The W
Views: 98310739
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.8.14 1935
The W - Current Events & Politics - SUV Tax breaks (Page 3)
This thread has 405 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(2319 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 31 days
#41 Posted on
Not having a car is not a sacrifice UNLESS you can afford a car, and you really WANT a car, but because of your principles, you are not purchasing one (or you decided to sell your car for those principles). Otherwise, you are not giving up anything. However, if that is the case, then fair enough.

I guess what I meant was the country isn't asking the country to make sacrifices as a whole. They haven't implemented the draft, or ask to cut consumption. Sure, individuals (ie military) are making contributions, but so far they are all voluntary. (I'll give you points on the Civil Rights thing, there are things being done that concern me as well)

(Just for the record, I'm against a conflict in Iraq, one of the rare conservaties apparently that is. There's a time where you must fight, but I just feel Iraq is a poor choice and Saddam's downfall will not do much for our national security.)

As far as the oil, I think we should use the oil up to the very last drop. It's not much of a resource if it's not used. When the oil supply starts to run low, supply and demand forces will kick in, and make alternative fuel sources very profitable. That's the only reason that there's no push for it now, you can't make money off it because there's no demand for it. But given a choice between an alternate fuel source and nothing (or extremely expensive gas), you better believe people will be wanting that alternate fuel source.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
I definitely agree with that in the long-term. But in the short-term, as I said earlier, $3.00/gallon gas prices are going to destroy the trucking industry, which is absolutely vital to this nation's economy, and arguably its national security. Therefor, a soft landing on this whole thing is critical. The government needs to invest or legislate enough to make alternative energy research and development profitable and a viable alternative ("prime the pump" if you will). Then we can let the market start to work.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1206 days
Last activity: 1002 days
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The government needs to invest or legislate enough to make alternative energy research and development profitable and a viable alternative ("prime the pump" if you will). Then we can let the market start to work.


Did Moe just endorse "trickle-down" economics in regards to energy policy?



"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1252 days
Last activity: 18 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#44 Posted on
Sounds like it to me. Who would have thunk it?



Trees are for huggin'!
My attempt at a webpage


After a millineum, Keeper will return to save us all...
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
Oy Vey. Government "priming the pump" is a classic Keynsian approach people!

I suppose I should explain the difference. The government should a) legislate gas milage, making it necessary to develop cars with better gas milage and b) give out more contracts for alternate energy, even if it costs more than traditional energy, and subsidize alternate energy research. This costs money in the short-term, but in the long-term will lead to reduced costs of Alternate Energy forms in the commercial market, making them a viable competitor.

Now, if I were a supply sider, I would have advocated less government intervention and lower taxes for energy development. Then I would have scratched my head as the oil companies bought all the the alternate-energy companies, killed them, and kept us dependant on oil. But that's OK too, because that mean the oil executives now finally have enough money to buy a better Yacht, which creates jobs for hard-working Americans, unless it's cheaper to build the Yacht in Bermuda. And while we're at it, let's buy the Yacht there too and avoid paying taxes on it. Hey, why not more the whole company there while we're at it?

Oh wait! That already happened!

I shouldn't have taken the bait, should I have (sigh).

(edited by MoeGates on 28.1.03 1400)


It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1206 days
Last activity: 1002 days
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Oy Vey. Government "priming the pump" is a classic Keynsian approach people!


OK, I buy that. I try to block Keynes out of my mind. SO if you a referring to "priming the pump" in a Keynsian rather than Reganomic way, that makes sense


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Now, if I were a supply sider, I would have advocated less government intervention and lower taxes for energy development. Then I would have scratched my head as the oil companies bought all the the alternate-energy companies, killed them, and kept us dependant on oil. But that's OK too, because that mean the oil executives now finally have enough money to buy a better Yacht, which creates jobs for hard-working Americans, unless it's cheaper to build the Yacht in Bermuda. And while we're at it, let's buy the Yacht there too and avoid paying taxes on it. Hey, why not more the whole company there while we're at it?


Of course, if taxes weren't so damn high you wouldn't have to leave.



"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 43 days
Last activity: 2 days
#47 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    ...a soft landing on this whole thing is critical. The government needs to invest or legislate enough to make alternative energy research and development profitable and a viable alternative ("prime the pump" if you will). Then we can let the market start to work.


