by Brad Templeton, ForbesAugust 21, 2024.
Quote:
The numbers mean Caltrain was burning 25 million gallons of diesel a year. But today, Caltrain has 590,000 boardings a year and an average of 24,600 on weekdays. That means 3.5 liters of diesel per ride, on average, equivalent to 4 liters of petrol. So each round trip burned the equivalent of 8 liters of fuel per person. 30 miles round trip in a car with an average load of 1.5 people, less than 1 gallon per person in a Prius, and 2 gallons per person in a large SUV. Even if each passenger was given a personal Hummer H2 to drive, they would only burn 4.6 liters on that round trip. If diesel Caltrain were a car, it would rank as one of the top polluters per passenger.
by David Inserra, Cato at LibertyAugust 29, 2024.
Quote:
Brazilian courts have now officially threatened to ban X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil because X will not remain silent or provide information about people who criticize the current government, including people living in the United States.
Also:
Also, there is now talk that Brazil may be targeting Starlink and SpaceX, which is partially owned by Elon Musk. If true, this could mean that some US companies unrelated to the investors are being targeted by Brazilian legal authorities.
by Timothy Taylor, Conversable EconomistAugust 29, 2024.
Quote:
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909) is not well known today, but he was a prominent economist at the time: as one example, he was active in the debates that led to the founding of the American Economic Association back in 1885. In July. 1893, he published the essay “The Problem of Economic Education” for the eminent (both then and now!) Quarterly Journal of Economics. The essay argues that there are fundamental economic theories—the most famous of which is from 1893—that are largely unknown or ignored by the general public. What I found thought-provoking is that the value of these details seems to be unknown to much of the public, and to many policymakers, here in the third decade of the 21st century.
The answer is from Newcomb:
Before such a thing as the science of economics was known the theory of the “balance of trade” arose. The basic tenet of this theory was that trade was good or bad for a nation according to whether the value of its exports exceeded or decreased the value of its imports. Accordingly, in the nomenclature of the time, a negative balance of trade or credit situation meant one in which imports should exceed exports, and a favorable balance vice versa. The immediate result of this theory was that the trade between the two nations would not be profitable to both, because the amounts each sent to the other would not be greater than what they 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 profitable to both; that people should not buy or sell unless what they get is worth more than what they give in exchange; and that what is true of the individual, in this case, is true of the nation. And yet the combined arguments of economists for a hundred years have not been enough to change the terminology or change the views of commercial nations on this subject. … The terms “good” and “unfavorable,” as used in commercial considerations, still mean what they did before Adam Smith was born. We may tremble at the political fate of any president who should publicly insist that our exports will, in the long run, greatly balance our imports, no matter what policy we adopt; and that, if this equilibrium should be disturbed, the advantage would be on the side of the nation which imports large quantities from other countries.
Source link