Right on Cue, Lead Wheel Weight Ban Proposed

[Matts_12GS]

Don't quite see how it's "hysteria" to say "we have a known toxic substance being introduced into the environment in unknown amounts and we should figure out if this is poisoning us", but that's just me.

 

Don't quite see how it's "hysteria" to say "we have a known toxic substance being introduced into the environment in unknown amounts and we can ensure this is not poisoning us at a relatively low cost by switching to a non-toxic substitute", either.

 

The argument of the anti-global-warming (and pro-lead-wheel-weight) folks seems to be that until there's 100% consensus on an issue, we shouldn't do anything. And of course, they can always find one (usually industry-sponsored) person to disagree, so we never act. If we applied that reasoning to tobacco, people would still be able to buy it. Oh, wait . . .

 

Step 1. Get rid of the lawyers

Step 2.

Step 3. Profit...

 

The hair splitting and semantics around this is amazing. And is prolonging the resolution of any issue that may actually exist...

 

There are plenty of varieties of decaf that taste just as good... go explore you guys...

[russell_bynum]

So, you would prefer government inaction until it can be absolutely certain of the precise nature of the problem.

The report doesn't indicate that there's any problem, other than a certain amount of lead is unaccounted for. One might make an inference that if the lead is unaccounted for then it must be causing some kind of environmental contamination, but that conclusion involves a lot of guesswork. Perhaps the missing lead does present a real environmental issue and if so it would be a good idea to determine the nature and extent of the problem (again, if any), but wanting to see at least some additional data is not the same as insisting on absolute precision, rather just something beyond pure conjecture to justify the expense. It is possible that the money being spent on this concern might provide more beneficial environmental protections if directed elsewhere. Since monies for environmental protection aren't unlimited shouldn't there be an interest in seeing them spent in an as efficient and directed a way as possible?

 

Exactly.

 

I'm not looking for "five nines" or "absolute proof". We know some weights fall off and some are not disposed of correctly. What I haven't seen (and please show me chapter and verse if I've just missed it somehow) is some sort of data showing lead contamination in drinking water, harmful quantities of lead dust in the air, etc where that lead came from wheel weights.

 

 

Ken...as to your question: Isn't reduction of lead a good thing even without specific data? Sure it is. But there's a cost to everything. Even in the best economic times, I'd like to see my tax dollars and my personal dollars being spent where they do the most good. In trying economic times like this, that's even more important. Is it worth our time and money to ban lead wheel weights or is that a small issue and our money could be better spent elsewhere?

[Ken H.]

the benefit of any proposed action needs to be weighed against its cost.

No it doesn’t, no it doesn’t, no it doesn’t!

 

That’s one of our problems with society these days (IMHO of course) – The concept that the only way to determine the appropriateness of any action is to index it to the dollar. (Or whichever currency.) Not all human actions, good or bad, can be quantified based on what they cost in a currency. There are some things humans should do regardless of the cost. (I’m not saying this specific issue is to that extreme, I’m just ranting about the principle in general that everything can be judged for its merits based on a $ number.)

[David]

I understand (and embrace) that in the context of personal relationships, but I don't understand how exactly to make that work in the context of a business.

[russell_bynum]

the benefit of any proposed action needs to be weighed against its cost.

No it doesn’t, no it doesn’t, no it doesn’t!

 

That’s one of our problems with society these days (IMHO of course) – The concept that the only way to determine the appropriateness of any action is to index it to the dollar. (Or whichever currency.) Not all human actions, good or bad, can be quantified based on what they cost in a currency. There are some things humans should do regardless of the cost. (I’m not saying this specific issue is to that extreme, I’m just ranting about the principle in general that everything can be judged for its merits based on a $ number.)

 

Ken, you don't run your finances that way...why do you want the govt to run theirs that way?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

There are some things humans should do regardless of the cost.

 

Wow.

