In light of what Gage was saying, of course they are the same. He was implying the Fed would a tool to stop the circumstances that lead to economic downturns. That means stopping the circumstances, thus stopping the downturns.
Again, the only reason you want to avoid the obvious conclusion is because you want to avoid the obvious implications for the ideology to which you fanatically hold.
"You should learn about monetary policy from economics courses instead of from fear based websites before you try to make this kind of claim. "
This is like saying I should learn what the Catholic Church believes about the union of Church and state in 16th century Spain before I suggest that their incentive structure will lead them to say anything that protects their ability to get bleeding the populace dry.
At the end of the day, Gage made a claim about gov regulation that didn't come true. Since you can't deny that, all you can do is fall back to your most basic specious assumption, which is that you are superior and that anyone that disagrees with anything you say must be inferior and thus wrong.
What is going on here is a fraud about all the wonderful things gov can do that it actually can't do. Which is really a path to using gov as an agent of theft (which is the basic pattern throughout all of history for what can happen when gov gets misused and wrongly incentivized), and since there is theft involved, you must also have fraud. Which is why what Gage claimed must be twisted and contorted in an attempt to try and say he didn't really say what he said now that we have figured out he was involved in false advertising (which when it comes to gov false advertising Galbraith was completely mum).
Of course they are. If you prevent a fire, you stop it from happening.
"Unless a central bank established such ties, Gage warned, the panic of 1893 would be repeated."
So Gage was saying that the creation of a central bank would stop another panic of 1893. That means a central bank would stop another panic of 1893.
"He was right then,"
So you are saying there have been no economic downturns since the Fed, or any cental bank? Now that is an abnormal argument.
"My guess is this doesn't go away until we have a universal currency (lifetimes away from now). "
See what I mean by ignoring the first specious claim that did not come true, and moving on to an even bigger claim, hoping we will all forget the first false claim. Its akin to the FDIC. Before the FDIC states had deposit insurance funds. They did this claiming they would prevent economic downturns due to bank failures. Of course, all these state funds went bankrupt. So instead of admitting the failure of the gov regulation, why the problem was it just wasn't big enough. So we moved gov deposit insurance to a national level, and all we did was expand the breadth and depth of the collapse to a national scale (the FDIC estimates it will take about 20 to 25 years to get back to their required reserve ratios because of the losses they have sustained - so much for risk experts).
If you moved the world to a global monopoly currency, a bubble of biblical proportions would develop, followed by a similarily biblical collapse, followed by similarily biblical excuse making for, "well I really didn't say 'it doesn't go away'".
"Now will somebody please STOP you from making a baseless argument?"
Why are you so angry. You seem to be bitterly clinging to a wrecked attempted to change the nature of what Gage was claiming.
Gage was promising that the Fed would stop or end, its the same thing, the conditions that would lead to economic downturns. That means the Fed would prevent the conditions that would lead to economic downturns, thus stopping, preventing, and ending the circumstances that lead to a downturn in the economy. The reason for this was that the Fed would have an "elastic" supply of money mediums, thus creating a condition that the abscence of notes would never again occur. It was a promise that putting the "experts" in charge of the system, meaning giving them a monopoly, that they would always make sure that deflationary instances did not occur because there would always be the exact, right amount of notes in the system because they could create them at will.
The dive off into semantics and splitting hairs is an attempt to dodge the issue of my question, which you can't answer, because the answer reveals the failed promises of what gov regulation could do. Instead, you want to ignore the obvious answer and move on to even more specious claims of what gov regulation can do, because you are hoping we will all forget the first specious claim that did not come true.
So, yes, in your world, getting you to fess up would be abnormal because you never have and never will. Its the very definition of fanatacism. You will have to learn to let go of your ideology if you want to see the world as it really is.
To understand the argument tactics of Coercives, you have to picture their arguments as a round archery target with a pair of legs that is constantly running around the field. You saw a similar thing when Eugen Böhm von Bawerk would demolish Marx's arguments, and the defense for Marx would be, "well, he really didn't say X, he actually said Y."
