Caltrain’s Great New Electric Trains Replace Heavy Polluters
by Brad Templeton, Forbes, August 21, 2024.
Excerpt:
The numbers mean Caltrain was burning about 25 million gallons of diesel annually. But today, Caltrain has around 590,000 boardings/year and an average of 24,600 on weekdays. That means 3.5 gallons of diesel per boarding, on average, which is equivalent to 4 gallons of gasoline. Each round trip thus burned the equivalent 8 gallons of gasoline per person. A 30 miles each way round trip in a car with the average load of 1.5 people, which is less that one gallon per person in a Prius, and 2 gallons per person in a large SUV. Even if each passenger were given a personal Hummer H2 to drive, they would only burn 4.6 gallons for that round trip. If diesel Caltrain were a car, it would be class as one of the heaviest polluters per passenger.
Will Brazil’s Government Shut Down X for 20 Million Brazilians?
by David Inserra, Cato at Liberty, August 29, 2024.
Excerpt:
Brazilian courts have now formally threatened to shut down X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil because X will not silence or provide information on individuals critical of the current government, including individuals living in the United States.
And:
Also, now there are rumblings that Brazil may be targeting Starlink and SpaceX, which are only partially owned by Elon Musk. If true, this would mean that other unrelated US companies and investors are being hit by Brazil’s judicial authoritarians.
Simon Newcomb on Public Opinions and Economic Insights
by Timothy Taylor, Conversable Economist, August 29, 2024.
Excerpt:
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909) is largely unknown today, but he was a highly prominent economist back in the day: as one example, he was active in the disputes that led to the founding of the American Economic Association back in 1885. In July 1893, he published an essay on “The Problem of Economic Education” for the prominent (both then and now!) Quarterly Journal of Economics. The essay argues that there are basic insights of economics–well-known as of 1893–that are largely unknown or ignored by the general public. What I found thought-provoking was that a number of these insights appear equally unknown to much of the public, as well as to many policymakers, here in the third decade of the 21st century.
And from Newcomb:
Before such a thing as economic science was known arose the theory of the “balance of trade.” The fundamental doctrine of this theory was that trade was advantageous or disadvantageous to a nation according as the value of its exports exceeded or fell short of the value of its imports. Accordingly, in the nomenclature of the time, an unfavorable balance of trade or state of credit meant one in which the imports were supposed to exceed the exports, and a favorable balance the contrary. An immediate corollary from this view was that trade between two nations could not be advantageous to both, because the values which each exported to the other could not both be greater than those received from the other. …
For a century and a half the doctrine entertained and taught by economists is that there can be no trade between two nations which is not advantageous to both; that men do not buy or sell unless what they receive is to them more valuable than what they give in exchange; and that what is true of the individual man is, in this respect, true of the nation. And yet the combined arguments of economists for a hundred years have not sufficed to change the nomenclature or modify the ideas of commercial nations upon the subject. … The terms ” favorable ” and ” unfavorable,” as applied to the supposed balance of trade, still mean what they did before Adam Smith was born. We might well tremble for the political fate of any statesman who should publicly maintain that our exports would, in the long run, substantially balance our imports, no matter what policy we adopted; and that, if this equality could be disturbed, the advantage would be on the side of the nation which imported the greater values.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Sep 1 2024 at 1:52pm
Robert Reich even suggests arresting Musk altogether.
David Henderson
Sep 1 2024 at 6:14pm
Yes, I saw that.
Reich is revealing his true identity. Remember how he used to start off his talks, when he was in the Clinton administration with, “Does this look like big government to you?” (He was riffing on the fact that he’s under 5 feet tall.
The answer, unfortunately, is, “Yes.”
I remember being on a KQED-FM program with him and I called him “Bob.” Then I realized that that might have been too informal. So I asked him what he wanted to be called. He answered, “Your highness.” I laughed. It was funny. Now I see that it was also true.
Jim Glass
Sep 2 2024 at 12:29am
Krugman, even when totally supporting the Clinton Administration, publicly talked and wrote about Reich as being pretty much a dolt.
OTOH, social media is a dumpster fire of disinformation that, as Pierre Lemieux has observed, is dangerous. And X/Twitter is the main pipeline of flammable sewage fueling it. If the whole thing was shut down entirely everywhere the world would be a better place, IMHO.
“The dramatic drop in the cost of producing and disseminating disinformation has multiplied it.”
Pierre, if you are reading this, that was my favorite article of yours all-time. I think I neglected to say it then. Better late than never?
Andre
Sep 3 2024 at 3:04pm
I think X is fantastic. You get to see the news the mainstream won’t show you and you can see whatever they might eventually show you early.
Also, through the comments you get all sides of an issue, instead of just what a newsroom or newspaper wants you to see and think.
In a way, X offers the benefits of what collective minds in debate can produce, which is a far superior view of the world than what a single journalist and her editor are able and willing to offer.
It should go without saying that one can’t believe everything one reads, but I’ll say it preemptively anyway; it’s equally true that you can’t believe what the mainstream media and publications tell you, either – everything requires evidence and discernment.
David Henderson
Sep 3 2024 at 4:14pm
Well said, Andre.
Having said that, I’ll also say that I often find X confusing. People often assume you know context and sometimes that context is hard to find. Which is why I don’t use X much. I agree, though, that sometimes it helps to see the back and forth, especially among informed people.
George Selgin
Sep 8 2024 at 12:09am
Newcomb was also a very early quantity theorist, whose version of the equation of exchange long predated Fisher’s, and the greatest astronomer of his era. His critique of the Union’s methods of financing the Civil War is superb.
Comments are closed.