 

As David notes, individuals will take extreme measures in the interests of those they care about, e.g. a parent burning through their retirement fund to pay for a life-saving operation for their child.

 

But on a less personal scale, can you think of one single thing that we as a society should do, regardless of its cost?

 

Your statement permits extremes, so let's try one: for what cause would you be willing to sacrifice half of the lives on this planet, or half of the wealth? Expressed differently: for what cause would this cost be irrelevant?

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Exactly.

 

I'm not looking for "five nines" or "absolute proof". We know some weights fall off and some are not disposed of correctly. What I haven't seen (and please show me chapter and verse if I've just missed it somehow) is some sort of data showing lead contamination in drinking water, harmful quantities of lead dust in the air, etc where that lead came from wheel weights.

 

I guess I could bury my head in the sand and believe that if 2,000 tons of the things are flung onto streets and pulverized, that the lead just magically disappears.

 

You don't seem to have any problems with the hundreds of billions we've spent fighting drug usage and distribution, though I doubt you could prove to your standards that such efforts have reduced drug crime or usage, either.

 

In both cases, the legislatures of the country have seen problems based on incomplete data and decided it was necessary to act. You hate one of the acts and like the other. You need to make up your mind.

 

(Frankly, I don't really care too much about this lead problem. I don't have kids and am pretty past the point of having to worry about normal exposure to environmental lead.)

[russell_bynum]

I guess I could bury my head in the sand and believe that if 2,000 tons of the things are flung onto streets and pulverized, that the lead just magically disappears.

 

I don't believe that it "magically disappears". But can we admit that the environment has the ability to absorb some amount of lead in such a way that it doesn't pose a threat to anyone or anything? Just because we're putting lead into the environment doesn't automagically mean it is creating a heath risk. It might...and it certainly could...but we don't know if that concern is real enough to pursue yet.

 

 

In both cases, the legislatures of the country have seen problems based on incomplete data and decided it was necessary to act. You hate one of the acts and like the other. You need to make up your mind.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth...especially when they do not represent my position accurately. I don't like what we're spending on the "war on drugs" at all. I think the goal of eliminating drugs is a worthwhile one, but I think the way we're going about it is not very effective...especially for what it costs. Legalizing drugs would certainly fix some of these problems and cut costs in some areas. I'm just not entirely convinced that legalizing will not create other problems which are worse and will cost more in the long run. I'm willing to entertain the idea, but I want more information.

 

Gee....does that sound familiar?

[ghaverkamp]

Gee....does that sound familiar?

 

No. It least, it doesn't sound like you. In the one case, you prefer government action without any evidence that it will have any beneficial effect. You just don't want people using drugs.

 

In the instance in this thread, you don't want government action without evidence of any beneficial effect. You just don't care if people introduce more lead into the environment.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth...especially when they do not represent my position accurately. I don't like what we're spending on the "war on drugs" at all. I think the goal of eliminating drugs is a worthwhile one, but I think the way we're going about it is not very effective...especially for what it costs.

 

And yet, you'd continue that government action that costs lots of money (and causes lots of ancillary problems), despite its ineffectiveness, lack of proof (i.e., data) of it ever being effective, etc.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. You have stated repeatedly that we should not put a stop to our drug enforcement regime. If you had a problem with it, surely you'd be ranting about it much more than the additional couple of bucks it will cost you to buy zinc wheel weights over lead ones.

[russell_bynum]

No. It least, it doesn't sound like you. In the one case, you prefer government action without any evidence that it will have any beneficial effect. You just don't want people using drugs.

 

In the instance in this thread, you don't want government action without evidence of any beneficial effect. You just don't care if people introduce more lead into the environment.

 

Not true at all. I'd rather people not introduce lead into the environment...I'm just not yet convinced that the cost of banning lead wheel weights in CA is worth the benefit and if that's the best use of our money.

 

And yet, you'd continue that government action that costs lots of money (and causes lots of ancillary problems), despite its ineffectiveness, lack of proof (i.e., data) of it ever being effective, etc.