"not sure why I read it but.... even if there was relevant logic to you comment the bigger point would be you're creating a world where you make the definitions and their relationship."
Here is an example of the Coercive's attempt at making the "you are stupid and I am smart" argument, ergo, "I am superior and you are inferior" argument. This is a tactic used by Coercives to avoid addressing where their logic has been shown to fail, but rather than addressing that, they want to fall back on, "I don't have to listen to anything you said because I have deemed you to be inferior".
This is always the approach of those that believe in a "ruling elite". Its why you get a class system. Its what you have seen in Europe for centuries, and its what the US was an attempt to get away from (though that is over now).
When the Coercives can no longer support their specious claims, which they use as their excuse for why they should have control over other people, they will always fall back to their original assumption of, "you are inferior and I am superior, as such, I don't have to listen to anything you say."
So back to Gage. Did his promise that gov regulation would stop economic downturns come to pass?
Its sort of like a fire that want's to go out or burn lower for a lack of wood, but BB, via QE, is able to take the taxpayer by the legs and pump them so as to make the taxpayer blow on the fire and heat it back up.
So while all the economic data suggests the fire should burn lower (equity prices), QE keeps shoving Fed notes into the system, which causes other Fed notes in the system to not need to chase bank deposits, so they chase risk instead, hence BB grabbing the taxpayer by the legs and pumping them so they blow on the fire thus heating it back up even though the fuel supply (economic data) suggests the fire should be colder than it is.
Preventing and ending are the same thing. Ending means, ending the conditions that lead to the downturns. Their basic promise was a gov could create an elastic money supply, and that elastic supply would end the reasons for deflationary episodes (deflation meaning a general price decline in just about everything).
So then, back to Gage's claim. Did what he promised the Fed would do come to pass? Did having a Fed prevent/end the conditions that would create deflationary periods?
"Abnormal."
It only seems that way because of the ideology with which you have been inculcated. Our gov school systems have led to an education culture that fails to teach people to be critical thinkers, thus when they encounter critical thinking, obviously they will find it abnormal.
Stability Of The European Union (19) April 18, 2013 To [View instapost]
"Latvia's leadership is apparently keen on euro entry, the populace less so."
Well of course. A monopolized money medium is a great way to steal from the general productive populace via a stealth tax, and that's how the leadership gets to buy votes, stay in office, and get rich all the while the people they promise to help get poorer and poorer, thus ensuring the leadership always has the sales pitch that they need to stay in office to help the poor (you see this in the US as well. A welfare underclass, must always stay the welfare underclass, to make sure there is a voting block to keep the people in power who will always be promising to help the welfare underclass).
What you will see (and indeed have seen in Europe) is a vote will continually be held until the leadership gets the result it wants, namely, the power to stealth tax the producer populace to buy votes so the leadership can stay the leadership and get rich.
S&P Target 2000: Why Stocks Won't Look Back - Part V - II (Continued) [View article]
If the Fed does end QE in this current environment (next 6 to 9 mos), expect a massive risk off move. Equities will go down and yields will go down. How far will depend on how much the Fed's balance sheet is allowed to shrink.
You may be right. The heaters in the engine are heaters after all, so they may need more juice than charging a battery.
I had a heater for the block, the battery, the transmission, and some people would have a heater for the inside. At 40 below rubber would become brittle, and tires would freeze with a flat spot until the friction of driving would warm them up enough for them to round out.
I would imagine I would still need something to keep the battery warm overnight. I don't know if electricity costs more in Alaska or not, but I do know that breaking down at 40 below 20 miles from town is not like breaking down on an interstate 20 minutes from the next exit.
Do you know if these things have been tested in these extremes?
I also wonder if we might see some class action lawsuits against these companies for making claims about their products that they don't achieve, or are the consumer activists strangely quite on this front?
