Finally! Rational thought.

All this blatant envy made me feel like I needed to change this forum to the "Marxist 996 Forum".

Look at it this way, if there were more people like this sheik, demand would be high. Because of high demand and limited supply (of air shipping) prices would go up. Pilots would make more money, ground crews loading the car would make more money, airplane mechanics who would need to service the equipment would make more money and so on down the line.

Now, if the "greenies" would stop deamonizing oil exploration and whining about "Big Oil" and actually work to solve a problem, maybe we'd get somewhere.

Maybe the Sheik lost a bet or something? Ever think of that?

 

I think everyone agrees that there is a more optimal and economical way of taking care of a lambo oil change in the Middle east.
On the other hand..this is money being pumped into the economy...whats wrong with that?
I think ppl are disgusted because an "oil change" is a relatively low $$ item and seeing someone spend $40,000 on it just pisses people off. This figure again is relative.
If all on this forum had a minimum net worth of $50 mil...then $40,000 will probably not mean much...chances are you are spending $40,000 on some other "not so optimal" luxuries.
Now if you have a net worth upwards are $50 mil and are spending a lot of your time and $$ on making sure that people in Darfur get food to eat....then please congratulate yourself...you are truly a better man for trying a make a difference.

 

Sorry, that isn't a rational thought. No to rational minds at least. The jet would have certainly flown, but carrying more weight, which means more fuel that it would have otherwise have used.

So yes, he DID create a larger carbon footprint. Look, I have no problem with people having more money, bigger house etc. They did something someone else didn't do/have/think. Kudos to that.

But the earth, its atmosphere, is a shared and limited resource (unlike his personal money) and there ought to be limits on how much waste each individual can throw up in the atmosphere. I can't load up a truck of toxic chemicals and start dumping them on a beach - just because I can afford to.

And sticking labels like "greenies" don't solve the problem. I wish but they don't. Acta non verba - that's what helps the environment.

Finally, about his actions bringing in more business for the airline industry and the Lamborghini showroom - well, the same money could spend more directly into those businesses. Remember, the problem is not the amount of money spent. It is the side effect - the amount of pollution his actions cause - that is the problem.

 

It is also rational to assume that if the car was not on the plane...it would have been something else. I am sure the airline would carry and charge for whatever it could within the size/weight limits. Could have been food, medicine or whatever else.
Everything you do has a carbon footprint....and this will include the food you will eat tonight. Making the sheikh a poster child for what is wrong with our environment is naive and small thinking IMHO.

 

This thread has been entertaining. I just want to sell him something. Maybe I could sell him some air for his tires. Yea he needs Nitrogen especially formulated for Lamborghini. That’s got to b worth 30k. Now let me find his e-mail address or PO Box number.

 

Sids911, your view point is so far off base that I don't know where to start. I'm sure you are a nice guy and mean well, but you seem to think that your "we must save the environment" argument is the right course and every other view must be conceeded. This is where we differ and you are in fact incorrect.

This whole "carbon footprint" thing is nonsense. The earth was warmer during the time that Dinosaurs roamed the earth and men could not be blamed for this. Al Gore's assertion that an increase in carbon emmissions leads to an increase in temperature has been widely disproven.

I can't understand why you "environmental" folks are so anti-average man. Your environmental stance (which is usally not fact based) causes prices to increase so that only elites like yourself can enjoy average things. Look at places like San Francisco, Boulder Colorado, LA, etc. Prices to live in these places have escalated to such a high level that the only people who can enjoy living there are the super wealthy. How does this benefit society?

As for "loading up chemicals and dropping them on the beach", nice straw man! That is against the law because it is either littering or illegally disposing of a hazardous waste. It is not against the law to legally and properly create and dispose of hazardous material. For example, dumping paint on the beach will land you in jail. Disposing of paint through you local town or county program is acceptable.

I can remember when they said that glass bottles were bad because they were heavy and that trucks delivering them used more gas and created more pollution. The world was told to switch to plastic. Now, we are being told about the dangers to the environment caused by plastic in landfills, not to mention that it does not degrade when the "greenies" go hiking and leave it on public lands. So back to glass is what we are told.