 

I'm not going to have the drug argument here. If you want to talk about it, start a thread in the RDOT forum. I'm very open to alternatives to what we're currently doing in the "war on drugs", I just think "legalize and all of these problems go away" is overly simplistic. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

[Ken H.]

But on a less personal scale, can you think of one single thing that we as a society should do, regardless of its cost?

Well I think there are two different ends to the spectrum...

 

There are those things that cost so little and they so simply pass the test of being believable, albeit it unscientific, that there is no defendable position against not doing them. I would put quit using lead wheel weights in that category. In the scope of the wealth that exist within the consumers of them, not using them is such a small sacrifice of one for the better (even potential betterment) of many, that it is unconscionable to not do it.

 

Then there are the things that are so great of a benefit to humanity that it is impossible to put an actual dollar number on them. Anything that saves lives on a mass scale (e.g., the cure for cancer) would be in that category for me. Preventing nuclear war, stopping global warming, things like that.

 

[russell_bynum]

But on a less personal scale, can you think of one single thing that we as a society should do, regardless of its cost?

Well I think there are two different ends to the spectrum...

 

There are those things that cost so little and they so simply pass the test of being believable, albeit it unscientific, that there is no defendable position against not doing them. I would put quit using lead wheel weights in that category. In the scope of the wealth that exist within the consumers of them, not using them is such a small sacrifice of one for the better (even potential betterment) of many, that it is unconscionable to not do it.

 

I don't see it that way (obviously). First, I'm highly suspicious of anything that the govt tries to do (These are the asshats who banned kids dirt bikes because of the lead risk of kids eating their clutch levers and batteries and stuff, remember?) On the wheel weights issue, I think they might be a problem, but before go off half-cocked passing more stupid legislation under the banner of "the environment", I'd like to see numbers. There are studies that talk about lead in paint, lead water pipes, etc and the impact of those sources of lead. But I haven't seen any that talk about wheel weights. That might mean they aren't an issue or it might just mean there haven't been any studies.

 

So...unless this is something that we think is going to do irreparable damage before we have a chance to do a study and figure out if it is a real risk, I don't see the need to rush into it. We've been using lead wheel weights an awful long time and nobody has tied them to any environmental/health problems so my feeling is that we aren't going to wreck the planet while we figure out if this is worth pursuing.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Reduce the chance of poisoning kids by 0.0000000000001% for $20 a car or something like that = a good investment.

 

But then that’s just my math.

 

And someone else's money... But then again, I suspect you are strongly in favor of dictating how OPM is used...

[Deadboy]

“Wreck the planet”, well probably no.

 

Reduce the chance of poisoning kids by 0.0000000000001% for $20 a car or something like that = a good investment.

 

But then that’s just my math.

 

Investment? It may make you all warm and fuzzy but it is hardly an investment. Want to help kids why not spend the equivalent of $20 per. car on better lunches and/or after school programs or some other proven "benefit" instead of this unproven idea...?

[russell_bynum]

“Wreck the planet”, well probably no.

 

Reduce the chance of poisoning kids by 0.0000000000001% for $20 a car or something like that = a good investment.

 

But then that’s just my math.

 

How many kids could you save by banning sports in schools? How many could you save by mandating 20mph speed limits (not to mention how much fuel we'd save)? How many people would be saved if we mandated helmets, fire-retardant suits, and HANS devices in automobiles?

 

My math can beat up your math.

[SageRider]

“Wreck the planet”, well probably no.

 

Reduce the chance of poisoning kids by 0.0000000000001% for $20 a car or something like that = a good investment.

 

But then that’s just my math.

Ken,

How many of your wheels are currently balanced using lead weights?

How many other products do you use that contain lead? Auto/motorcycle batteries?

 

[Harry_Wilshusen]

“Wreck the planet”, well probably no.

