrictions than those outlined in federal law?

    If not, why hasn’t California been dealing with lawsuits over this issue for decades?

    You know why

    OrcaCommander ZoomFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenEmerlmaster999Oghulk
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Clearly a monopoly in the making for all these car makers to agree to some rules to sell cars in what would be the 5th largest country by GDP if it were independent. No reason to try for that market at all.

    OrcaMoridin889BlackDragon480jmcdonaldElldrenchrishallett83SkeithStabbity StyleFencingsaxRchanenGennenalyse Rueben
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    California has an explicit carve out in the Clean Air Act to be able to make more stringent tailpipe regulations because of its history with smog. It's just wasting lawyers' time.

    AegisElldrenIncenjucarSkeithStabbity StyleFencingsaxLoisLaneRchanenGennenalyse Rueben
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article234762262.html

    In a sign of just how far things have pushed, the US Chamber of Commerce is actually pushing for a federal gas tax increase.

    FencingsaxOghulkMvrck
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article234762262.html

    In a sign of just how far things have pushed, the US Chamber of Commerce is actually pushing for a federal gas tax increase.

    I've heard them mentioned before, but know next to nothing about them.

    Are they powerful enough domestically among his supporters that Trump will get on board (like Wayne LaPierre can), or we gonna get a reactionary Trump saying "No, we demand a lower federal gas tax!"?

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    They both fairly powerful and usually hilariously conservative/regressive on fiscal issues. So them pushing for a gas tax increase is probably a game changed

    wbBv3fj.png
    Knight_MorganVschussBlackDragon480JragghenFencingsaxshrykeRchanenGennenalyse RuebenElldrenOghulkCouscous
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    at some point it's simple math. if we don't pay for our infrastructure, businesses can't use those massively discounted resources to make money from.

    so they're probably right for the wrong reasons, but at this point i'll take anything.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    JragghenSimpsoniaKarozButtersmonikerFencingsaxStabbity StyleDoodmannKayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusDuke 2.0BullheadRedTideRickRudeCantidoMoridin889RchanenGennenalyse RuebenForarKetBraElldrenjkylefultonOghulkSkeithwebguy20
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I have to wonder what all factors into their logic on a gas tax increase. I can kind of see the economic argument for it, even if it'll suck for the people on the bottom.

    -No doubt a fair number of businesses have assets that are threatened by climate change. A gas tax could force a reduction in fossil fuel use. This probably has a negative impact on the economy, but it does buy more time to either shore up and move stuff and it might even remove the need for either of those two things based on the other impact it could have.
    -High fuel prices would make alternative energy more competitive or even cheap than fossil fuels. This can often have an positive impact on the climate change side of things. it also has the net positive of many of them being things we can't run out of, so once the shift is done, you don't have an issue where you suddenly have a mining town with a massive unemployment problem thanks to all the coal being exploited. Not to mention fossil fuels are being phased out, better to be an early adopter and stack claim in the industry, than be a late adopter and having to buy energy and equipment from the early adopters that you might not be able to compete with, if you do try to enter the market.
    -Finally, infrastructure is important and it's really better to have it run by the government than some money-grubbing asshole because the privateer will fuck over everyone for a profit, where the government is going to be more incline that it's accessible for the public good. Issue is that the government needs to have a tax revenue in order to fund shit. Last I checked a ton of our infrastructure is in piss poor shape and in need of repairs & upgrades.

    Granted this is the US Chamber of Commerce, so they could be pushing for this for really idiotic reasons. One such reason is to stick it to the a ton of oil producing countries or it could be something completely from "WTF is wrong with them."

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Isn't the gas tax pretty much ear marked for infrastructure projects? The Chamber of Commerce has a vested interest in our infrastructure not sucking. Especially when they can get folks who touch interstates a couple times a year to subsidies long haul truckers.

    monikerKayne Red RobeshrykeMoridin889
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited September 9
    In the article they pretty explicitly list it out as an infrastructure thing.
    Lawmakers are struggling to find a way to pay for infrastructure improvements, and the fuel tax is regarded as an important source of revenue.

