I'm doing well, Thank you. Although I'm officially retired an old friend of mine asked if I would be interested in helping him with new a startup company. I'm mainly the software guy and it's been challenging and a lot of fun. Zero income so far, but lots of potential if it sells. In the nutshell it is a safety inspection system that can perform various inspection points on moving train engines and cars going through a 24 to 45 inch track inspection zone at speeds up to 40mph. BNSF in Kansas City let us install a working model on a piece of their track and it's working extremely well. We figure we can save the railroads millions of dollars in fuel and equipment costs and millions more in derailment prevention. There's more work to do as far as some refinement of user interface and data collection, but the system works fine as is.

I hope all is well with you, too, O.A.

:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pChZ...

I'd just as soon AlGore decided to stop producing CO2 himself permanently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF0NY...

Hello mccannon01,
LOL! Yes. Ice pick in the eardrums bad!
Good to hear from you.
Hope all is well,
O.A.

Kill me now... ;)

Absolutely.

I am not an anarchist. I believe that there are many legitimate functions that government should carry out. The unfortunate part is that because government is all about power, those who gravitate to public service tend to be those seeking for power and an expansion of it. The Founding Fathers tried to put in some measures to slow the growth of government, but it was clear that Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that such could last too long because of his observations of human nature. Ultimately, the best control of government starts with self control and there are few in the populace - let alone Washington, D.C. - who exercise it.

Yes, and an Al Gore speech ranks with Vogon poetry.

Nonetheless we agree a minimum amount of governmental oversight is necessary and that you mean to point out the exceptions to the rule.

Right on the nose.
I did include regulations in my rant.
Everyone wants to help the middle class. I don't think most politicians even know who the hell the so-called "Middle Class" is.

The EPA attempted to outlaw wood burning stoves here in Northern Arizona with the claim of too much pollution. They had no idea that a great many people here need those stoves to heat our homes during the winter. Propane is still very expensive. Propane distributors by their product on a yearly contract which is always a year behind. So. the prices reflect the year before cost of propane not current market price. The state of Arizona took the EPA to court and won. I really hope Trump gets elected with hope he dismantles the EPA.

It is not the purpose of zoning to act as product watchdogs. I agree that that is not a proper function of government (except maybe the plutonium example you cite).

But to go back to the definition of public vs private, as soon as you engage the citizens of a city to join together to do anything, it is by definition public. The notion of "private" zoning is by definition invalid. And I would point out the corruption in both the International Olympic Committee and FIFA (both private bodies) in overseeing those particular events as evidence of what I see inevitably happening with a private "zoning" board.

EPA = Super Polluters

I am not so sure that public entities can zone better than private entities. I am not sure that zoning laws are required to prevent people from living with the blast radius of a fickle reactor, or to prevent people from fishing downstream of a plant known to dump toxic liquids in wanton fashion, or to prevent people from building a child care center next door to a prison of predators without adequate guard protection. Product ownership and it's responsibilities belong to the person who purchased it in a lawful manner. The producer can sell to whomever he likes, but if his product receives a reputation for being unsafe, even when he has instructed the conditions of its use, he will not sell product; he will lose dollars and his business will die. Thus, he is also responsible for his own decision about to whom he sells. The spectrum I see is that I might well sell a biscuit to a child, but would think twice before selling enriched plutonium to just anyone.

Herb, well put. I will also note that a large number of the plants listed are in the most regulated industries. The tax and regulation burdens decrease profits, new construction, capital improvements, maintenance budgets, head counts, and then plants themselves. In the reverse, lower tax and regulation burdens increase profits, new construction, capital improvements, maintenance budgets, and head counts. Further, an increase in head counts increases specialization, makes labor more efficient, and increases production, revenue, and profits. Thus, to your point, the converse is also true.

Naturally. Nobody wants pollution.

They are revenuers. OSHA is the same... Mindless bureaucrats with incentive to fine and be oppressive without regard for common sense, tolerance or reason.
They are Vogons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon

When regulations are punitive the result in invariably negative. There is no incentive to develop and employ new technology, only punishment if you don't. Search for the real reasons behind government control. It has nothing to do with improvement in the environment, just the acquisition and maintenance of power.

What's worse, pollution or unemployment? Both are bad, but pollution can be fixed. But, the main source of income in an area - not so much. Remember unemployment spreads. Fewer workers means fewer consumers, which means fewer businesses, which means that the people out of work grows in all directions. Drive through some of the smaller towns in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Nebraska and Iowa. Look at the vacant store fronts in what used to be busy downtown areas. None of the folks still living there will give you a fancy excuse for why the towns are dying and kids looking for a future have moved out. The plant (or you-name-it) closed or laid off workers. Too many regulations, no money available to make improvements. Banks will give you a loan on a house you can't afford, but not a business that you can make a living by. It was thought downtown areas were going down because of Wal Mart and others. The Wal Mart started closing hundreds of stores, or laying off in hundreds of others Those who vote for Clinton or scorn Trump are double jointed, stabbing themselves in the back.