 

Reduce the chance of poisoning kids by 0.0000000000001% for $20 a car or something like that = a good investment.

 

But then that’s just my math.

 

Number of registered passenger vehicles in US: 251,000,000

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

 

Number of people under 20 in US: 85,000,000

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

 

251,000,000 x $20 = $5,200,000,000

 

85,000,000 x 0.0000000000001% = 0.00000085

 

$5,200,000,000 / 0.00000085 = $6,117,647,058,823,529

 

 

Harry

[bobbybob]

Uhhh.....this issue is much deeper than lead weights. Has anyone picked up the May issue of Cycle World and turned to page 8 ? If not, please do...then continue the discussion. The article is called "Lead Astray".

[Ken H.]

How many kids could you save by banning sports in schools? How many could you save by mandating 20mph speed limits (not to mention how much fuel we'd save)? How many people would be saved if we mandated helmets, fire-retardant suits, and HANS devices in automobiles?

There are dozens, maybe 100s of ways we could list here to help kids. But doing so is just a tactic to deflect the discussion of the topic at hand. The equivalent of, “Look! Over there!”

 

The subject at hand is lead wheel weights. And whether or not the small personal sacrifice (i.e., a couple more bucks when we buy tires) people who have vehicles would have to make is appropriate. Obviously I think yes, you think no. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Ken H.]

Ken,

How many of your wheels are currently balanced using lead weights?

How many other products do you use that contain lead? Auto/motorcycle batteries?

Well not surprisingly, at the moment they have lead type weights on them. Because honestly the pollution factor of lost weights is something I had never thought/known about until this thread popped up.

 

But rest assured, I am indeed now going to look for alternatives. I think the subject makes sense and I should participate.

 

ISFA other products, I’ve thought, given what we know about the neurological effects of it, the use of lead in general is a poor, poor idea, and as alternatives are created; they should indeed be adopted. Even if it means a battery (or whatever) cost more. (Side note – battery recycling is one of the most successful recycling initiatives ever began. And their lead is rarely released directly into the environment. So at least with regard to that one product anyway, we’ve made some significant inroads.)

 

[Deadboy]

Ken you are the one avoiding the real issue...your take on this seems to be any price paid is ok as long as it might save one life and that is simply lunacy when it comes to public policy. Like it or not we have a finite amount of time and money and it needs to be spent/allocated where it can do the most good. Using your logic (no price paid is too much) we will soon be totally broke as a society and unable to make the hard choices required. I remember years ago when a professor was telling us about what actuaries do and the reaction folks in the class had. The idea of placing a monetary value on a human life was unacceptable to lots of my classmates, and they let that get in the way of the actual discussion he was trying to get us to have.

 

All actions can and should be quantified, that is the only way to have a logical discussion about what to do/where to focus. Your real argument is that you think the value being assigned to this particular goal (no more lead wheel weights) is too low....which may or may not be true, but lacking data to back your assertion it is simply a claim with no proof….

 

 

[Ken H.]

Investment? It may make you all warm and fuzzy but it is hardly an investment.

But see you (I think) are defining [a good] “Investment” as, ‘more than a dollar returned for a dollar spent.’ But I saying if something improves human lives it is a good investment. The value of something should not always be quantified in dollars it should quantified in human betterment.

 

You can’t / society shouldn’t index every human initiative to the almighty dollar.

[smiller]

While there are always exceptions, generally a cost/benefit analysis is an essential part of public policy. It just isn't realistic to pretend otherwise.

[Deadboy]

Investment? It may make you all warm and fuzzy but it is hardly an investment.

But see you (I think) are defining [a good] “Investment” as, ‘more than a dollar returned for a dollar spent.’ But I saying if something improves human lives it is a good investment. The value of something should not always be quantified in dollars it should quantified in human betterment.

 

You can’t / society shouldn’t index every human initiative to the almighty dollar.

