On 11/28/2012 9:33 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Nothing is perfect. Our current system evolved because even though you
will find it hard to believe we know that there are amoral people who
will do anything for a buck.
So we try to strike a balance and have a reasonable amount of
regulation. No system is perfect. Mt niece is a pharmacist and I asked
her about that compounding pharmacy and she said they had gone beyond
the scope of their license. Clearly we can't station an inspector
everywhere but it is silly to infer that all regulation is ineffective.
Human nature is not this simple thing with no shades as you imagine.
If you want to change it why not get the other few percent of the
population that believe all people in business are totally honest and
absolutely no regulation is required and get out and vote?
the bp significant events occurred not by accident but by the
insistence/necessity to make the well produce as quickly as possible (which is a
good thing) by overlooking/ignoring some safety protocols (which is a bad thing)
1) no direct deaths
2) do you think all the crap being dumped in the river had no negative
3) find it telling that you ignore the deaths on the BP platform
4) find it telling that you ignore the environmental impacts of the BP oil spill
5) find it telling that you ignore the financial impacts on both the river fire
and the oil spill
In MA and under Obama... how could that possibly happen in Liberal
Nirvana and under the O-ster??? (Compounding pharmacies are mostly under
state supervision. FDA has only had moderate input to them since the
initial Act LONG (like several decades) pre-Bush.
I find it interesting that when government regulation manages to
screw up, there is always some explanation.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
Lack of regulation? Fannie and Freddie were right in
the middle of the whole housing bubble. They were
govt backed and supervised agencies.
Barney Frank himself pronounced them as solvent and
OK just weeks before they went under.
And let's not forget that govt regulations encouraged
people to invest and speculate in real estate. The
mortgage interest is tax deductible, as are real estate
taxes. And if you live in a house for just a few years
and you sell it at a profit, up to $500,000 is exempt
from tax. So people do exactly what the govt is
incentivizing them to do and when it results in a
bubble, nobody looks at the above as a direct cause.
Then we had the CRA, that put ever increasing
pressure on lending institutions to lend money
to minorities, credit worthy or not.
We have the Federal Reserve, which controls the
banking system. They have a huge budget and
thousands of analysts. They track everything from
the price of bread, to manufacturing output. And
one thing included in that is HOUSING PRICES.
They knew damn well that housing prices had
doubles or tripled in many places, creating a
dangerous bubble, yet they didn't lift a finger to
do anything about it.
Not saying that a lot of shystering didn't go on in
the private sector. Only that govt was eyeballs
deep into the whole mess too and it's not clear
that one more regulator or regulation would have
I am old enough 55 to remember the time before safety belts, padded
dashboards, air bags, automatic shut down vehicles when in accident,
crushable cars to protect the occupants, when my impala averaged 13
MPG tuned up..... 9 or 10 mpg if it needed tuned
certinally all the laws that required these changes cost $$ and didnt
allow a opt out. but arent we all better for them?
I love the laws banning smoking in near every public place, because I
HATE THE STINK, and feel anyone smoking in a vehicle with kids should
be charged with child abuse because thats what it is!.....
do note I know a couple that both have lung cancer their 16 year old
is going to watch both mom and dad die from smoking. i think the
tobacco companies should have to ay the health care costs for its
Weren't a number of regulations passed after we learned what the result
was of letting the "free market" work out dumping whatever they wanted
wherever they wanted it? Should we remove those "burdens"? Polluted
wells and water supplies and high incidences of cancer really aren't a
On 11/26/2012 6:35 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
But you just don't understand. The extremists think that somehow for
some unknown reason the "free market" folks are above the centuries of
examples of bad human behavior and will never do anything dishonest or
cheat for personal gain or as you noted pollute just because it helps
the bottom line.
But you just don't understand. Somehow the libs think
that just one more law, one more regulation, one more
govt agency, is the solution to anything and everything
that isn't right in the world. The fact that despite all
the regulations and regulators we have we still have
BP, the housing bubble, the pharmacy problem, etc
suggests it isn't that simple.
And you want to extend that heavy hand of regulation to
a guy who has the freedom to choose between a 80%
and a 90% furnace. A non-existent problem, because
the vast majority of the market for furnace replacement
is already choosing 90%+ where it makes economic
sense for them. I'll say it again. When I went out for
quotes 2 years ago, not a single vendor mentioned or
quoted less than a 90% furnace. And I'm in NJ, not MN.
