New Math

By -
From Painters & Allied Trades Journal (IUPAT), April-June 2008, p.39: "Did you know slowing down can save on fuel during your RV vacation? Don't let high gas prices stop you from enjoying the open road with your family. First slow down--each 5mph you go over 60mph, you add about $0.10 more per gallon of fuel."

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy5:24 PM

    I'm not sure I get your title. Are you saying there is something nonsensical in this statement?

    (I thought you were going to say, "If you go 0mph, you don't pay anything in fuel costs.")

    Incidentally, this is why the Democratic congresswoman yesterday wanted to lower federal speed limit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy5:25 PM

    Actually, I think there are just state speed limits, but the federal gov't withholds highway funds or something to get its way. Or at least, it did that in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah2:37 AM

    It says you spend ten cents more per gallon of fuel -- implying driving faster drives your fuel price up!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy9:30 AM

    Eh, OK fair enough. But I think they were trying to put it in terms the average motorist would understand. Do you want them to say, "Assuming you don't change your destinations, then by driving an extra 5mph you consume an extra x gallons per 100 miles, which translates into an extra $y spent per 100 miles traveled"?

    If they said that nobody would have any idea how much money that translated into. So you're right, rather than saying, "You will use 2.5% more gallons per trip," they instead say, "You will spend 10 cents more per gallon."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy9:31 AM

    Oops I should have said, "...they will have no idea how big a deal that extra $y per 100 miles is, since they don't know what the baseline is without doing some math and looking up their fuel efficiency in their driver's manual."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wabulon8:06 PM

    Arrrgghhhhh!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more