Daily Archives: October 5, 2012

Federalist No. 6

Having finished our discussion of the dangers of foreign force and influence that was taken up by John Jay in the last four essays (and the only four of his that we will cover in this thirty-six part series), we now begin our discussion of the dangers from dissensions between the states that is covered by Hamilton in Federalist No. 6 and Federalist No. 7.

Again addressing the people of the State of New York in the Independent Journal, Hamilton notes that republics, like monarchies, are administered by MEN and that men are subject to aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions. In addition, Hamilton notes that popular assemblies [are] frequently subject to the impulses of
rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities and that it is well known that their
determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals.

After all, have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other?

A student of history knows that Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics and were as often engaged in wars, both offensive and defensive, as the neighbouring monarchies. More recently, in European history, Venice and the provinces of Holland were often engaged in wars.

So what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? In a nutshell, none.

But if the states form a union that is a Confederate Republic and their constitution prevents the differences that neighbourhood occasions, in the words of Gabriel Bonnot do Mably, in Principes des Negociations, it will extinguish that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbours, and minimize the dangers of dissension between the states.

In other words, as a whole, our strengths will multiply and our weaknesses will divide and be conquered.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

Why Should We Wait for 2025 for the 54.5 MPG Standard?

A recent article over on Automobile Magazine tells us that the Department of Transportation Confirms 54.5 MPG Fuel Economy Standard which will take effect in 2025. WTF?!?

It’s true that this is an improvement over the 34.1 mpg standard for the average fuel economy of new passenger vehicles for model year 2016, and definitely an improvement over the 30.5 mpg for the 2013 year, the reality is that we should be at the 2020 standard now! For example, as per this recent article in the Technology Review, the Delphi engine could boost fuel economy by half. So if we’re getting 30.5 mpg now, we could be getting 45 mpg with this new engine technology.

And Delphi is not the only company working on a variation of gasoline direct injection compression ignition (GDICI) technology and getting very good results. A project jointly funded by General Motors (GM) and Tsinghua University is also developing new gasoline direct-injection compression-ignition combustion mode.

And then there’s research into spray combustion cross-cut engines, including the DOE Advanced Combustion Engine which has posted efficiency gains of up to 40%. (See the Overview.) And research into nozzle geometry, supercritical injection, and other improvements that also contribute double digit enhancements to efficiency. We should be at the 54.5 mpg standard now. In fact, given that the Skyactiv-G 1.3 engine manufactured by Mazda and used in the Demico subcompact (which is also known as the Mazda 2) can get 70 mpg now by using a direct injection mill, a continuously variable transmission, and stop-start tech, we should be aiming for 94.5 mpg by 2025! (Heck, the forthcoming 2.0 L North American Version in the CX-5 will get 40 mpg!)

And while the focus of this research and development is primarily for small consumer vehicles, it’s a given that any improvements made will find their way into delivery vehicles as well and that your fleet will eventually get more fuel efficient, which is key in an era of constantly rising fuel costs. So any push for fuel efficiency is a good thing, and any time one is made, we should be asking, is this aggressive enough?