"And those bans have been enforced by governments."
Exactly. Now you are starting to understand. The role of gov is to protect your property. Your first property is your body, and any resources you convert into assets are also your property. Using gov to violate your property, such as laws that protect slavery, is using gov to become a thief.
Think about slavery for a moment. Slavery is a 100% income tax and 100% regulation of your activity. A slave has guaranteed employment, guaranteed health care, guaranteed family planning, guaranteed education, and guaranteed room and board. The reason slavery was a natural out growth of the European highly taxed and highly regulated economy via central ruling elites, was the ruling elites considered everyone else irrational. Thus, if you are willing to make your own countrymen into a peasant class, why not make others outside your country a slave class.
The reason a person puts up with this, is because their freedom of association is violated by the use of coercion against them. In other words, if you try to secede as a slave, your body will be threatened. People will not work for the sake of another, and that's why they run away. Gov laws that allow punishment for that, like NAZI exit taxes or, illustrate how gov can be used as an agent of theft.
The legitimate role of gov is to protect property, and that protection allows for the freedom of association. When gov is used to violate property (like an FDIC) or prevent the freedom of association (like the NLRB), the gov becomes the agent of theft. Now gov is no longer protecting property, it is violating property. The people using gov this way always have some "altruistic" rational. The slave owners viewed the slaves the way Democrats view Tea Partiers, and as such, since they are inferior humans, its OK to violate their property rights because they don't really know what's good for them, so decisions have to be made for them.
And FDR put the Japanese Americans into concentration camps.
And also, there are countries that allow horrible things to happen to women, so are you saying the US Fed gov needs to force all of those countries into the Union to stamp that out. Other countries (see William Wilberforce) ended gov laws supporting slavery quite peaceably. Was it really necessary for Lincoln to engage in a war that killed so many when there were other, more effective and less bloody options? No, emotional, mouth foamings aside, blind faith in an all powerful central gov that will be run by people who only CLAIM they know better will only make gov the abuser.
Its not conjecture. Its really happening.
You will find the solutions are very simple, but implementing them is very difficult.
East India had a gov grant of monopoly, mafia exists because of gov bans, and Napoleon brought France to its knees because he had to invade Russia for violating the trade bans against England.
"No, you can't have peace without government."
Your problem is that you are just ASSUMING that gov has to be compulsory. That for some reason the rules in nature regarding compulsion do not apply to the product of gov. That is why it can be demonstrated that when gov has a monopoly of coercion it engages in slavery (unless stopped see William Wilberforce), murder, and torture.
What you need to understand is that the libertarian goal of limiting gov is not to have NO gov, but to create the incentive structures for human beings that are involved in gov to be such that gov doesn't become the theft agent it is designed to protect against.
"Somebody will want your land, your property and you and you family as slaves."
Right MY land, MY property, and MY body. That SOMEBODY can also be SOMEBODY in gov. Just because you have a gov, doesn't mean it will be holy, or that you are morally superior because you advocate for gov. What we need is a gov that cannot be compulsory because we make it a centralized, monopolized behemoth that we simply HOPE will be run by people that somehow magically know what peak production is. Creating such a centralized gov only creates the incentives for that SOMEBODY to be SOMEBODY in gov to take your land, your property, and you.
You own your body and anything your body can create. Coercion is used to take those ownership rights away from you. We create gov to protect our ownership rights, but doing so means granting gov coercion. That grant can be turned against you when you allow gov to violate your ownership rights by allowing it to attempt to regulate values (prices). That's why you want gov to not be compulsory. You want a market for govs, and what you will eventually wind up with, is for profit gov. That is gov with incentives to protect property and not to violate it.
The point you are missing, is the point that allowing gov to be a monopoly is what allows it to be compulsory, and as such, the SOMEBODY in gov is the one that violates your land, your property, and you. As such, blind devotion to gov, just because it is gov, ignores the fact that gov will be run by people. The very SOMEBODIES that will steal from you give them power to do so.