    “We need Congress and the president to move past the current dysfunction and agree on federal legislation to modernize and fix our nation’s infrastructure,” said Ed Mortimer, the Chamber’s vice president of transportation and infrastructure.

    Jragghen on
    Fencingsax
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    They both fairly powerful and usually hilariously conservative/regressive on fiscal issues. So them pushing for a gas tax increase is probably a game changed

    "Chamber of Commerce" generally means "business owners of X". So you'll have a city one, a state one, a county one, etc.

    They all tend to lean conservative, because they're "pro business" in the "low regulations" sense. They also are something of a "local country club" tier in that you can get discounts at CoC businesses if you're a member (Intel has a major sway in my town to where businesses want our business, so we get access to them. So for years I had like...free sodas at Chipotle and stuff).

    US CoC is a bit different in that, instead of being affiliated with specific businesses, it's straight up a lobbying group.

    Fencingsax
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    I'm on favor of higher gas taxes solely to discourage commuters in trucks.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    FencingsaxMorganVFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudStabbity StyleL Ron HowardQuidbrynhrtmnKayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusMillBullheadRedTideLoisLaneshrykeMoridin889RchanenGennenalyse RuebenDark_SideDaenrisMrVyngaardElldrenMagus`jkylefultonSkeithMortal Sky
  • EinzelEinzel Registered User regular
    Ford released a new expedition so it would make sense to have a gas price scare.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    California has an explicit carve out in the Clean Air Act to be able to make more stringent tailpipe regulations because of its history with smog. It's just wasting lawyers' time.

    Also, since the manufacturers are speaking and complying with state agencies, it is by definition not subject to antitrust.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    moniker
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    I'm on favor of higher gas taxes solely to discourage commuters in trucks.

    This is getting into cars thread territory, but I'm genuinely curious how Ford's EV Trucks end up doing.



    Even if it keeps people commuting in trucks, if we can get the truck commuters to swap to EV, that's a huge win.

    Stabbity StyleAridholGnome-InterruptusRchanen
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Dumb demonstration but that's exactly what I am waiting for.

    All electric pickup with good towing, payload and OK range.

    JragghenSmrtnik
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Yeah, anyone with a slight knowledge of physics knows that demonstration isn't impressive at all, but....eh, marketing.

  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Just make a real video with some dude hooking up his boat or a bed of gravel and driving it a couple hundred miles and then back home to plug it in.
    I guarantee that would sell a lot of vehicles.

    None of this silly "pulls a million pounds on a totally level surface with rail cars designed to roll" theatre.

    Just use the damn vehicles like a normal human being

    SmrtnikDoodmannKayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusmonikerMazzyxMoridin889RchanenQuidElldrennever dieOghulkCommunistCow
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    I'm on favor of higher gas taxes solely to discourage commuters in trucks.

    This is getting into cars thread territory, but I'm genuinely curious how Ford's EV Trucks end up doing.



    Even if it keeps people commuting in trucks, if we can get the truck commuters to swap to EV, that's a huge win.

    Not good enough for me. I want their giant unnecessary assess off the road and not taking up multiple parking spots everywhere.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    DiannaoChongOrcaBlackDragon480L Ron Howardchrishallett83
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited September 9
    edit: belongs in car or climate change thread.

    Aridhol on
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited September 9
    Isn’t this basically showing the electric motor at its most advantageous application? There’s a reason most train locomotives are electric (whether supplied locally via diesel generators or externally), an electric motor can produce massive amounts of torque relative to other propulsion types at low rpm.

    Since most people aren’t pulling trains around at 5mph using a pickup this doesn’t matter much in the real world though.

    Jealous Deva on
    Elldren
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Isn’t this basically showing the electric motor at its most advantageous application? There’s a reason most train locomotives are electric (whether supplied locally via diesel generators or externally).

    It's showing how low friction rails are.

    The actual tension on the line is like 2000 pounds, if that.

    But I really caused this thread to veer off-track, so let's table this for now and continue in the cars thread if we want to.

