Death by Cafe Standards
According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.
How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States -- and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shush()* Statism really DOES work!
According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.
How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States -- and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shush()* Statism really DOES work!
The fact there was a housing bubble in the first place proves Keynesian economics is a spectacular failure.
The fact that none of your Keynesian "basic math economists" saw it coming proves that Keynesian economics is a spectacular failure.
The fact that your economy has yet to recover 6 looong years later from said Keynesian-engineered crisis proves Keynesian economics is a spectacular failure.
The fact you are even calling for a 'stimulus' (in 2008, or now) begging the government to invest at a negative return where no private investment capital will go, accentuates Keynesian economics is a spectacular failure. If the US economy was fertile investment ground, the economy would be flooded with capital -- far above your piddly 'stimulus'. It is that simple, you dumb fuck socialist.
The fact that most products Americans buy and consume are made in foreign countries (see current US trade deficit with China) proves that your entire statist ideology is a spectacular clusterfuck.
Keynesian economics fails on so many levels it is amazing we are even having this conversation.
The fact that you are forced to create these infantile strawman ("Hiroshima, hahaha") to make your patently retarded ideology seem even somewhat sensible, is hilarious!
"I'm an economist" :hahahahah
You are the one who posted the picture to prove that Keynesian economics was a failure, lol. I just find it hilarious how desperate you are to prove something that doesn't exist that you will even show a prime example of Keynesian economics as your evidence that Keynesian economics is a failure.
And the only reason I say Keynesian economics is because it's something you can understand the context of. No one in the developed world uses Keynes work or cares what Keynes said these days. We have much smarter and more evolved economists that understand things Keynes could not even comprehend at his time. Was Keynes the start of what we understand now, of course, but he is long gone in terms of understanding economics and monetary systems.
I have already shown you that nothing we are doing right now is "Keynesian engineering". In fact even your buddy Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser says we haven't nearly spent enough.
The funny thing is the economy is still growing, we are much better off than they were in the Great Depression thanks to our knowledge of monetary systems and economics. Things aren't going "great" but they definitely aren't failing like you claim they are. I'm sorry we don't have flying cars or magic spaceships right now, Keynes apologizes for that, lol.
And it shows.
"The bottom line for housing is that the concerns we used to hear about the possibility of a devastating collapse—one that might be big enough to cause a recession in the U.S. economy—while not fully allayed have diminished. Moreover, while the future for housing activity remains uncertain, I think there is a reasonable chance that housing is in the process of stabilizing, which would mean that it would put a considerably smaller drag on the economy going forward."-- Janet Yellen
Hi, we're fratfraud and Janet Yellen...and we think we're smarter than the market. Don't ask us exactly how or why, we just are.
:laughingb