The Federal gov should only deal with states. States should only deal with counties, and counties should only deal with cities, and cities should only deal with individuals. Having the Fed gov regulate prices with its only tool of coercion (like the FDIC, EPA, dept of Ed, Dept of Eng, etc) is only giving the gov over individuals, which gives the people in the Fed gov huge incentives to steal and that's exactly what they do.
"The problem with libertarian view is that they see government as the root of all evil."
That's not true. They see coercion as the root of all evil, and thus the recognize that gov, whose only tool is coercion, is highly vulnerable to becoming a large source of theft, since theft requires coercion. So, as you look through history, the greatest destructor has been gov. Gov engages in wars, dungeons, torture, slavery, mass murder, genocide, monopoly, etc, etc. Libertarians want the highest standard of living possible, and since war, slavery, torture, etc are not part of a high standard of living, libertarians want people aware of the danger that gov poses.
The strawman argument of "gov is the root of all evil" is proffered by those that long for the tyranny that gov can bring, because they hope to be in on the tyranny. They want access to gov coercion so they can steal from their neighbors.
The libertarian position then is one of peace and prosperity, because you can only have prosperity for everyone when you have peace. Worshipping gov is to ignore the threat it poses, and ignoring that threat is the first step to allowing the gov to become the very thing you are hoping to eradicate from your markets, namely theft made possible by coercion.
"Being on the continual lookout for a plug everywhere you go in the wide open spaces of Alaska would be even more of a hassle than looking for a charging station along well travelled routes. "
It may not be as bad as that. Most parking lots have head bolt heater plugins, so there is the possibility of hooking up to a plug. Most of these cycle every hour or so, but only at sub zero temps.
What I did notice is that when I didn't have a garage and had to plugin to heat the engine, my electricity bill doubled (at the time another $100 a month). So, while you may save on gas, you would pay more in electricity. The extra electricity may cost you more than the gas.
"As it stands, the battery is very expensive, and because it is new to the automobile industry, that makes EVs even more expensive."
How long will the battery last, and how much will it cost to replace (or will you just need another brand new car when it wears out).
Also, I used to live in Alaska. How do these cars do at colder than 30 below. Even with a gas powered car, the heat in the car was barely lukewarm. I wonder how much power it will take to keep the car going in minus 50 degree wind chills and running the heater and defroster at the same time.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
In light of what Gage was saying, of course they are the same. He was implying the Fed would a tool to stop the circumstances that lead to economic downturns. That means stopping the circumstances, thus stopping the downturns.
Again, the only reason you want to avoid the obvious conclusion is because you want to avoid the obvious implications for the ideology to which you fanatically hold.
"You should learn about monetary policy from economics courses instead of from fear based websites before you try to make this kind of claim. "
This is like saying I should learn what the Catholic Church believes about the union of Church and state in 16th century Spain before I suggest that their incentive structure will lead them to say anything that protects their ability to get bleeding the populace dry.
At the end of the day, Gage made a claim about gov regulation that didn't come true. Since you can't deny that, all you can do is fall back to your most basic specious assumption, which is that you are superior and that anyone that disagrees with anything you say must be inferior and thus wrong.
What is going on here is a fraud about all the wonderful things gov can do that it actually can't do. Which is really a path to using gov as an agent of theft (which is the basic pattern throughout all of history for what can happen when gov gets misused and wrongly incentivized), and since there is theft involved, you must also have fraud. Which is why what Gage claimed must be twisted and contorted in an attempt to try and say he didn't really say what he said now that we have figured out he was involved in false advertising (which when it comes to gov false advertising Galbraith was completely mum).
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
Of course they are. If you prevent a fire, you stop it from happening.
"Unless a central bank established such ties, Gage warned, the panic of 1893 would be repeated."
So Gage was saying that the creation of a central bank would stop another panic of 1893. That means a central bank would stop another panic of 1893.
