Brad Templeton ForbesAugust 21, 2024.
excerpt:
This means that Caltrain was burning about 25 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. But today, Caltrain has about 590,000 rides per year, with an average of 24,600 rides on a weekday. That means an average of 3.5 gallons of diesel fuel per ride, which is the equivalent of 4 gallons of gasoline. So, a round trip of 30 miles each way in a car with an average of 1.5 passengers burns less than 1 gallon per person in a Prius and less than 2 gallons per person in a large SUV. If each passenger was given a Hummer H2, they would only burn 4.6 gallons per round trip. If diesel Caltrain were a car, it would be one of the most polluting vehicles per passenger.
By David Inserra Cato of FreedomAugust 29, 2024.
excerpt:
A Brazilian court has officially threatened to shut down X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil for failing to silence or provide information on individuals critical of the current government, including those living in the United States.
and:
There are also rumors that Brazil may now be targeting Starlink and SpaceX, which are partly owned by Elon Musk. If true, this would mean other unrelated U.S. companies and investors are being hit by Brazilian law enforcement.
By Timothy Taylor A conversational economistAugust 29, 2024.
excerpt:
Simon Newcomb (1835-1909) is little known today, but was a very prominent economist in his day. For example, He took an active part in the debates that led to the founding of the American Economic Association in 1885.In July, 1893, he published an essay on “Problems of Economic Education,” addressed to a public as eminent as any of his time. Quarterly Economic JournalThis essay argues that fundamental insights in economics that were well known in 1893 are largely unknown or ignored by the general public. What got me thinking is that many of these insights seem to remain unknown not only to much of the general public but also to many policymakers alike here, in the third decade of the 21st century.
And from Newcomb:
The theory of the “balance of trade” arose before economics was even known. Its basic tenet was that trade was favorable or unfavorable to a country depending on whether its exports were greater or less than its imports. Thus, in the terminology of the time, an unfavorable or credit position meant that its imports exceeded its exports, and a favorable balance meant the opposite. A direct consequence of this view was that trade between two countries could never be favorable to both, because the value of what one exports to the other cannot exceed the value it receives from the other. …
For a century and a half economists have preached and expounded the doctrine that trade between two nations cannot be unfavorable to both, that people do not buy or sell unless what they receive is of greater value than what they give in exchange, and that what is true of individuals in this respect is also true of nations. But the combined discussion of a century of economists has not been sufficient to change the terminology on this subject or to modify the ideas of commercial nations. … The terms “advantageous” and “unfavorable,” as applied to the balance of trade, still have the same meaning today as they did before Adam Smith was born. We may well fear the political fate of any statesman who openly asserts that, whatever policy he may adopt, in the long run his exports will be in substantial equilibrium with his imports, and that if this equilibrium is disturbed, the country which imports the greater value will be at an advantage.