Pollution can take many forms Perhaps the worst pollution is the numerous "alphabet agencies" operating with big government authority, (usually meaning no actual Congressional oversight) while part of the solution is simply to send them all home and call them back one at a time when needed. Clearly the EPA tops the list.

Pollution can take many forms Perhaps the worst pollution is the numerous "alphabet agencies" operating with big government authority, (usually meaning no actual Congressional oversight) while part of the solution is simply to send them all home and call them back one at a time when needed. Clearly the EPA tops the list.

I would say that city zoning is one possible example of judicious regulation. Now I know there are some that call this an infringement on property rights, but my viewpoint is that it is so frequently abused for political reasons that it becomes an infringement when it doesn't need to be. But a lot of zoning involves planning out infrastructure for growth purposes - something that the individual property owner never considers. Yes, you bought a plot of land and you want to build a house on it. That's great. Until you want power, sewer, trash, water, and internet. And a road to get to your house. All of these things require some planning efforts to tie your particular property in the rest of the city in a useful manner. Can they be abused for political purposes? Absolutely. But ignored completely? I don't think that works either.

What about fire codes? On one side you might have someone who argues the ultra-libertarian approach that I should be able to build a house out of kerosene-soaked plywood if I'm really that stupid. Then you have the ultra-progressive who mandates the house plan you can use! I'm in the middle. If your property burns to the ground, yes, that's on you. But if as a result of not following fire code you also burn down your neighbor's property through sheer negligence - even ignorance? The problem is in assuming that a civil suit is going to be able to recover anything in damages! (Another is that the actual builder is really tough to go after in these cases.) Better to prevent common issues during the building phase. Same thing goes with plumbing and electrical inspection. The utilities companies have a very vested interest in making sure that a home is built to code so that they can provide adequate services and have a continuously paying customer. But since they are the ones providing the service you are requesting, you have to pay the initial inspection and hookup fees.

Now, is there a list of things that government shouldn't regulate? Absolutely. Even more accurate is to say that there are many aspects of life which are currently regulated that would do much better if they weren't. I'm not advocating for regulation as the default approach to things. Only that both extremes are exactly that: extremes.

I noticed that with the first comment. EPA as "paramount integrity" is laughable.

In the above I point out themes common to the liberal canon. These three are popularized concepts. The reason each bothers me is that popular opinion does not define in hierarchical fashion the reasons centralization is good, greed is bad, or regulation is good. These are taken as self-evident. (Perhaps there is no reduction because there is none possible?) To your point, a deeper analysis is required to determine their reasons. Invariably, the common theme behind these is altruism, the poster child of looting. I would challenge your comment about regulation. Can you provide an example of judicious use of regulation and/or a definition of regulation as such? Thanks.

I was talking to a coworker here in NC who was blaming our current Republican governor for the coal ash spill in to the Dan river by Duke power. She complained that he was a typical Republican and only thought about business. She couldn't understand why the governor just didn't willy-nilly stick Duke power with an unspecified but incredibly large bill to "Clean up" the spill...[Whatever Clean up means] She fails to realize a few minor facts.
1. The Governor didn't make the spill.
2. Duke power didn't purposely spill the ash..it was an accident
3. The dump was built and regulated by Duke many years ago when the Democrats were running the state.
4. There is no actual proof that the spill will have actual long term problems
5. How do you separate the wet coal dust from the mud in the bottom of the river...it may not even be possible.
6......and most important od all, as a regulated state monopoly...DUKE POWER IS US HERE IN NC. If they have to pay for a massive, unnecessary cleanup and a monster fine, they [Duke Power] will just pass it on to us the rate payers.

Hello, this is old dino is from the EPA and I am here to help you with clean air.
Yes, yes, I know windmills and solar panels aren't doing the trick but let's have clean air by not burning anything.
Clean air. Yum! Breathe it in. Savor its purity.
Clean air may freeze some of us to death during winter. It is true.
Clean air may gag some of us to death during the summer. That is also true.
But at least we will still have clean air with the added bonus of less people breathing out CO2.
Nuclear? Did I hear someone say nuclear? Arrest that terrorist! He must be a climate change denier!
Thank you.
I'm from the EPA and I am here to help you.