"He was right then,"
So you are saying there have been no economic downturns since the Fed, or any cental bank? Now that is an abnormal argument.
"My guess is this doesn't go away until we have a universal currency (lifetimes away from now). "
See what I mean by ignoring the first specious claim that did not come true, and moving on to an even bigger claim, hoping we will all forget the first false claim. Its akin to the FDIC. Before the FDIC states had deposit insurance funds. They did this claiming they would prevent economic downturns due to bank failures. Of course, all these state funds went bankrupt. So instead of admitting the failure of the gov regulation, why the problem was it just wasn't big enough. So we moved gov deposit insurance to a national level, and all we did was expand the breadth and depth of the collapse to a national scale (the FDIC estimates it will take about 20 to 25 years to get back to their required reserve ratios because of the losses they have sustained - so much for risk experts).
If you moved the world to a global monopoly currency, a bubble of biblical proportions would develop, followed by a similarily biblical collapse, followed by similarily biblical excuse making for, "well I really didn't say 'it doesn't go away'".
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
Why are you so angry. You seem to be bitterly clinging to a wrecked attempted to change the nature of what Gage was claiming.
Gage was promising that the Fed would stop or end, its the same thing, the conditions that would lead to economic downturns. That means the Fed would prevent the conditions that would lead to economic downturns, thus stopping, preventing, and ending the circumstances that lead to a downturn in the economy. The reason for this was that the Fed would have an "elastic" supply of money mediums, thus creating a condition that the abscence of notes would never again occur. It was a promise that putting the "experts" in charge of the system, meaning giving them a monopoly, that they would always make sure that deflationary instances did not occur because there would always be the exact, right amount of notes in the system because they could create them at will.
The dive off into semantics and splitting hairs is an attempt to dodge the issue of my question, which you can't answer, because the answer reveals the failed promises of what gov regulation could do. Instead, you want to ignore the obvious answer and move on to even more specious claims of what gov regulation can do, because you are hoping we will all forget the first specious claim that did not come true.
So, yes, in your world, getting you to fess up would be abnormal because you never have and never will. Its the very definition of fanatacism. You will have to learn to let go of your ideology if you want to see the world as it really is.
To understand the argument tactics of Coercives, you have to picture their arguments as a round archery target with a pair of legs that is constantly running around the field. You saw a similar thing when Eugen Böhm von Bawerk would demolish Marx's arguments, and the defense for Marx would be, "well, he really didn't say X, he actually said Y."
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
Here is an example of the Coercive's attempt at making the "you are stupid and I am smart" argument, ergo, "I am superior and you are inferior" argument. This is a tactic used by Coercives to avoid addressing where their logic has been shown to fail, but rather than addressing that, they want to fall back on, "I don't have to listen to anything you said because I have deemed you to be inferior".
This is always the approach of those that believe in a "ruling elite". Its why you get a class system. Its what you have seen in Europe for centuries, and its what the US was an attempt to get away from (though that is over now).
When the Coercives can no longer support their specious claims, which they use as their excuse for why they should have control over other people, they will always fall back to their original assumption of, "you are inferior and I am superior, as such, I don't have to listen to anything you say."
So back to Gage. Did his promise that gov regulation would stop economic downturns come to pass?
Hindenburg Omen - November 13, 2012 [View instapost]
So while all the economic data suggests the fire should burn lower (equity prices), QE keeps shoving Fed notes into the system, which causes other Fed notes in the system to not need to chase bank deposits, so they chase risk instead, hence BB grabbing the taxpayer by the legs and pumping them so they blow on the fire thus heating it back up even though the fuel supply (economic data) suggests the fire should be colder than it is.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
Preventing and ending are the same thing. Ending means, ending the conditions that lead to the downturns. Their basic promise was a gov could create an elastic money supply, and that elastic supply would end the reasons for deflationary episodes (deflation meaning a general price decline in just about everything).