How is this a market solution? You're proposing to pass legislation that gives alternative energy a competitive advantage (on top of other advantages the government already gives it), have the government award contracts to firms using/developing alternative energy regardless of the costs, subsidize additional alternative energy research, and then let 'the market work'. In sum, the short-term solution is for the government to orchestrate a soft landing (apparently by weaning us off using oil) and then 'allowing' alternative energy to 'compete' with more traditional energy. If you want the government to help develop alternative energy solutions to end our dependence on oil, that's fine and it has enough merits to stand on as an argument in and of itself. However, don't paint this as the market solution because the market solution would be for us to continue to use the finite supply of oil and let the price rise until alternative energy becomes cheaper on its own merits and not because of the government intervention.

Furthermore, the 'priming the pump' described here is not a classic Keynesian approach. Keynesian economics involves using countercyclical fiscal policy to 'fine tune' the economy and try to maintain economic prosperity and avoid recession. It is a macroeconomic approach and therefore has nothing to do with developing specific industries.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
I never said it was a "market solution". The idea is:

a) there is no market for alternate energy because the price is too high

b) if there is sufficient research, development, and testing in alternate energy forms, the prices will eventually come down. This is true of almost all technology. Think of computers.

c) the way to get more reasearch, development, and testing done is to have a market, but

d) see a.

So if the governent creates a market by saying "we'll take this alternate energy supply, even though it's more expensive", it helps technology develop, breaks this cycle, and helps prices come down in the long run.

Once the technology is sufficiently good enough for prices to be competitive, the market opens up for alternate energy, and the government can step out. At this point you can start to let the market sort it out, which is what I said in my first post.

furthermore, the 'priming the pump' described here is not a classic Keynesian approach. Keynesian economics involves using countercyclical fiscal policy to 'fine tune' the economy and try to maintain economic prosperity and avoid recession. It is a macroeconomic approach and therefore has nothing to do with developing specific industries.

Uh, OK, I'll take your word for it. I just knew it wasn't "trickle-down" (which is also a macroeconomic approach). I'm heading back to grad-school in Urban Planning soon, where they make you take this stuff, so I can give a better response in 9 months or so.


(edited by MoeGates on 28.1.03 1516)


It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 43 days
Last activity: 2 days
#49 Posted on
Moe--Let's assume that the government creates a market for this alternative energy through those types of programs and, as you stated, the only reason there is a market is due to the government subsidies and also contracts awarded to companies that are not the low cost providers. Do you trust the federal government to make the right decisions and to know which alternative energy programs will be successful and will be the most efficient in the long-run? How will they decide which programs to support? Who would make these decisions? This is something that many experts do not agree on. Furthermore, any expert would have his own personal biases and it would be difficult if not impossible to find a truly impartial expert. I sincerely hope you don't want to return to Carter's horrible idea of a national energy policy. And, I know that you definitely don't want Bush and the Republican Congress making these decisions (based on your past posts).

Furthermore, this would create businesses built entirely on government sudsidies, contracts and support as its lifeblood. What are the odds that the government will have the political will to end this program? For that matter, how will we decide when that time is right? How much money will the alternative energy lobby spend to protect their government support? The problem is the government rarely steps out from these types of programs. Instead, they create a dependence on the government support. Also, many forms of alternative energy already receive government support. One example is the tax deduction on hybrid vehicles. Many states will subsize the purchase of solar cells in houses (often by paying half the cost). Yet, these still take a long time to be cost effective for consumers. The price of this technology and these products is dropping (and dropping rapidly), and this will continue with or without further government support. So, why not just let the market continue to work on its own and not involve the government and all the difficulties I listed above? It will take longer, but the outcome will be more efficient.

As far as the Keynesian thing, consider it nit picking and anal retentiveness about economic terms. No offense intended and I apologize if my response seemed condescending; that wasn't my intention.


(edited by Corajudo on 28.1.03 1747)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread ahead: Our Friends Across The Sea
Next thread: Cartoon: Foreign oil
Previous thread: Another victory for common sense
(2319 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Does anybody or has anybody watched this? It's a pretty entertaining little news show and why do we watch the news really. I like how he throws out back page stories in between the top five.
- BigDaddyLoco, Keith Olberman's Countdown (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - SUV Tax breaks (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.12 seconds.