 

Actually I am first off questioning your assertion that this would indeed save a single human life, of which you have offered zero proof other than you "know" it will.

 

Secondly, if not a dollar cost index what index do you propose we use instead? I am open but have yet to see a better way to compare two otherwise dissimilar things in a fair and quantifiable manner...

[Ken H.]

I didn’t say “one life at all cost” I said improving (or saving) lives, plural, as a whole. Re-read my post. Little things that cost little and improve the human condition a little, and big things that cost a lot but improve the human condition a lot. Both categories are IMHO dollar priceless.

 

Of course it’s a claim (lead wheel weights lost on the road are a problem) without proof. It’s actually a claim that could never be proven. It would be impossible to specifically trace lead in some 4-year old’s system back to a wheel weight found on the road. Or even probably prove to a scientific degree that weights lost on the road increase the amount of lead in people by xx%. I said as much earlier when I said “albeit unscientific evidence.”

 

But that’s not my argument at all. My point is that we as a society shouldn’t be judging every thing we may or may not do strictly base on how much it cost in dollars. Especially when were dealing with issues (such as this one) where the cost is so relatively little that some improvement (in the amount of free lead in the environment) can be realized, no matter how small the improvement can be. There are some things of value that pass the sensibility test even if they can’t pass the scientific one.

 

We’ve lost our sense of sensibility in decision making. We attempt to judge everything only by the standard of the dollar. Which IMHO is both wrong and ultimately damaging.

 

Yes, all things can and should indeed be quantified. My objection is in only quantifying them by how many dollars they cost.

 

Oh, and BTW, I still think actuaries placing a monetary value on a human life is unacceptable!

 

But I’ve invested (pun intended!) all the time I have on beating this horse. Carry on...

 

[Deadboy]

LOL....nothing more can be said at this point, you know you are right and the facts will only get in the way.....we attempt to judge everything by the standard of the dollar because it is a unit of measure commonly accepted, just like a mile, or a kilometer...dollars are not evil or good. Likewise the value of human life is indeed quantifiable and must be considered when making public policy decisions.

 

You didn't say "one life at all cost" but you sure as hell advocate it...

 

I am sure you know motorcycles are typically less safe than cars, guess they should be outlawed as well....after all it may save lives (plural)...

[EffBee]

Investment? It may make you all warm and fuzzy but it is hardly an investment.

But see you (I think) are defining [a good] “Investment” as, ‘more than a dollar returned for a dollar spent.’ But I saying if something improves human lives it is a good investment. The value of something should not always be quantified in dollars it should quantified in human betterment.

 

You can’t / society shouldn’t index every human initiative to the almighty dollar.

 

Ken, you can't have it both ways. You say that if life is improved (even in an infinitely small way) then it is a good investment (clearly, you mean investment in DOLLARS). Then you go on to say that that the value of something should not always be quantified in DOLLARS.

 

You want DOLLARS invested but you don't want the value of the investment to be quantified in DOLLARS. No sir. An investment has a return. If the investment is in dollars, then the return is in dollars.

 

Perhaps you mean that something is a good "expenditure." Expenditures are not investments. They are simply the spending of something of value (in this case, presumably, dollars). Personal expenditures don't have to be quantified. They can be "feel good" expenditures, like a new TV, a new car, a new motorcycle, you know, frilly things that are peripheral to life. They don't have to be quantified, an objective value doesn't have to be established. It's all subjective feel good stuff.

 

Therefore, your desire to spend your money in order to feel good, should be exactly that. YOUR expenditure to feel good. Other people feel good by spending on other things, or by not spending at all. And I'm certain you're not here to tell them that what they feel good about is wrong. That's a moral judgment and I don't recall you being appointed.

[SageRider]

Originally Posted By: SageRider

Ken,

How many of your wheels are currently balanced using lead weights?

How many other products do you use that contain lead? Auto/motorcycle batteries?

Well not surprisingly, at the moment they have lead type weights on them. Because honestly the pollution factor of lost weights is something I had never thought/known about until this thread popped up.