So then, back to Gage's claim. Did what he promised the Fed would do come to pass? Did having a Fed prevent/end the conditions that would create deflationary periods?
"Abnormal."
It only seems that way because of the ideology with which you have been inculcated. Our gov school systems have led to an education culture that fails to teach people to be critical thinkers, thus when they encounter critical thinking, obviously they will find it abnormal.
Stability Of The European Union (19) April 18, 2013 To [View instapost]
Well of course. A monopolized money medium is a great way to steal from the general productive populace via a stealth tax, and that's how the leadership gets to buy votes, stay in office, and get rich all the while the people they promise to help get poorer and poorer, thus ensuring the leadership always has the sales pitch that they need to stay in office to help the poor (you see this in the US as well. A welfare underclass, must always stay the welfare underclass, to make sure there is a voting block to keep the people in power who will always be promising to help the welfare underclass).
What you will see (and indeed have seen in Europe) is a vote will continually be held until the leadership gets the result it wants, namely, the power to stealth tax the producer populace to buy votes so the leadership can stay the leadership and get rich.
S&P Target 2000: Why Stocks Won't Look Back - Part V - II (Continued) [View article]
The Bizarro World Of Tesla Longs [View article]
I had a heater for the block, the battery, the transmission, and some people would have a heater for the inside. At 40 below rubber would become brittle, and tires would freeze with a flat spot until the friction of driving would warm them up enough for them to round out.
I would imagine I would still need something to keep the battery warm overnight. I don't know if electricity costs more in Alaska or not, but I do know that breaking down at 40 below 20 miles from town is not like breaking down on an interstate 20 minutes from the next exit.
Do you know if these things have been tested in these extremes?
I also wonder if we might see some class action lawsuits against these companies for making claims about their products that they don't achieve, or are the consumer activists strangely quite on this front?
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
Exactly. Now you are starting to understand. The role of gov is to protect your property. Your first property is your body, and any resources you convert into assets are also your property. Using gov to violate your property, such as laws that protect slavery, is using gov to become a thief.
Think about slavery for a moment. Slavery is a 100% income tax and 100% regulation of your activity. A slave has guaranteed employment, guaranteed health care, guaranteed family planning, guaranteed education, and guaranteed room and board. The reason slavery was a natural out growth of the European highly taxed and highly regulated economy via central ruling elites, was the ruling elites considered everyone else irrational. Thus, if you are willing to make your own countrymen into a peasant class, why not make others outside your country a slave class.
The reason a person puts up with this, is because their freedom of association is violated by the use of coercion against them. In other words, if you try to secede as a slave, your body will be threatened. People will not work for the sake of another, and that's why they run away. Gov laws that allow punishment for that, like NAZI exit taxes or, illustrate how gov can be used as an agent of theft.
The legitimate role of gov is to protect property, and that protection allows for the freedom of association. When gov is used to violate property (like an FDIC) or prevent the freedom of association (like the NLRB), the gov becomes the agent of theft. Now gov is no longer protecting property, it is violating property. The people using gov this way always have some "altruistic" rational. The slave owners viewed the slaves the way Democrats view Tea Partiers, and as such, since they are inferior humans, its OK to violate their property rights because they don't really know what's good for them, so decisions have to be made for them.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
And also, there are countries that allow horrible things to happen to women, so are you saying the US Fed gov needs to force all of those countries into the Union to stamp that out. Other countries (see William Wilberforce) ended gov laws supporting slavery quite peaceably. Was it really necessary for Lincoln to engage in a war that killed so many when there were other, more effective and less bloody options? No, emotional, mouth foamings aside, blind faith in an all powerful central gov that will be run by people who only CLAIM they know better will only make gov the abuser.
Its not conjecture. Its really happening.
You will find the solutions are very simple, but implementing them is very difficult.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
East India had a gov grant of monopoly, mafia exists because of gov bans, and Napoleon brought France to its knees because he had to invade Russia for violating the trade bans against England.
