dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Yeah, government support never helped spur technological intervention. Well, other than the thing over which we're having this conversation. And countless other things, most of which did in fact yield pretty big profits.

"It has no business trying" is a defensible statement, if you're willing to say "yes, I am an ideologue, and no, I don't care about facts or real-world consequences." The "not capable" part is just incorrect, given it's humans making the decisions--presumably on the same criteria as the sanctified Masters of the Universe who also get it wrong a lot, and whose motivations are generally less admirable.

Unless I've really misread you, you're not a fundamentalist in religion. I don't grasp why you're so committed to being one in economics.

also, TANG

I could get more behind the idea of industry leading innovation if the big players in those same industries did a little less innovation squashing. Any time someone starts to do anything interesting, one of these huge companies comes along, buys them up, and turns them into the very same vanilla crap that they serve through all the other companies they've bought. Giving these companies more and more power just seems like a really bad idea. They are just as bloated as government, and they don't have the voting public to check their actions.

jerseyhoya wrote:Huntsman could have been a decent candidate if he tried to run a different race, but he went for the interesting tactic of actively disdaining the people he was asking to vote for him. That proved not to work.

Portman's 2012 comparison if things went poorly would have been Pawlenty, not Huntsman.

po-tay-to, po tah-to

and look - they BOTH called the whole thing off

/icanbeSOdamnfunny

Good read on why the middle class is shrinking by a guy actively doing the things to help shrink it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... get-ahead/

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Oil companies have received extraordinary tax accommodations for generations. Please shut up.

pacino wrote:We still don't have a declaration of war from Congress.

They haven't made one since WW2.

As others have more patiently pointed out, basically any enterprise of any heft wields that heft to 'distort' markets, and 'pick' winners to the extent they can pick at them. There's no 'natural' level of ... any of that. People make choices, and change their minds, and make new ones, and their actions wind up modifying markets. Their votes are not limited to dollars, and that's a good thing.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

I take it you're not familar with the NIH, DARPA, etc?

Swiggers wrote:

pacino wrote:We still don't have a declaration of war from Congress.

They haven't made one since WW2.

unless i'm making a mistake in terminology, we actually had one for earlier Iraq (twice) and our current war in Afghanistan. The Gulf War was actually hotly contested at the time.

Congress has passed authorizations of the use of force but hasn't formally declared war since WW2.

OK, yes, from the War Powers Act, authorized by Congress. Still declared legal by Congress.

jerseyhoya wrote:What industry analysts say that? Why would Keystone cause gas prices to go up?

TomatoPie wrote:Not likely. But nor would it be likely to cause any steep drop in US gas prices. That raw material is coming here, be it by truck, rail, or pipeline. Pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.

Oil and tar sands from Canada and North Dakota currently end up at Midwest refineries (which send product to tank farms, conduits of nationwide distribution). It logistically can't be sold abroad because it goes from one landlocked area to another, so it is processed and consumed here in the US. This reduces the competition, resulting in Midwest refineries paying lower prices for it (not to mention a considerable discount).

Pipeline developers have admitted in oral and written statements that the intent of Keystone XL is to use America as an export line to markets in Asia and Europe. To bypass the Midwestern refineries and go directly to Texas gulf coast refineries and terminals which export almost all of their product because they get much higher prices per barrel in Asia and Europe than they do selling it domestically. Exporting product off the US market creates an artificial scarcity that results in higher US fuel prices.



I view the whole debate as proponents shaping the argument to convince people to support something against their own best interest, and opponents stupidly providing a less persuasive counter argument that only the extremies actually care about (environmental impact). I non-apologetically admit that my personal position is based solely on my own self-interest. I don't give a flying fuck about the environment. I drive an awesome sports car that goes very fast. I don't want to spend more for my gas.

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Yeah, government support never helped spur technological intervention. Well, other than the thing over which we're having this conversation. And countless other things, most of which did in fact yield pretty big profits.

"It has no business trying" is a defensible statement, if you're willing to say "yes, I am an ideologue, and no, I don't care about facts or real-world consequences." The "not capable" part is just incorrect, given it's humans making the decisions--presumably on the same criteria as the sanctified Masters of the Universe who also get it wrong a lot, and whose motivations are generally less admirable.

Unless I've really misread you, you're not a fundamentalist in religion. I don't grasp why you're so committed to being one in economics.

You've misread me - I'm not saying government can't do anything. It can be OK at large projects like the interstate highway system and NASA.

It's market meddling where government is indeed incompetent. Yes, under it all they are "humans" - but humans operating under perverse incentives. The fed's follies in the energy markets are among the most egregious examples. Ethanol was a loser from day one - but it buys votes in the corn belt. It was sold as an environmental boost, when in fact it's wasteful and costly to the environment while driving up food prices for a staple on which the poorest depend.

Boondoggles in this arena aren't limited to the Democrats - Bush had his whole switchgrass nonsense. Every dollar of subsidy for wind and solar has been a dollar wasted. And 99 cents of each dollar has been simply a political payoff. Hollering for more of that is absurd.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Oil companies have received extraordinary tax accommodations for generations. Please shut up.

Oil companies should not get a penny. But even absent tax breaks, I'd bet on oil over any alternative-energy that the Feds are throwing money at.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Yeah, government support never helped spur technological intervention. Well, other than the thing over which we're having this conversation. And countless other things, most of which did in fact yield pretty big profits.

"It has no business trying" is a defensible statement, if you're willing to say "yes, I am an ideologue, and no, I don't care about facts or real-world consequences." The "not capable" part is just incorrect, given it's humans making the decisions--presumably on the same criteria as the sanctified Masters of the Universe who also get it wrong a lot, and whose motivations are generally less admirable.

Unless I've really misread you, you're not a fundamentalist in religion. I don't grasp why you're so committed to being one in economics.

You've misread me - I'm not saying government can't do anything. It can be OK at large projects like the interstate highway system and NASA.

It's market meddling where government is indeed incompetent. Yes, under it all they are "humans" - but humans operating under perverse incentives. The fed's follies in the energy markets are among the most egregious examples. Ethanol was a loser from day one - but it buys votes in the corn belt. It was sold as an environmental boost, when in fact it's wasteful and costly to the environment while driving up food prices for a staple on which the poorest depend.

Boondoggles in this arena aren't limited to the Democrats - Bush had his whole switchgrass nonsense. Every dollar of subsidy for wind and solar has been a dollar wasted. And 99 cents of each dollar has been simply a political payoff. Hollering for more of that is absurd.

you are meddling in the market there

There are some things that need to be done by federal government because it's nonrivalrous (your consumption doesn't take away from mine) and/or non-excludable (free riders can't be avoided)... national defense is the classic example.

There are other things that are often well served to be left to government due to the mismatch of private interest and public interest... roads and large scale transportation infrastructure come to mind.

Everything else... it's just because that's what our elected representatives and their constituents want, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's necessary for government to provide from an efficiency point of view. NASA... lol. C'mon TP, you're killing me. What kind of conservative lists NASA as a successful federal expenditure?

why do you hate NASA, werthless

For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

i fail to see why private companies can't just build roads and charge us for their use