Mores

How is the Economy?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Mores said:

Highways are a matter of federal funding.  So, it's not really fair to compare states where federal funding is the determination. 

Federal money is only part of the money for highway funding.   It is only one of ten pools where highway money comes from.   State regsitration fees, money from local governments, state general fund dollars, and state gas taxes all pay for highways within a state.

20 minutes ago, Mores said:

No, I wasn't.  I was simply asking WHAT the difference was.  But I keep getting from you that there is no difference. 

I gave an example of a difference as well as a benefit.   

Quote

 

It doesn't seem to be making a difference.

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/hap/

If anything, Utah's geography should make it worse.  Add to that your point about methane restrictions, it should be a LOT worse.  Instead, it's about the same.

 

Did you read what the map really means?

The map says the following:

Number of People Living in Areas where the Estimated Cancer Risk from HAPs is Greater than 1 in 10,000

Colorado has a much greater population than Utah.    The map only shows the number of people living in each state that have a HAP greater than 1/10,000.   It isn't a rate foe each state, but the number of people.

Quote

 

Not so.  Today's engine technology is such that the benefit of the catalytic converter is outweighed by the cost.

  • Today we can make engines today that have about the same emissions as a standard care with a cat-con.  The cost to upgrade would be about the same as the cat-con.
  • The new technology would maintain that benefit indefinitely.
  • A cat-con is only good for one year.  After the first year the usefulness (for air quality) begins to degrade.  After five or six years, the cat-con is worse than having no muffler at all.  It actually hurts.

 

  •  

I admit that I am not familiar all of the above so I'll take your word for it.   If something is better, cheaper, but obtains the same results, I'm for that.

Quote

OK. Good.  But again I'm wondering, why you believe this is a benefit in favor of blue states.

First of all, I phrased my post on income as a question, not a statement. 

It is you that seem to be hung up on the blue state vs red state thing.   I asked you to show me why you think red states have better incomes than blue states when cost of living is taken in account and you answered part of the question.

It was always a question from me to you, rather than an arguement.  

This is a different topic, but as for me, I see an advantage of investing in education, a clean environment, and infrastructure.     It seems like it is mostly the enviroment we disagree on. That's a different topic though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mores said:

I've never been to Florida (or I might have for a day when I was young).  But I imagine with swamps and water table, etc. your roads can't be too good.

A lot of the roads are better than you would expect.   Florida has a shortage of hard rocks for making pavements.    Florida has an excess of limestone though.  Novia Scotia has the opposite problem.   They have a lot of hard rocks (granite) for making pavements, but not much limestone for cementing agents in structures and pavements.   Florida and Nova Scotia sell each other building materials.

As far as swamps and water table (don't forget sinkholes either), Florida has that, but they climate is a lot less harsh on pavements than it is in a lot of other states.   Freeze thaw takes a huge toll on roads in a lot of the nation.    Plus there are no mountains, landslides, etc. to worry about.   

So Florida has a lot of challenges when it comes to road construction, but they also have some advantages too.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Scott said:

Federal money is only part of the money for highway funding.   It is only one of ten pools where highway money comes from.   State regsitration fees, money from local governments, state general fund dollars, and state gas taxes all pay for highways within a state.

For maintenance and land aquisition, that is true.  But for actual initial construction, that is not so.

For maintenance, the lion's share is run locally.  But federal funds are still available to theoretically aid low income states.  However, the history shows that somehow blue states get more assistance than red on a per taxes paid basis.  https://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

I gave an example of a difference as well as a benefit.   

Did you read what the map really means?

Interesting.  The map I saw when I did a search was this:

united_states.gif.abdeaf19dba71b603d568584901183a7.gif

Red is worst air quality.  Green is best.

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

Colorado has a much greater population than Utah.    The map only shows the number of people living in each state that have a HAP greater than 1/10,000.   It isn't a rate foe each state, but the number of people.

Look at the bold.  That is a RATE, not total number.

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

First of all, I phrased my post on income as a question, not a statement. 

You asked a question based on an assumption.  The assumption was a statement.  I countered that assumption, making the question invalid.

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

It is you that seem to be hung up on the blue state vs red state thing. 

That was the very question you asked.  So, how is it I'm "hung up" on the question you, yourself, asked?

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is a different topic, but as for me, I see an advantage of investing in education, a clean environment, and infrastructure.