"No, you can't have peace without government."
Your problem is that you are just ASSUMING that gov has to be compulsory. That for some reason the rules in nature regarding compulsion do not apply to the product of gov. That is why it can be demonstrated that when gov has a monopoly of coercion it engages in slavery (unless stopped see William Wilberforce), murder, and torture.
What you need to understand is that the libertarian goal of limiting gov is not to have NO gov, but to create the incentive structures for human beings that are involved in gov to be such that gov doesn't become the theft agent it is designed to protect against.
"Somebody will want your land, your property and you and you family as slaves."
Right MY land, MY property, and MY body. That SOMEBODY can also be SOMEBODY in gov. Just because you have a gov, doesn't mean it will be holy, or that you are morally superior because you advocate for gov. What we need is a gov that cannot be compulsory because we make it a centralized, monopolized behemoth that we simply HOPE will be run by people that somehow magically know what peak production is. Creating such a centralized gov only creates the incentives for that SOMEBODY to be SOMEBODY in gov to take your land, your property, and you.
You own your body and anything your body can create. Coercion is used to take those ownership rights away from you. We create gov to protect our ownership rights, but doing so means granting gov coercion. That grant can be turned against you when you allow gov to violate your ownership rights by allowing it to attempt to regulate values (prices). That's why you want gov to not be compulsory. You want a market for govs, and what you will eventually wind up with, is for profit gov. That is gov with incentives to protect property and not to violate it.
The point you are missing, is the point that allowing gov to be a monopoly is what allows it to be compulsory, and as such, the SOMEBODY in gov is the one that violates your land, your property, and you. As such, blind devotion to gov, just because it is gov, ignores the fact that gov will be run by people. The very SOMEBODIES that will steal from you give them power to do so.
The Federal gov should only deal with states. States should only deal with counties, and counties should only deal with cities, and cities should only deal with individuals. Having the Fed gov regulate prices with its only tool of coercion (like the FDIC, EPA, dept of Ed, Dept of Eng, etc) is only giving the gov over individuals, which gives the people in the Fed gov huge incentives to steal and that's exactly what they do.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
That's not true. They see coercion as the root of all evil, and thus the recognize that gov, whose only tool is coercion, is highly vulnerable to becoming a large source of theft, since theft requires coercion. So, as you look through history, the greatest destructor has been gov. Gov engages in wars, dungeons, torture, slavery, mass murder, genocide, monopoly, etc, etc. Libertarians want the highest standard of living possible, and since war, slavery, torture, etc are not part of a high standard of living, libertarians want people aware of the danger that gov poses.
The strawman argument of "gov is the root of all evil" is proffered by those that long for the tyranny that gov can bring, because they hope to be in on the tyranny. They want access to gov coercion so they can steal from their neighbors.
The libertarian position then is one of peace and prosperity, because you can only have prosperity for everyone when you have peace. Worshipping gov is to ignore the threat it poses, and ignoring that threat is the first step to allowing the gov to become the very thing you are hoping to eradicate from your markets, namely theft made possible by coercion.
The Bizarro World Of Tesla Longs [View article]
It may not be as bad as that. Most parking lots have head bolt heater plugins, so there is the possibility of hooking up to a plug. Most of these cycle every hour or so, but only at sub zero temps.
What I did notice is that when I didn't have a garage and had to plugin to heat the engine, my electricity bill doubled (at the time another $100 a month). So, while you may save on gas, you would pay more in electricity. The extra electricity may cost you more than the gas.
The Bizarro World Of Tesla Longs [View article]
How long will the battery last, and how much will it cost to replace (or will you just need another brand new car when it wears out).
Also, I used to live in Alaska. How do these cars do at colder than 30 below. Even with a gas powered car, the heat in the car was barely lukewarm. I wonder how much power it will take to keep the car going in minus 50 degree wind chills and running the heater and defroster at the same time.