Why do you think Republicans would institute an export ban? Trump has been touting every export deal he can (especially promises to purchase petroleum), he has even been measuring import/export levels as if foreign countries are cheating the U.S. if they export more to the U.S. than they import from it.

I am not confident that the Democrats would even implement such a ban, as they get pretty big campaign donations from the oil industry as well.

It also wouldn't work. The US has refineries which can only run on various foreign import grades of oil.

The US produces oil which goes to foreign refineries for the same reason.

The effect of "banning exports" is non obvious.

Conversely not starting a war with Iran had some really obvious benefits that every previous administration recognized.

While they have been under heavy sanctions, they have largely gotten around this, for example by trading with China (who have just said they will not abide by our "unilateral sanctions"). So their oil has still been going to service global needs, and its lack will still have an effect (as will the missing Russian oil products).

Oddly, since the Iranians (and Russians) have been selling their oil products at a discount, they were actually having the effect of holding down the price of petroleum prior to the war. No idea about how much in real terms, but...

I wouldn't say largely, but yes the sanctions were never absolute. Enough to make Iran alone not a big issue.

You have started out with the assumption that these higher efficiency tires are worse gripping. However, the article states that the manufacturer-supplied tires are generally more efficient (in order to get the milage numbers they advertise), and that it is the third-party replacements that are worse.

So either the manufacturer-supplied originals are more dangerous than replacement tires, or your argument is missing something.

The rest of your quasi-questions all would need to be evaluated to see if they are true or not... and one would hope that at least some of them were evaluated when creating the policy. You seem to be assuming they were not, without any real evidence one way or the other.

> So either the manufacturer-supplied originals are more dangerous than replacement tires

There's 3 main components to tire performance: efficiency, grip and longevity. OEM tires optimize for the first. They can compromise on grip and longevity. Most often I've experienced is the latter. So yes, OEM tires are "worse" in some aspects as replacements.

"the assumption that higher efficiency tires are worse gripping" This is fact not assumption. Ironically you are the one who made an assumption here. People who don't understand a topic should not attempt to regulate it based on assumptions.

> You have started out with the assumption that these higher efficiency tires are worse gripping.

Generally speaking, with tires you are trading off wear, grip, efficiency, and cost, among other things (like off-road durability which is irrelevant here). When you make a tire roll more efficiently, it tends to make it perform worse at gripping the road in all sorts of conditions, especially adverse conditions like rain and snow. I am speaking in generalities because there are thousands of tires from dozens of manufacturers and this is not a law of physics, but it is generally true in practice. Tires today are worlds better than tires of 50 years ago but this is still true to a first approximation.

So yes, I am making that assumption.

> So either the manufacturer-supplied originals are more dangerous than replacement tires, or your argument is missing something.

The tires that come on your car from the factory are optimized for one thing and one thing only: for the OEM to sell you the car.

OEM tires are famously (infamously?) often worse in terms of wear and grip than the equivalent tire available aftermarket because they are cheaper to produce (bringing down sticker price), roll more efficiently (helping them hit EPA fuel economy numbers), and quieter on test drives. Having a cheaper tire that is quieter on test drives and hits EPA numbers that are competitive with comparable models helps sell the car.

Higher treadwear doesn't help the OEM sell the car because your test drive isn't long enough to drive the car for 60,000 miles let alone 600. Higher grip doesn't either, as average buyers won't notice tire grip on a 15 minute drive on dry pavement and enthusiasts will replace the tires anyway. With the exception of certain enthusiast vehicles, if running a cheaper tire from the factory gets the price of the car from $40,000 to $39,950, the OEM will do it, even if the buyer has to replace the tire 20,000 miles sooner and it doesn't grip as well on dry pavement or in rain or snow.

> The rest of your quasi-questions all would need to be evaluated to see if they are true or not... and one would hope that at least some of them were evaluated when creating the policy. You seem to be assuming they were not, without any real evidence one way or the other.

I'm not sure what makes my questions "quasi", I'm just having a friendly conversation about tires on the internet.

There's almost nothing in human history with a worse record of causing unintended consequences than government regulation, even well-intentioned (cookie banners?), so I think I say charitably with some basis in historical fact that governments have a spotty record when it comes to understanding and predicting the second-order effects of the regulations they make. I ask my questions with that understanding. And I say all this as someone who is broadly sympathetic to and often in favor of many government regulations that reduce CO2 emissions and make cars more efficient. I enjoy clean air as much as the next person.

Your first statement is pure opinion (and a prejudiced one at that), so I will skip that.

Your second statement is a question worth investigating: why should the government be involved here? The simple answer is that the market has not moved for the problem of tire efficiency. There is a quote in the article that goes to the heart of this: “It’s very difficult or impossible for consumers to know how energy efficient their tires are going to be, as a result, many people unknowingly buy tires that cost them more money than necessary”. Large imbalances (like this) in information are one of the things markets do not work well in.

So the solution here is to (gradually) put a floor under how inefficient tires can be. This is one way to solve the market inefficiency (since it treated this as an externality).

I would rather have had them use an approach more like the EnergyStar system, where it requires a simple rating for the efficiency, including average savings and where this sits in comparison with competitors (in that range). I would even add to that a green/yellow/red system that would be allowed to slide the ranges over time to reflect what the market can currently produce.

Please cite and explain what those significant issues are. As it is your post is a "trust me bro", and is not contributing to the conversation.