 

But rest assured, I am indeed now going to look for alternatives.

My point is that if this issue was so worthy of your investment, you would have already removed the lead weights from your wheels (regardless of the unintended consequences such as more rubber getting deposited on the roadway, which could be another thread...) and taken them to be recycled. There would be no products incorporating lead in your personally controlled environment.

One must walk the walk before convincing me with the talk....

[Ken H.]

This thread is only a month old, I already said it was the first time I became aware of the issue, and I said that now that I know of it I intend to switch to non-lead weights.

 

It's still winter here, the bike's still in storage, but when I get it out I'm already planning to remove the tires anyway to do some other stuff. I now plan to change the weight type when I rebalance them.

 

Feel free to inspect them at the UnRally in August if you'd like.

 

Does that fulfill your demand for, "One must walk the walk" sir?

 

 

BTW a question of a more pertinent / practical nature - Does anyone know where online one can buy non-lead stick on wheel weights?

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

BTW a question of a more pertinent / practical nature - Does anyone know where online one can buy non-lead stick on wheel weights?

 

see www.patchboy.com.

 

 

[smiller]

The way I read it they're almost 2.5x more expensive?

[DavidEBSmith]

BTW a question of a more pertinent / practical nature - Does anyone know where online one can buy non-lead stick on wheel weights?

 

http://www.leadfreewheels.org/sources.shtml

 

http://patchboy.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=P&Category_Code=3-27-10

 

 

This says they're lead free:

 

http://www.myerstiresupply.com/shop/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=100&cat=Wheel+Weights

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The way I read it they're almost 2.5x more expensive?

 

Make sure you're comparing weight-to-weight: some of their zinc ones are 5 grams, rather than the somewhat standard 7-gram (1/4-ounce) lead weights.

 

Also note that zinc is not particularly environmentally-friendly, either.

[David]

Quick, look! There's a good movie!

[Ken H.]

You want DOLLARS invested but you don't want the value of the investment to be quantified in DOLLARS. No sir. An investment has a return. If the investment is in dollars, then the return is in dollars.

 

Perhaps you mean that something is a good "expenditure."

Hi Fernando,

 

I’ll concede your semantics point, but only to a point. Perhaps “expenditure” is indeed a somewhat better word than “investment,” but I don’t think the idea of measuring the spending in dollars and the results in lives, and calling positive results a good investment is totally diametrically opposing.

 

There are a lot of things in life where we spend dollars, get results other than dollars and consider it a good investment.

 

Take transportation for example. I spend dollars to get from A to B because I want to be at B. Being at B doesn’t necessary return dollars (say I went there to have a picnic) but yet I would consider the dollars spent getting there a good investment. I got to have my picnic where I wanted to have it. The “ROI” portion of the equation was the joy of the picnic. (Unless of course it rained!)

 

And I'm certain you're not here to tell them that what they feel good about is wrong. That's a moral judgment and I don't recall you being appointed.

I’m just here expressing my own personal opinion on the subject. Just like everyone else.

 

But on a somewhat more global level, I don’t think everything people want to do can be justified on “personal freedom” grounds either. A rather common mantra when people in certain areas of the world argue against something. There are effects of things we do on others that can not be reconciled by chanting the “freedom/rights” refrain.

[smiller]

The way I read it they're almost 2.5x more expensive?

 

Make sure you're comparing weight-to-weight: some of their zinc ones are 5 grams, rather than the somewhat standard 7-gram (1/4-ounce) lead weights.

 

Also note that zinc is not particularly environmentally-friendly, either.

Yes, 27.5 cents/ounce for lead vs. 69 cents/ounce for somewhat more environmentally-friendly zinc.

 

But then again I re-use the weights (and as far as I can remember I've never lost a single one on the road) so I won't be contributing to the problem or the solution.

