mark hartless

mark hartless 2 days, 16 hours ago on Our View: City, Yampa Valley Housing Authority partnership a win

Fred is, of course, exactly right. When the private sector goofs, it pays. When gubbamint or its entities goof they get a do over.

0

mark hartless 4 days, 16 hours ago on Dave Peregoy: Historical atrocities

If oil was the common denominator in our problems, there would be a solution at hand.

America is rich in oil, natural gas, and most other resources.

Simply ignore religious environmentalists , ramp up production, and we would quickly become independant of these rouge nations.

The truth is, becomming energy independent scares religious environmentalists more than Holy Water. Sucking up to terrorists is humiliating, but it offends these religious environmentalists less than having an endless supply of energy at their feet...

0

mark hartless 5 days, 1 hour ago on Our View: Pot experiment seems to be working

Let's say Ford, Dodge and Cheverolet sell and equal amount of trucks -- a COMBINED 3 million pickup trucks each year; and let's say they are the ONLY manufacturers. That means that each one of those 3 manufacturers sell 1 million trucks each.

Now let's say some upstart named "Wedel Motors" starts producing comparable quality pickup trucks at competetive prices. Only an idiot would expect Wedel Motors to sell 1 million trucks, and only an idiot would expect the other 3 to continue to sell 1 million trucks each.

The total market for trucks was 3 million annually and that's not gonna change simply by adding another manufacturer. Devide the annual demand (3 million trucks) by 4 and we can expect that each manufacturer will now sell only 750,000 trucks each year (in a static economy, of course).

Many people think that if 1 company sells 1 million "widgets" annually, that they can start a company and sell 1 million "widgets" too. All things being equal, this is FALSE. There is a finite market for "widgets". The inverse is also true. No "new" tax money is created by convincing people to spend their $$$ on something new, if doing so causes them to spend less on something they used to purchase. Nevertheless, to a great extent this is how the fallacy of "increased revenue streams" is sold to the public.

Nobody is saving up money under their mattress waiting for the day that pot becomes legal, or for when some new "widget" is invented. Most everyone's cash is already "hand-to-mouth" and, thus, already in the tax stream.

If heroine were made legal tomorrow and lots of folks went down to the heroine dispensary, they would be spending money there which they were ALREADY going to spend on something which gets taxed anyway. Can micro-economic patterns trump this rule? Yes, but as a nation, and as a world economy there is "nothing new under the sun".

The one person you should never try to fool is YOURSELF.

0

mark hartless 5 days, 20 hours ago on Our View: Pot experiment seems to be working

Charles Manson will never come close to killing as many people as the Khmer Rouge, so that makes Manson good?

I'm just saying, there's more to the numbers than just blindly assuming or blindly accepting that every tax dollar ascribed to legal pot is a NEWLY FOUND tax dollar.

0

mark hartless 5 days, 22 hours ago on Our View: Pot experiment seems to be working

Where did much of the illegal pot come from that used to be used in Colorado ? It was grown right here in Colorado, and right here in Steamboat Springs.

What did the people do with the $$$ they earned growing illegal pot in Colorado and in Steamboat? They spent it on legal merchandise locally; merchandise like groceries, new cars, lift tickets, mtn bikes, you name it.

Also, where are people getting the $$$$ to buy their legal pot?? From the same cookie jar they used to buy the illegal pot, much of which was grown right here. What other source of $$$ would people who never smoked pot when it was illegal be using for legal pot purchases? They would be using $$$ that would otherwise be going into the tax stream anyway by being spent in Wal Mart, on beer, on a new snowmobile, or a mtn bike, etc.

Therefore, the only tax revenue that is being "generated" by legal pot sales is that which directly replaces pot sales of illegal and out-of-state- produced pot. Only an idiot believes that robbing peter to pay paul is a way to "generate" new income.This is nothing but a lie which was used to sell this nonesense to the voters who haven't the economic wherewithal to fight themselves out of a wet paper bag.

The actual tax-boost, after calculating the losing offsets to other industries (because after all nobody's salary has increased) is probably smoewhere south of HALF what is being touted.

Furthermore, one needn't be too imaginative to see that, since the state has foolishly condoned the practice, it will be held increasingly liable for the consequences of this behavior-- drug rehab, counseling, legal fees, etc, which will likely eat up the remaining half of the "generated" revenue.

Add to this the cost of the litigation facing the state from it's neighbors and the picture grows dimmer still.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 1 day ago on Bob Stevenson: Criticisms unfounded

Oil, Eric.

Stability for the world's oil-fields. You know this.

The oil and gas in your vehicle parked right now in Routt County, Colorado came from the oil-fields of that region, or it's price, as a fungible, is affected by the oil output from that region.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 1 day ago on 180-unit condo development proposed south of Walgreens

I think a better word would be "resents". Neil fundamentally resents free market capitalism. He subscribes to the notion that some have "won life's lottery" while others, helpless to achieve without assistance, remain under the thumbs of the oppressors, which is anyone with enough motivation to spearhead their own success.

He is not alone. Many resent and fear change, and they couple their fear and resentment of change to those who drive us forward into that change. Easy targets for that resentment are realtors and developers who can be seen as "messing up" their quaint little town and life... as if realtors and developers were responsible for population growth and that new populations desire to live indoors... and so on it goes with these folks.

It's really quite selfish when it's boiled down. "I got my little town and my little roof over my head and my coal-fired light switch and my coal-fired ski lift and my groceries at my favorite little mom and pop store, etc-- now everyone else can do without, 'cause the change will destroy my little world which I wrap myself in like a blanket."

When you couple the negative emotions of feeling like your world is being changed without your permission to the fact that people are making some good money on spearheading that change, you get one really angry, resentful little group of "tolerant" folks.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 2 days ago on 180-unit condo development proposed south of Walgreens

"New developments like these are good for jobs and good for the community" really in what way please explain?

Someone could explain it to you, as they have numerous times before, but they can't UNDERSTAND it for you.

0

Prev