Go to smaller vehicles so that we can save the evironment! They cried. Then, those who could afford it continued to buy SUV's and when involved in an accident with one of these fuel efficient vehicles, they would kill the occupants of the econo-car. So the "greenies" buy "carbon credits" (what a scam) to displace the damage they are doing by being selfish and driving the Range Rover. Guess who owns the company that sells the Carbon Credits? You guessed it...........Al Gore!

Again, I'm not trying to be inflamatory here, it's just that your view of "we must save the environment" though well intentioned, is actually why society needs to be saved from the green lobby.

I'm done.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ment/HL758.cfm

 

Interesting information.
The sky is falling. Not! The sky is falling. Not!
We couldn’t destroy the Earth if we wanted, maybe all life on Earth but not the Earth. Then 100 million years later life comes back. Best we leave a note of do and don’t for the next tenants.

 

You assume that cargo is at its capacity limits. It is not.

 

It is logical to assume that if there was substitute cargo(at the right price)h and if the airline is in it "for profit", then something else would have flown instead.
How are you able to categorically state that the cargo is not at its limits and substitute cargo is not available as well?

 

I believe that Sids911's point is that our hypothetical sheik's actions has caused a negative externality on everyone else. It's like the fellow that blows tobacco smoke in someone else's face. He gets the benefits of his cigarette but at a cost to those around him. Society bears the cost of the sheik's pollution and his actions are seen as irrational and wasteful.

Really? I guess it depends on which body of research you consider to be more credible. I doubt you have the scientific credentials to conclude that global warming science "has been widely disproven." What I hope we can agree on, is that flying a car half-way across the globe does emit pollution, and that cumulative air pollution imposes a cost on society.

The "average man" has more pressing concerns like making his credit-card payment than being self-actualized enough to behave in a manner that is most beneficial to the long-term interests of society. It is up to the elite, to define the rules, regulations and standards of behavior that will achieve an optimal societal result.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this argument. Certainly, there is a strong correlation between a society's level of wealth and its awareness of the impact of pollution, so you would tend to see more wealthy cities in Europe and America have a higher level of environmental awareness. Further, a producer of pollution SHOULD be taxed/penalized to reduce their detrimental impact on others. Going back to the tobacco example, smokers should pay higher prices on their pack of cigarrettes because the rest of society shouldn't be burdened with higher health-care costs. So imposing higher costs on producers of negative externalities does benefit society.

Based on your earlier arguments, these laws are detrimental because it would be far cheaper (and hence benefit the "average man") to just allow people to dump chemicals on the beach. You can't have it both ways.

 

I work with logistics. There is always seasonality and excess capacity built in.

Even when you consider passenger flights, planes don't fly full. Why do you think airlines don't just drop the price of tickets to the point that they fill their planes with passengers?

 

I think if prices remained high, new entrants would enter the market and the price would reach equilibrium once again. Further, there will not be any relationship between high demand for logistics and the wages of low-skilled jobs such as ground crew. There is no reason for excess profit to trickle down to the workers because wages are already artificially inflated from union protection.

 

[QUOTE]Come on people. The Lambo dealership and all of its employs are greatful the Sheikh bought the car. The charter service or air freight business and all its employs are greatful for the business. The businesses that make money off this guy's extravagance are all greatful for him and so are their families who can afford to send their kids to better schools or live on a higher level.
[\QUOTE]

There is a common misunderstanding that people who *spend* their money are doing society more good than people who *save* their money. In fact, people who save their money should be considered more altruistic.

Consider the person that earns $100, spends $60 and puts $40 in a bank.

He has essentially created $100 of value to society but only uses $60 of that in goods and services for himself. The $40 placed in the bank can be lent out to other people who need the money to finance their houses, cars, televisions or expand their businesses.

So in essence, the person who saves his money is also benefitting the economy.

 

Nice link.

 

+1