Do you believe the EPA lie that eliminating furnace choices
less than 90% for new installations in northern climates is going to
save 20% of total energy usage? Conservatives see this crap and
know that it's pretty much a non-problem. But it does
create more federal employees coming up with dumb
ideas and enforcing them. And when they are done with
your furnace, they don't go away. They hire even more
employees and find the next thing to regulate that doesn't
and the conservative answer to this is to have less regulation which will make
all the BP problems magically go away, somehow incentivize bankers, mortgage
brokers and real estate agents to somehow suddenly tell people the truth about
the house they want to invest in and that pharmaceutical companies will never,
ever rush to put a miracle drug on the market or never human test it on third
world citizens who have no idea what they are agreeing to (if they are even
given the choice)
it's worked so well in the past, hasn't it?
On 11/28/2012 12:32 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Some people are too stupid to make intelligent choices and need to be
enlightened. Take incandescent lighting, for example. We had to ban the
manufacture of the 100watt energy hogs so that people would be forced to
make more efficient lighting choices. Thankfully today, we are all
better off because of a forward-thinking government.
Yes, that's another fine example. People were already
using CFLs where they chose to and where they believed
they made sense. Does it bother you so much that I have
a shed that's unheated and I put a 100W incandescent bulb
in it? How about I come to your house, find something you
do that I don't approve of. Go on vacation to Disneyland?
Why.... what a waste of energy that is. Let's limit that.
Let's also start rationing gas, so that people don't take joy
rides to the mall. All for the greater good, right? And let's
stop selling soft drinks that are bigger than 16 oz, like
the imbecile Bloomberg did in NYC. All that's good too, eh?
As for being better off with a forward-thinking govt, we
now have increased federal spending by 40% since
Obama took over. That's right, we're spending 40%
more. And with the economy recovering, we still had a
deficit for the year just ended of $1.1tril. The national
debt is now at $16tril. That "forward-thinking" has put
us on the path of Greece. But, sadly too few people
while I don't condone the huge debt, I am glad that my gov't is raising fuel
economy standards and also doing its best to give alternate energy technologies
the same benefits that oil and nuke companies have enjoyed for decades. I'm also
not upset that there are people who would like to save native salmon
populations, trout, redwoods and even the spotted owl.
My old natural draft was running about 80% - my new forced draft non
condensing is about 85% - 88% on low fire. Virtually NO difference in
fuel consumption between them - lower electrical consumption from DC
blower motor - the heat NOT generated by the blower now has to be made
up by the gas - pretty effectively cancelling out the minor efficiency
If your current yearly heating bill is $1000 and you have an 80%
$800 is used for heat and $200 is wasted out the exhaust.
With a 95% efficient furnace,
$800 is still used for heat but only $42 is wasted out the exhaust.
Your yearly heat bill drops to $842 yielding a $158 per year savings.
Over the next 15 years you'll save $2370 in fuel. If fuel prices go up,
you'll save even more.
Can you really afford an 80% efficient furnace?
My situation is a bit different. I'm heating with oil and you don't
get quite as efficient, but very close anyway.
My oil fired boiler was 30 years old. It was getting close to needing
major work or replacement. Anything I put in would have been a bit
more efficient, but I went with a System 2000 by Energy Kinetics.
I have a good record of my fuel use and it average about 800 gallons a
year, sometimes a bit more. My savings with the new unit is about 320
gallons a year. My out of pocket cost to replace was about $6000. The
math is pretty simple. At the price of oil 30 years ago, it would
take me 25 years to get a payback. The price of oil though, went up a
tad in recent years. The payback is now 5 years. After the 5 years,
I'm saving about $1200 a year. I have more hot water, a quieter
system and saving a bunch of money. IMO, you are crazy not to replace
an old heater. Sure, gas is cheaper, but using less is still a good
thing. Run the numbers. .
I think the obvious example to that question, is yes indeed,
not only can you afford the 80% furnace, but it costs less.
The 80% furnace is already paid for. The new furnace is going
to cost significantly MORE than the $2,370 in fuel saved. Factor
in the time value of money and it looks even worse. Plus from
what we hear all the time here and from what I've seen
personally, 15 years is about the life expectancy of the new
furnaces. I've had friends who have replaced them at less
than that. So, why pay for a new furnace today when even
if it lasts 15 years, you're better off paying for the $2,370 in
This is a classic. You're the guy telling us that the consumers
are too stupid to make the right choice for their own furnace. And
yet, here you are chiming in that it makes sense to shell out the
money today to replace a furnace that's 80%, because you
can't afford not to? Let's do the math. Replacing that furnace is
typically $4,000+ and that money would be spent right now.
The alternative 80% furnace in the above example only costs
$2,370 in additional fuel over the next 15 years. Factor in the
time value of money and the comparison only gets worse. I cou;ld
take that $4,000, invest it in the stock market, and history shows
you'd likely get an 8% return, exceeding the savings in fuel.
And given that most people here seem to agree that a new
furnace today has about a 15 year life, it would NEVER pay
for itself in fuel savings.
Yet, you say it's J Q Public that's too stupid to figure out
what to do and needs the govt to do it for them?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.