    AridholDoodmannKayne Red RobemonikerMoridin889
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Isn’t this basically showing the electric motor at its most advantageous application? There’s a reason most train locomotives are electric (whether supplied locally via diesel generators or externally).

    It's showing how low friction rails are.

    The actual tension on the line is like 2000 pounds, if that.

    But I really caused this thread to veer off-track, so let's table this for now and continue in the cars thread if we want to.

    I see what you did there.

    JragghenGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxmonikerBullheadJebus314AimRchanenkimeTNTrooperL Ron HowardOghulkHefflingchrishallett83Lovely
  • RickRudeRickRude Registered User regular
    Is the possible need of an increase of the federal gas tax rate is because of trumps tax breaks on the wealthy or are the two not connected?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    RickRude wrote: »
    Is the possible need of an increase of the federal gas tax rate is because of trumps tax breaks on the wealthy or are the two not connected?

    They're unconnected. The Federal gas tax is in a nominal amount $0.184/gallon and has been unchanged since 1993.

    Inflation makes it worth about 27% of what it was under Clinton, a generation ago.

    FencingsaxBlackDragon480Kayne Red RobeMoridin889Smrtnik
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    the fact that no dollar amount in legislation ever gets pegged to inflation is probably the easiest example of the general megalomania and incompetence of your average congresscritter

    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    RedTideBlackDragon480Stabbity StyleMoridin889AimGennenalyse RuebenGnome-InterruptusIncenjucarDee KaeSmrtnikVeagleButtersDoodmannElldrenL Ron Howard38thDoeCantideMaijinamurochrishallett83
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    the fact that no dollar amount in legislation ever gets pegged to inflation is probably the easiest example of the general megalomania and incompetence of your average congresscritter

    A number of things are indexed. Income tax brackets, 401(k) limits, social security, being the big ones off the top of my head.

    FencingsaxHedgethornDoodmannenc0re
  • BrainleechBrainleech Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    the fact that no dollar amount in legislation ever gets pegged to inflation is probably the easiest example of the general megalomania and incompetence of your average congresscritter

    Well Nm got 800m from oil/Ngas tax last year and now is arguing about what to do with it
    In essence the state took from the future to save themselves today as they are looking to fix the programs and depts. they broke to do this {like public ed , health and child programs and various infrastructure programs as well as the pipe dream of state retirement programs :rotate:}
    This is why I cheer on the coming job apocalypse and economic stuff on the horizon as it will be the nut punch that will down this state. As they just have a façade to keep away investors and other credit agencies.

  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    edited September 9
    moniker wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    the fact that no dollar amount in legislation ever gets pegged to inflation is probably the easiest example of the general megalomania and incompetence of your average congresscritter

    A number of things are indexed. Income tax brackets, 401(k) limits, social security, being the big ones off the top of my head.

    I bet the difference between numbers that should be indexed and those that aren't is tremendous

    Shorty on
    Tube wrote: »
    I was legit hoping that Shorty was somehow mistaken and the world wasn't that fucked
    Knight_Captain Inertiachrishallett83
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    the fact that no dollar amount in legislation ever gets pegged to inflation is probably the easiest example of the general megalomania and incompetence of your average congresscritter

    A number of things are indexed. Income tax brackets, 401(k) limits, social security, being the big ones off the top of my head.

    I bet the difference between numbers that should be indexed and those that aren't is tremendous

    I'll take that bet. Let me know what you find.

    CommunistCow
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    I will end that bet. Federal minimum wage isn't indexed and should be... as of 2014 1.3 million workers made exactly federal minimum, 1.7 million made less out of 80 million hourly workers who the vast majority of would be paid on scale based on the minimum.

    As of 2018 these numbers are .5M and 1.7M out of 55 million hourly workers (i have absolutely no clue what changed to cause this my guess is a reclassification to "contractors" is disguising the numbers but its only a guess. State/local minimums increasing would also contribute which might be why the "number under" didn't change).