Yes, homeschooling justification is a different issue.  But I'd agree that public education is on topic.  So, I'm find with including public education as part of this topic.  But I think homeschooling gets into the weeds.

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

It seems like it is mostly the enviroment we disagree on. That's a different topic though.  

I actually don't know if we disagree.  I still haven't heard you say anything statistical, legislative, or regulatory which I've been asking for.

Don't take this as an attack.  But I want to explain to you why I'm having difficulty with a lot of what you're saying.  You've got a lot of general ideas.  But you don't say much that is specific.  The truth is that a large part of the disagreement between moderate conservatives and moderate liberals is the details. Labels are what keep both sides apart.  So, when all you're doing is giving general ideas with non-specific verbiage, it really doesn't tell me anything about what you believe should be done.  They're just words.

Get specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mores said:

For maintenance and land aquisition, that is true.  But for actual initial construction, that is not so.

This was true decades ago, but there are few new US and State highways being constructed now days.   The ones that are constructed now days are done from a variety of funds.   I don't know what it is in each state (you would have to look it up), but on projects I have worked on in Colorado, it is usually around 50% of cost coming from federal funds.

Quote

However, the history shows that somehow blue states get more assistance than red on a per taxes paid basis.  https://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html

OK you lost me on this one.    Your link seems to indicate the opposite, but with exceptions.   Doesn't the link indicate that overall it's the blue states  (at least for the top ten donor states) subsidizing the red states?  What am I missing?   

According to the link, these are the states that paid the most taxes while getting the least return:

New Hampshire

Nebraska

Colorado

North Dakota

Washington

Illinois

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Jersey 


New York

Of the top 10 donor states, only Nebraksa and North Dakota are red.   The other 8 are blue.  

Here is the entire study that was referenced in your link:

https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Balance-of-Payments.pdf

See table 4 for a list of all the states.  

The bottom half states are divided pretty evenly, but 8/10 of the donor states are all blue.

What am I missing?

Quote

Look at the bold.  That is a RATE, not total number.

It is a the number of people exposed to a certain rate, not the percentage of population exposed to that rate.   

Quote

You asked a question based on an assumption.  The assumption was a statement.  I countered that assumption, making the question invalid.

That was the very question you asked.  So, how is it I'm "hung up" on the question you, yourself, asked?

I use the word hung up since I asked it in the phrase of a question and you seem to be taking it as an arguement.   

Quote

Yes, homeschooling justification is a different issue. 

I am not sure what you are getting at, but I in favor of  both homeschooling and public education.   No one should be stopped from homeschooling a child, but public education should be available so every child can have an education.    Education is an investment, whether it is done by homeschooling or public education.   

Quote

I actually don't know if we disagree.  I still haven't heard you say anything statistical, legislative, or regulatory which I've been asking for.

Don't take this as an attack.  But I want to explain to you why I'm having difficulty with a lot of what you're saying.  You've got a lot of general ideas.  But you don't say much that is specific.  The truth is that a large part of the disagreement between moderate conservatives and moderate liberals is the details. Labels are what keep both sides apart.  So, when all you're doing is giving general ideas with non-specific verbiage, it really doesn't tell me anything about what you believe should be done.  They're just words.

Get specific.

Here's a very specific example concerning the environment:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/energyoffice/renewable-energy-standard

I am in favor of this.   I am just guessing that you would not be (since it is mandated), but feel free to comment.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, just another evidence to my proposed trend of Red cities becoming rich, and turning into blue cities:  @Scott, the future of Denver.

 

Almost all big cities are blue.   How many of them aren't?

Oklaoma City?   Jacksonville?    I can't think of that many.

Even Salt Lake City is now blue.

I do not think all of the cities in the US have that in their future.

PS, she sounds a lot like Brigham Young.  :)  It's probably best not to go there though.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Scott said:

Even Salt Lake City is now blue.

@mirkwood is a huge fan of the mayor. Campaigned for her, sent her money, had lawn signs, marched in parades...

Don't get me wrong, Utah is still solidly republican, but with more people moving to the state, don't be surprised if the identity of Utah changes dramatically in the next thirty years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scott said:

Almost all big cities are blue.   How many of them aren't?

Oklaoma City?   Jacksonville?    I can't think of that many.

Even Salt Lake City is now blue.

I do not think all of the cities in the US have that in their future.

PS, she sounds a lot like Brigham Young.  :)  It's probably best not to go there though.  

