If it's such a good idea, why do advocates want a blizzard of subsidy programs, tax ememptions, failure to report sales of power to the IRS as income, and whatever ---all of which burden everyone else.Get rid of the subsidies and I have no objections whatever.Presumably, then, you think building Hoover Dam or the Grand Coulee Dam were a bad idea, since they were built with "government money" and provided cheap power to broad sections of the country, and brought jobs and development along with them?You probably also advocate stopping any government road construction or maintenance since that is an obvious "subsidy" to the automobile and trucking industries?And you'd like to take back the land grants which allowed the railroads to span the country and which brought the industrial fruits of the northeast to the nascent West?In addition to the many unknowns, you have all the government interference. People often get upset when someone takes money from them, essentially by force, and gives it to someone else.I never hear them using this elementary argument when they are the beneficiary of such programs. Very few say "I'd like worse roads." I don't think I've met anyone who says "Please raise my insurance costs by ripping out all the traffic lights." Only a few nutjobs think we'd be better off if we eliminated the FAA or the FDIC or the CDC or the SEC.This "essentially by force" argument is so thin. That's the society you were born into. I'm pretty sure you cannot find one which does not do so anywhere on the planet, or in the history of the planet, but if you can, feel free to go join it.It's also upsetting when a government forces you to do something "for the greater good", especially when it's not clear whether it really is a greater good or not These are the arguments the patent medicine people made, and the cigarette companies made, and the industrialists who dumped their toxic wastes in the rivers made, and the anti-NASA crowd made, and an endless litany of nay-sayers have made throughout history. People were against the Panama Canal and the Interstate Highway System, too. Time has proven them to be brainless dolts, I would say.The peace of the world depends on reasonable access to oil. If the United States were to pull out of the middle east oil patch, there would be a variety of wars to control the supply of oil and the transportation of oil. A world disaster would very like be the result.So you are in favor of energy subsidies, so long as they are carried out with tanks and guns to the tune of trillions of dollars, but not to develop a passive, renewable energy supply with a few billion dollars in research and development. Interesting equation you hold there. And I continue to oppose the heavy web of ever more elaborate subsidies for solar systems that are fundamentally uneconomic. There was no "economic" reason to put satellites in space, either. Funding for the Erie Canal was voted down three times because it was "fundamentally uneconomic." Did anyone see the economic future of the thing DARPA came up with, you know, the internet? No, but it seemed a step in the direction of "progress", and that is often reason enough, and pays off often enough, apparently, where we have ended up the richest society in the history of the world. And somehow you manage to ignore all the fruits of those thousands of public investments and focus only on the "taxation by theft" mantra. Amazing, really.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat