ss_blog_claim=a290fbfb2dabf576491bbfbeda3c15bc

Saturday, November 17, 2007

This is Just Life

Living is taking and giving back energy.
Less people would consume less, but would produce less.
"Nothing is produced or destroyed, everything just changes..."
When we are born, we occupy a space, we live in it, make it smaller or bigger and then we die, leaving the space to somebody else. It is in the matter of things that we live and grow, that we consume and produce, one more, the other less.
There is no secret in life, this IS LIFE.

A provocative post by Zorn

Conserve energy all you want, it won’t save the environment. I can prove it, and you will be surprised how I do…

A few weeks ago I received an email from a local environmental group that shocked the hell out of me. It talked about an economist named William Stanley Jevon who, in the 1800s, came up with an economic theory called Jevon’s Paradox or later known as waste homeostasis.

This theory is now widely known in economics. Remember this.

It states that “as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.”

Examples are increases in food production efficiency. By increasing the food produced per acre of land, it allowed the world population to grow, thus using more food. Theoretically, as we were able to get more food from the same amount of land, we should have been able to farm less. This didn’t happen. By making food plentiful, we encourage population growth. As cars got more efficient, people drove more. As they made more efficient refrigerators, people bought bigger refrigerators. The main idea here is that as we create more efficient items that use less energy, we will just use more of that item, and again use MORE energy.

You would say ‘well people won’t just buy bigger and bigger refrigerators as they get more efficient, so eventually people will buy a more efficient refrigerator that uses less energy, but is the same size as their old one. Saves energy, right?’

Here’s the interesting part.

What happens when technology gives you a more efficient item, that saves energy? CFC light bulbs. You save money. Your electric bill goes down, you have an extra $10 a month in your pocket.

What do you do with the $10? Buy a toy for your child?

It takes energy to make that toy. A factory in China uses energy to make it, a ship transports it here, trucks move it to stores… all using energy. You CREATED more energy usage by saving MONEY because of an ‘increase in efficiency’ (the CFC light bulb is more efficient than the incandescent)

Got a Hybrid car, saving on gas? Where does the money go that you saved?

Now, think you will beat the system and save your money? It goes in the bank, where it is used to give out LOANS to other people and businesses that then BUY things with that money. Those things ALL take energy to produce, run, etc. A business borrows money from a bank, part of it is your saved money - they build a new factory. More energy used.

Remember I said this is a widely known economic principle/theory…

Do you think GE does not know this? Does Al Gore not know this? Now ask yourself:

Are CFC light bulbs really saving the world?

Now there could be small gains in this. you could save a LOT of energy and use that money to buy something that only took a little energy to create. You could buy a tree and plant it in your yard. Don’t sweat though doing it, as the energy used to supply us with meat has been said to be a huge factor in CO2 emissions…as you burn calories, you literally use precious energy. Your *existence* uses up energy.

We cannot buy our way out of Global Warming or Peak Oil. We cannot even Save our way out of it. The ONLY solutions are:

- Have LESS people thereby consuming less energy. Population control. People use energy.
- save the money and never use it, or put it in a bank. Go out back and burn it. When you spend money, its really ‘energy consumption’ in a piece of paper. If it is destroyed, it is ‘energy’ that won’t be used, because it won’t be used to buy anything. On second thought, don’t burn it, bury it. Fire creates CO2, and then when the Global Warming thing blows over, you have a nice nest egg. If we don’t fall victim to hyper inflation that is…
- Buy something that creates energy. Solar panels. That’s about it. There are other things that create energy, but I think people would agree that solar panels will help us, while buying gas to power a generator to run your electric… not the best way to try and help the world.
- Pay MORE for energy, which really means - get less efficient. This is just the downward side of Jevon’s paradox. Ethanol is less efficient than gas. You might pay the same at the pump, but ethanol is subsidized - tax money. There is more money (energy) being put INTO the production of ethanol than their is a gallon of gas, so it is less efficient. This is the opposite of ‘progress’… The tax money used to subsidize the corn for ethanol takes tax dollars from some other program OR, we have to raise taxes. Somewhere, more energy (money) is being used to make that gallon of ethanol.
- Lastly - become poor. Less money = less energy used. Maybe Bush really IS smarter than we think, as he is destroying the US economy, we become poor, and use less energy!

That’s it. Don’t marvel at the gas you save in your hybrid when you go out and buy a new shirt with the money you saved on gas…

And I KNOW I am not the only one in the world who replaced 60 watt incandescent bulbs with ‘100 watt’ output CFC bulbs. “More light, and STILL cheaper than the 60 watt cost to run… now what will I do with that money I saved on my electric bill…”

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The amount of money available tends to eventuate toward ideas on how to either invest, or save it.

The problem with saving it, is that "nothing happens" because nothing is spent toward an end in view.

Savings represents the absence of an end in view toward which spending it would move us.

Congress does not like saving money. Nothing happens. They like making things happen, especially where it benefits them.

If it happens to benefit you, all the better. (But the elected certainly want YOU to believe that what really benefits them, benefits you.)

What's really important to them (well, not all of them: there ARE elected that retain a sense of what is right, noble - generally the newer-elected), is that they keep grafting money from your paycheck every working hour through tax withholding. You don't see it, your family doesn't see it, so you just use the credit cards, and the bankers continue to smile.

At the end of the 18th Century, America proclaimed its independence from the tax slavery of Britain, and codified our soverignty, self-rule and liberty, as citizens, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 1913, the wealthy elite conspired with politicians to persuade an elitist president (a former president of Princeton University) to buy into a scheme to again make us slaves by signing the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax acts. The Fed would print money, at interest, and the income tax would ultimately be the vehicle to ensure its payment. It would be the bankers who would pat themselves on the back.

President Wilson would later say ( 3:42 into Russo video), "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by a system of credit. We are no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

And today many Americans are caught up in that "system of credit," much to bankers' delight, instead of working longer and harder hours. Why? Because of the increased tax bite that's taken from their paychecks. If you ask any worker about it, more than likely you'll receive a remark that expresses frustration, powerlessness, and the feeling like his, or her, voice doesn't matter because it's the politicians who are in control.

Of more urgent, and immediate, concern is the taxing of business income and payroll. Businesses attempt to recoup these costs by embedding them in their prices, which are ultimately paid by consumers. This pernicious system of hidden taxation accounts for 22 cents of every retail dollar spent by consumers. This gives Congress a "lever" to extract money from businesses, via lobbyists, to secure "tax favors" resulting in

• an increasingly complex, and expensive, tax code
• higher prices (or lesser dividends to shareholders/401Ks/public retirement funds, or lost jobs to employees - where foreign competition will not let a company raise prices)
• exports not price-competitive, globally
• company relocation to foreign countries with lower costs
• foreign products going untaxed upon entry into the U.S.

How serious is this situation? Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff is on record that, unless citizens' true tax costs are made visible by virtue of enacting the FairTax, politicians will continue to pit rich against poor, individuals against corporations, while they spend us into ruin.

Will the FairTax movement succeed in changing this tax slave / victim psychology? Do we, as individuals, have the ability to influence Congress to relinquish the power they've usurped from We, The People, freeholders engaged in free-enterprise?

First, let's understand how passage of the FairTax (HR 25) would actually affect us: Prices after FairTax passage would look similar to current prices - not "30% higher" as critics contend; the increased-competitive, tax-free business environment would see to it. So, the FairTax rate (figured as an income-tax-rate-non-comparative, sales tax) on new items would be 29.85% (on the new, reduced cost of items because business isn't taxed under FairTax - thus lowering retail prices by 20% to 30%), or 23% of the "tax inclusive" price tag - this is the way INCOME TAX is figured (parts of the total dollar).

The effective tax rate percentages, that different income groups would pay under the progressive FairTax consumption tax, are calculated by crediting the monthly "prebate" (advance rebate of projected tax on necessities) against total monthly spending of citizen families (1 member and greater, Dept. of HHS poverty-level data; a single person receiving ~$200/mo, a family of four, ~$500/mo, in addition to working earners receiving paychecks with no Federal deductions) Prof.'s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) concluded,

"...the FairTax imposes much lower average taxes on working-age households than does the current system. The FairTax broadens the tax base from what is now primarily a system of labor income taxation to a system that taxes, albeit indirectly, both labor income and existing wealth. By including existing wealth in the effective tax base, much of which is owned by rich and middle-class elderly households, the FairTax is able to tax labor income at a lower effective rate and, thereby, lower the average lifetime tax rates facing working-age Americans.

"Consider, as an example, a single household age 30 earning $50,000. The household’s average tax rate under the current system is 21.1 percent. It’s 13.5 percent under the FairTax. Since the FairTax would preserve the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and also provide a tax rebate, older low-income workers who will live primarily or exclusively on Social Security would be better off. As an example, the average remaining lifetime tax rate for an age 60 married couple with $20,000 of earnings falls from its current value of 7.2 percent to -11.0 percent under the FairTax. As another example, compare the current 24.0 percent remaining lifetime average tax rate of a married age 45 couple with $100,000 in earnings to the 14.7 percent rate that arises under the FairTax."

Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (circa 2006?) ...

"...once one moves to generations postdating the baby boomers there are positive welfare gains for all income groups in each cohort. Under a 23 percent FairTax policy, the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 enjoy a 13.5 percent welfare gain. Their middle-class and rich contemporaries experience 5 and 2 percent welfare gains, respectively. The welfare gains are largest for future generations. Take the cohort born in 2030. The poorest members of this cohort enjoy a huge 26 percent improvement in their well-being. For middle class members of this birth group, there's a 12 percent welfare gain. And for the richest members of the group, the gain is 5 percent."

Our "slavemasters," - elected, and not - scoff, "The FairTax is going nowhere." They do not believe we're capable of removing the shackles of an income tax system most of us have been born under.

Simply put, "If it's to be, the FairTax effort requires you and me." We must compel enactment of the FairTax bill and its salient provision to pay for government the way America's working men and women are paid - when, and because, something is sold! In the present political environment, we can accomplish our quest by:

• Becoming a recurring-donor member of FairTax.org
• Informing, and influencing, our family and friends on - and off - the Web.
• Setting up an automatic, recurring donation to those presidential candidates who ardently support the FairTax: Mike Gravel (D) and/or Mike Huckabee (R). You can do so via credit card, or even set them up as a Payee under your bank or credit union Bill Pay service, as follows:

Mike Gravel for President
P O Box 948
Arlington, VA 22216-0948
Phone: (703) 243-8303

Huckabee for President, Inc.
P.O. Box 2008
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Phone: (501) 324-2008

Let us bind together, with decisive action, to ensure April 15th soon becomes just another pretty Spring day.

(Permission is granted to reproduce any of my posts, in whole or part. - Ian)

 
ss_blog_claim=a290fbfb2dabf576491bbfbeda3c15bc