[DavidEBSmith]

Also note that zinc is not particularly environmentally-friendly, either.

 

If we spread enough zinc around the environment maybe it would cure the common cold.

[russell_bynum]

 

The subject at hand is lead wheel weights. And whether or not the small personal sacrifice (i.e., a couple more bucks when we buy tires) people who have vehicles would have to make is appropriate. Obviously I think yes, you think no. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

Correction: I don't know if it is an issue or not.

[russell_bynum]

Also note that zinc is not particularly environmentally-friendly, either.

 

If we spread enough zinc around the environment maybe it would cure the common cold.

 

 

 

[russell_bynum]

There are a lot of things in life where we spend dollars, get results other than dollars and consider it a good investment.

 

Take transportation for example. I spend dollars to get from A to B because I want to be at B. Being at B doesn’t necessary return dollars (say I went there to have a picnic) but yet I would consider the dollars spent getting there a good investment. I got to have my picnic where I wanted to have it. The “ROI” portion of the equation was the joy of the picnic. (Unless of course it rained!)

 

Exactly. So...is it "worth it" to ban lead wheel weights? Well...to make that decision we'd need to know what it costs and what we get in return.

 

It is what we get in return that I'm questioning. If we don't know what we're getting in return, then how can we make the decision?

 

Note that the "cost" isn't just the extra cost per ounce of the alternatives...you've got to advertise the new law and you've got to enforce it...that costs money. Also, since we're talking about a ban in one state but not the others, that makes it harder for businesses (including the non-evil small businesses like Mitch) because they have to keep track of the different laws and develop different ways for doing things...that costs money.

 

But on a somewhat more global level, I don’t think everything people want to do can be justified on “personal freedom” grounds either. A rather common mantra when people in certain areas of the world argue against something. There are effects of things we do on others that can not be reconciled by chanting the “freedom/rights” refrain.

 

Sure...that's what living in a society is all about. But, if I'm going to have to give up some of my freedoms/rights, I want justification...and that's what is missing from this debate.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...(including the non-evil small businesses like Mitch)

 

I'm only about 15% evil at this point, but this year is going pretty well so far.

[russell_bynum]

...(including the non-evil small businesses like Mitch)

 

I'm only about 15% evil at this point, but this year is going pretty well so far.

 

[Bud]

Investment? It may make you all warm and fuzzy but it is hardly an investment.

But see you (I think) are defining [a good] “Investment” as, ‘more than a dollar returned for a dollar spent.’ But I saying if something improves human lives it is a good investment. The value of something should not always be quantified in dollars it should quantified in human betterment.

 

You can’t / society shouldn’t index every human initiative to the almighty dollar.

 

Ken, you can't have it both ways. You say that if life is improved (even in an infinitely small way) then it is a good investment (clearly, you mean investment in DOLLARS). Then you go on to say that that the value of something should not always be quantified in DOLLARS.

 

You want DOLLARS invested but you don't want the value of the investment to be quantified in DOLLARS. No sir. An investment has a return. If the investment is in dollars, then the return is in dollars.

 

Perhaps you mean that something is a good "expenditure." Expenditures are not investments. They are simply the spending of something of value (in this case, presumably, dollars). Personal expenditures don't have to be quantified. They can be "feel good" expenditures, like a new TV, a new car, a new motorcycle, you know, frilly things that are peripheral to life. They don't have to be quantified, an objective value doesn't have to be established. It's all subjective feel good stuff.

 

Therefore, your desire to spend your money in order to feel good, should be exactly that. YOUR expenditure to feel good. Other people feel good by spending on other things, or by not spending at all. And I'm certain you're not here to tell them that what they feel good about is wrong. That's a moral judgment and I don't recall you being appointed.

 

Wait a minute. You mean my "investment" in my RT isn't an "investment" as all since I won't ever get back what I paid for it?

 

But I did get a return yesterday while riding along the Great River Road north of St. Louis. Still smiling while thinking about it.