My theory was - Red cities prosper, become big, attract a giant population then turn Blue.  Then people start leaving the big cities to go to not-so-big cities like Denver and then turn THAT blue.  This is also why Democrats are vehemently against closing the border.  Those are the people going into prosperous red cities and turning them blue - like Dallas.

And the reference to Brigham Young is disingenuous.  It is VERY VERY different to have something owned by a uni-culture - like a Church - than a government, especially as they promote "diversity".

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And the reference to Brigham Young is disingenuous.  It is VERY VERY different to have something owned by a uni-culture - like a Church - than a government, especially as they promote "diversity".

I agree that it is different.  I only mean that some of the quotes between the two sound fairly similar.  

Have you read Approaching Zion by chance?

That's another topic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree that it is different.  I only mean that some of the quotes between the two sound fairly similar.  

Have you read Approaching Zion by chance?

That's another topic though.

No, I have not.

Diversity is not strength.  UNITY of VALUES among a diverse group of people - especially that which is centered on Christ - is where the strength lies... that's how you approach Zion and become ready for the full application of the law of consecration.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, I have not.

Diversity is not strength.  UNITY of VALUES among a diverse group of people - especially that which is centered on Christ - is where the strength lies... that's how you approach Zion and become ready for the full application of the law of consecration.

This... exactly this...

Lets give an example.  We have a business that makes widgets.  We want to prosper the business so we hold a meeting on how to make better widgets.

If during that meeting we do not have a bunch of diverse idea on how to make better widgets... Then chances are we will probably not have end up with the best ideas.

But on the same hand if we have alot of diversity, but one person wants to make gizmos, an another wants to build thingermobobs, and another wants to talk about coloring hair... well we are not going to get the best ideas on how to make better widgets either but we have lots of diversity.

Diversity should not be an end in and of itself because it will distract and divert.  Diversity that has a common focus or goal is where its power truly rests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scott said:

This was true decades ago, but there are few new US and State highways being constructed now days.   The ones that are constructed now days are done from a variety of funds.   I don't know what it is in each state (you would have to look it up), but on projects I have worked on in Colorado, it is usually around 50% of cost coming from federal funds.

If you look at the history of our conversation on this matter, you'll find what I meant by that.  I can see how you meant this as well.  But it didn't sound like it earlier.

Quote

OK you lost me on this one.    Your link seems to indicate the opposite, but with exceptions.   Doesn't the link indicate that overall it's the blue states  (at least for the top ten donor states) subsidizing the red states?  What am I missing?   

You're absolutely right.  I misread that.  Sorry.

Quote

It is a the number of people exposed to a certain rate, not the percentage of population exposed to that rate.

The description in the key is:

Quote

Translate: "Number of people (insert bad condition) is greater than 1/10,000".  That is a rate.  I'll agree it's poorly worded.  But your reading really doesn't make sense from a statistical gathering perspective.  It would be fairly useless.

And compare it to the second map I provided.  You'll see that my interpretation of the first map agrees with the data from the second map.

Quote

I use the word hung up since I asked it in the phrase of a question and you seem to be taking it as an arguement.   

No, as stated, I took it as an assumption.  But I might agree that when you make any declaration of fact, you're making an argument.

Quote

Here's a very specific example concerning the environment:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/energyoffice/renewable-energy-standard

I am in favor of this.   I am just guessing that you would not be (since it is mandated), but feel free to comment.

You're correct.  I don't believe it should be mandated.  However, that is not the main reason I don't like it. Here are my comments on the list.

  • Does not include nuclear.  I believe I've made my feelings on nuclear pretty clear.  But in case you missed it, I'm in favor of it as the cleanest form of energy we currently have.
  • Anaerobic Digesters.  OK.  But I don't know how this can be large scale.  And as far as I know, this is not a net zero carbon operation as it is often portrayed.
  • "Recycled Energy" is thus far not even near efficient for most applications.  But I can see it possibly developing into it with technology not too far away.
  • Coal mine methane.  This isn't really any different than coal.  So, kinda neutral on that economically and politically.  But technically and environmentally, I have similar comments as Recycled energy -- except that it is probably somewhat more efficient.
  • Solar.  This has some good points.  But there are also a lot of bad points that most proponents never want to look at.  I'm just not excited about it.
  • Geothermal.  Yes, this is actually very good.  But it can only be efficient within a certain range of production.  Too expensive for smaller outputs.  Rather onerous for larger production.  Must only be used for mid-range production.  That means we have to have them dot the land.  Still more difficult in some terrains and geological conditions.
  • Wind.  Similar to Solar.
  • Hydropower.  Not enough rivers/dams for this to do much.  And in Colorado??? I don't even know where they'd do that.
  • Woody Biomass.  Meh.
  • Landfill gas.  Similar to coal mine methane.
  • Pyrolysis.  This doesn't mean anything in this context.  And the link you gave doesn't give any other clarification other than "it must be greenhouse gas neutral."  Well, I don't see how pyrolysis will do anything above and beyond any other burning method.  Standard temperatures provide don't burn everything.  But plant operators know that.  So, they add other equipment to capture all that other stuff and use it a different way.  With pyrolysis, the same stuff gets burned up, but the equipment and operating costs go up.  In addition, this method may reduce unburned by-products, but it doesn't eliminate them.  So, all that equipment to capture all that and repurpose it will also still be required.