    A decent off the cuff estimation is that this impacts about 25% of all labor in the united states due to carry over effects.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Isn't inflation kind of arbitrary, given how much the relative prices for everything can shift around semi-independently? Is there some sort of unbiased mechanism for formally determining it, or are official inflation statistics just whatever the government decides to put into a report?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Just make a real video with some dude hooking up his boat or a bed of gravel and driving it a couple hundred miles and then back home to plug it in.
    I guarantee that would sell a lot of vehicles.

    None of this silly "pulls a million pounds on a totally level surface with rail cars designed to roll" theatre.

    Just use the damn vehicles like a normal human being

    What? No, no. This is exactly the shit you want. Trucks, more then basically any other vehicle, are sold on their penis-substituteability. Trucks are big and manly and tough and powerful and turgid. You need to show electric trucks are just as much about toxic masculinity as gas-powered ones to get people to switch.

    XaquinDisruptedCapitalistBlackDragon480DoodmannBigJoeMelectricitylikesmeMortal SkyCommunistCow
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not but 10s of millions of people buy trucks that aren't truck nut dickheads. Like me.

    OghulkTurksonJRoseyCaedwyr
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited September 10
    jothki wrote: »
    Isn't inflation kind of arbitrary, given how much the relative prices for everything can shift around semi-independently? Is there some sort of unbiased mechanism for formally determining it, or are official inflation statistics just whatever the government decides to put into a report?

    The Commerce Dept. has a 100+ page PDF explaining exactly how the Consumer Price Index is measured, giving multiple alternative measures of price inflation for different categories of goods, and a justification of why they aggregate the various categories in the way they do. So yes, it's arbitrary in the sense of "there are a whole lot of different things one might be interested in, and the choice of precisely which goods to focus on in which proportions is going to somewhat be a matter of taste and judgment," but it's not arbitrary in the sense of "being pulled out of their asses and being biased to say whatever Commerce wants it to say."

    Edit, e.g.:
    In the CPI, the urban portion of the United States is divided into 38 geographic areas called index areas, and the set of all goods and services purchased by consumers is divided into 211 categories called item strata. This results in 8,018 (38 × 211) item–area combinations.
    The CPI is calculated in two stages. The first stage is the calculation of basic indexes, which show the average price change of the items within each of the 8,018 CPI item–area
    combinations. For example, the electricity index for the Boston CPI area is a basic index. The weights for the first stage come from the sampling frame for the category in the area. At the second stage, aggregate indexes are produced by averaging across subsets of the 8,018 CPI item–area combinations. The aggregate indexes are the higher level indexes; for example, the all-items index for Boston is an average of all of the area’s 211 basic indexes. Similarly, the aggregate index for electricity is an average of the basic indexes for electricity in each of the 38 index areas. The U.S. city average All-items CPI is an average of all basic indexes. The weights for the second stage are derived from reported expenditures from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE).

    Hedgethorn on
    monikershrykeGnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480MrMisterenc0reMazzyxCommunistCow
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    l
    jothki wrote: »
    Isn't inflation kind of arbitrary, given how much the relative prices for everything can shift around semi-independently? Is there some sort of unbiased mechanism for formally determining it, or are official inflation statistics just whatever the government decides to put into a report?

    There's no unbiased way of computing one number for a diverse group of consumers. You want to see how the price of goods people buy has changed but the goods vary wildly between households, and that's just the start of the headache.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not but 10s of millions of people buy trucks that aren't truck nut dickheads. Like me.

    Not sarcasm at all. It's how trucks are advertised.

    AridholTNTroopermRahmaniStabbity Styleelectricitylikesmechrishallett83EinzelLovelyCommunistCow
  • SyngyneSyngyne Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    I'm on favor of higher gas taxes solely to discourage commuters in trucks.

    This is getting into cars thread territory, but I'm genuinely curious how Ford's EV Trucks end up doing.



    Even if it keeps people commuting in trucks, if we can get the truck commuters to swap to EV, that's a huge win.

    5gsowHm.png
    chrishallett83
Sign In or Register to comment.