I agree that this proposal would not solve all of the problems; absent more changes you would still see the creep up of healthcare costs at too high a rate. But slashing $1 trillion off of a $5.3 trillion costs is a pretty big bite of the apple. Even if you go with the more conservative $663 number, that is still a great first step. And both of those numbers are after adding the costs of covering currency uncovered people. So we are collectively getting more for significantly less money.

It does this by eliminating a very inefficient layer of our current system (insurance companies), and by having there replacement for that (the government) negotiate on drug prices (how much savings there is the reason there are two estimates). Currently insurance companies almost have a negative incentive to push down drug prices (their profits are limited to a percentage of total spending, and most large companies are pushing against that limit).

Most of the cost control pressures in our current system come out of Medicare/Medicade, and this would widen that out to the whole system. That in turn would wedge open the door to pushing on the other drivers of the cost spirals: hospital administration, new expensive drugs that are not worth the additional costs, doctor salaries ballooning, and the broken system between malpractice insurance and dysfunctional enforcement against malpractice.

I understand that theres an argument for removing private insurance companies in favor of thr government can cut costs. It can also increase them.

I'd argue that the primary issue with insurance costs today is the lack of market competition, obscurity of what costs and prices are, and government protections that prevent insurance companies from being legally liable for many of the problems they cause.

Corruption and monopolistic practices is a big deal in healthcare, for example. We'd be better off, in my opinion, by solving that rather than killing an entire private industry and hoping our government can continue to do it better indefinitely.

And then more and more providers would opt out of taking Medicare at all, so we would quickly end up back where we started.

No, you just make it compulsory to accept Medicare.

Actually I thought that was already the case.

The "just" is doing some heavy lifting there. Clinicians aren't required to participate in Medicare; in fact they have to go through a complex process in order to join. And there's no way that such a mandate could ever pass Congress, or be effectively enforced. Let's focus on reforms that are actually achievable in the real world.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/enrollment-renewal/providers-su...

Seems to me you're more interested in finding problems than solutions.

Every other developed country has managed it so why don't you look to see how they achieved it?

Wouldn't you like to never worry about healthcare costs again?

From a quick look, these are very similar to the heat pump water heaters that are starting to become common in the SF Bay Area (it looks like gas water heaters will be banned in the next few years, so people are hopping on the band wagon).

At a glance the only difference is the ones I am seeing have the heat exchangers in the body of the unit (so take the heat from the room where the tank is), whereas these "eco-cute" look like they put that outside the home.

I worked for Fetch Robotics (now defunct), and there were a bunch of people (especially in management) who would constantly reference the Mean Girls "stop trying to make fetch happen" line in company-wide slideshows.

A couple of times it was cute... but they took it too far in my opinion. And sadly the company was bought out, and now they too have decides to "stop trying to make Fetch happen" (yes, officially it was bought out, but not for the actual robots part).

> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?

In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.

And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?

the argument is productivity gains are increasingly driven by technological advances, which are spurred by capital investment. for example, if a company purchases software that increases their accountants productivity by 5x, should those accountants immediately be paid 4-5x more?

I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve labor of those gains, it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function, which implies some level of redistribution by the state is needed.

> it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function

This is becoming less and less true, because now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners, to the point that a good jobs report is bad news because it means the fed are less likely to drop rates and through that inflate asset prices.

> now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners

absolutely true. I am not convinced that consumption can be wholly fueled by asset owners though.

idk, if we look at a lathe, where the factory bought the lathe, this makes some amount of sense (although a closet full of idle lathes isn't worth as much as a factory full of lathe operators making stuff on lathes).

a saas subscription is (per user) probably cheaper than a lathe, easier to stop investment into (no need to resell to recoup some of the loan, just quit paying). A closet full of unused saas subscriptions is worth even less than a closet full of idle lathes.

And yet, these subscriptions make the knowledge worker even more productive (in dollar amounts) than a lathe operator.

obviously a knowledge worker can just subscribe to claude and start building, but building in a vacuum isn't worth a lot more than the closet of saas subscriptions. It's a mutal dependency, and it's the combined efforts of the team that results in this tremendous value add. I wonder if there isn't something there that is above and beyond the capital input and the risks associated with deploying that capital.

But maybe that's an argument for workers of the world uniting and founding their own companies together

I live in the Bay Area, and I think this needs a little more exploration. You are correct both in that PG&E spreads the costs around the state, and that San Francisco (and a number of other Bay Area cities) is exploring creating it's own utility and removing itself from PG&E (like Palo Alto already has done).

It is a near certainty that power rates would be cheaper for these cities if they removed themselves from the PG&E pool. Right now they look to be on the hook to help pay for all of the (long deferred) power line under-grounding that the recent state wildfires have proven is necessary. Much of that under-grounding is to get power into remote locations, and does nothing for most people (other than the implicit reduction of wildfires, which is a complicated subject).

But there is a second side to that coin: without the big cities full of people (which are relatively cheap to service), all of the needed under grounding costs are going to fall to rural California areas, and they simply don't have the population or finances to pay for that.

Personally I am in favor of some mixture. I would make the utilities all completely non-profit, with no investors to demand returns (the current system has perverse incentives). I would also start looking at some drastic limitations on where the public pays for power lines. Yes that would make some rural locations financial impossible to draw power to, but that would probably be a part of a real-plolitik re-evaluation of where people can afford to live. This is probably going to line up pretty closely with pushing people out of fire-prone places that should also be pretty much un-insurable anyways.

Why should we subsidize sprawl & economically unsustainable areas to live?

That said, this is only part of the picture. The other big part is that California has very aggressive tort law and CA juries basically view PG&E as a giant piggy bank.