The main reason I'm against mandating things like this is that politicians and the population at large often don't know what is the best way to do this.  They should leave it to engineers who can analyse the whole project, combined with capable accountants who work in the field (a-hem!) to analyze the cost-to-benefits ratio.

The best way to mandate things of this nature is to mandate an emissions to MW production ratio.  That way industry can get their best people on it to come up with their own solutions.  And I believe we'll be amazed at what we find.  For instance, we're not too far away from Zero Emissions Fossil Fuel power generation.  But mandating these methods as CO has, takes the focus off of the technology that could be much better.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mores said:

The description in the key is:

Translate: "Number of people (insert bad condition) is greater than 1/10,000".  That is a rate.  I'll agree it's poorly worded.  But your reading really doesn't make sense from a statistical gathering perspective.  It would be fairly useless.

I agree that it is poorly worded, but that's not what it means.

It means "Number of people (insert bad condition) where (insert risk) is greater than 1/10,000".   That's not the same thing as you are alluding to above.

If you click on the states in the same link, it shows this:

For Colorado their figure is 3,970,497 people as being exposed to a cancer risk of over 1/10,000.   The 3,970,497 people is not a rate.

See here:

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/hap/state.tcl?fips_state_code=08

For Utah, their figure is 2,007,319 people as being exposed to a cancer risk of over 1/10,000.   The 2,007,319 people isn't a rate either.

I don't know why they used that statistic to color code the map since as you point out, the figure is pretty meaningless.  

The website still does contain a rate though.   According to the website, the individual increased cancer risk is 500/1,000,000 for Utah and 440/1,000,000 for Colorado.



 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott said:

It means "Number of people (insert bad condition) where (insert risk) is greater than 1/10,000". 

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.  But I'm done arguing about that.  The color key indicates that the darker colors are bad.  The lighter colors are good.  Agreed?

Based on that quality, Utah is better than Colorado.

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

The website still does contain a rate though.   According to the website, the individual increased cancer risk is 500/1,000,000 for Utah and 440/1,000,000 for Colorado.

Then their color scheme is incorrect and the site is being contradictory.  Sounds like a bad site.  My bad.  So, look at the other site.

http://creativemethods.com/airquality/maps/united_states.htm  This map does support what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Air quality map:
United States Air Quality Map

Whenever anyone shows me a map about anything, no matter what the agenda or question or conclusion, I always like to compare it to a population density map to see if it's effectively the same map.

Image result for us population density

Heh - with a couple of exceptions maybe, it's effectively the same map.  That means whatever someone is trying to prove here, what's really happening is that stuff is red because there's more people there, not because of whatever someone thinks is happening.  With a couple of exceptions.  So no, this or that state isn't better or worse at doing air quality.  It's just that this state or that state have more people.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Air quality map:
United States Air Quality Map

Whenever anyone shows me a map about anything, no matter what the agenda or question or conclusion, I always like to compare it to a population density map to see if it's effectively the same map.

Image result for us population density

Heh - with a couple of exceptions maybe, it's effectively the same map.  That means whatever someone is trying to prove here, what's really happening is that stuff is red because there's more people there, not because of whatever someone thinks is happening.  With a couple of exceptions.  So no, this or that state isn't better or worse at doing air quality.  It's just that this state or that state have more people.

Well, yeah.  That was kinda the point.  It appears that for all the blustering that democrats make about their superior environmental policies, it doesn't seem to make any kind of difference.  But they want us to spend a whole lot more time, energy, and money into policies that don't do jack diddly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now