We don't need the government to invest in alternative fuels.

[Stemis516]

Unless you are going to a private college, with no grants, somebody is paying for at least half of your education since ALL public colleges are subsidized at least 50% by the state, plus any endowment or donations from alumni.

its funny because i went to a private college with no grants and i am currently at a private graduate school...also with no grants

granted, i dont know how any of this you bring up is relevant to the thread but it wouldnt let me give you anymore rep to defend myself

good day sir

[seattlesmoke247]

The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.

Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.

Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.

The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.

It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of america'

We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...


:stoned:

[GoldenBoy812]

The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.

Your example is simply unrealistic. If these people, whom you believe are the "best" at organizing, are government bureaucrats, why are they working for 1000x's less, in a highly uncompetitive job market?

Quality managers exist in higher proportion, within the private sector. So much so that these "private managers" of industry hire "diplomats" on their behalf, to infiltrate Washington DC, on behalf of expanding consumption.

Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.

Technological difference renders the comparison off base. Mass waves of immigrants are not needed to dig the trenches. Caterpillar is less of a long term costs, while providing greater production for both functions of time and money (which can be considered one in the same).

Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.

Steam engines vs fuel cell/heavy diesel combustion:stoned: I could be wrong though....

The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.

Do tell; were these people digging by hand? How about cranes? Where things lifted by a series of pulleys?

It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of America'

That's a reach.

We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...


:stoned:

The same government you cannot trust to do what is just, selective drug criminalization, should be the decider of everything?:wtf: If i am to agree, i would also have to agree that they keep drugs illegal because it if beneficial to me and my fellow country men/women.

[JaggedEdge]

The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.

Your example is the exact reason why we don't need the government. If there are 120 companies working on something, than there will be an abundance of different choices. Some will be terrible technologies and will be forgotten, others on the other hand will be superior and mass produced. If the government creates the light bulb, it may have a life of 3 hours as opposed to one that can last 10 years.

If you have one group working on a problem, you get one solution. If you have multiple groups working independently on the same problem, you get many different solutions. I don't see how this is complicated to understand. The one solution may not even work, however, it is far more likely one of many solutions discovered will be beneficial.

What you are talking about is taking your entire life savings to the casino and placing an all or nothing bet on red-25.

Yes they will risk their businesses because it means going out of business if they don't. Typically business owners are risk takers, some more than others. That is how the free market works. You take big calculated risks in order to get BIG rewards.

If we keep handing out money to them they won't risk their own because they don't have to.

[GoldenBoy812]

What you are talking about is taking your entire life savings to the casino and placing an all or nothing bet on red-25.

Yes they will risk their businesses because it means going out of business if they don't. Typically business owners are risk takers, some more than others. That is how the free market works. You take big calculated risks in order to get BIG rewards.

If we keep handing out money to them they won't risk their own because they don't have to.

Exactly!!!!

This is commonly referred to as moral hazard. Who cares if my business fails, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if i can't make my mortgage payments, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if my skills are two generations old, the government will just bail me out.

Does anyone here believe businesses would behave in the manor they do (large scale corporate interests) if they "knew" the federal government was not in the business of alleviating failure?

You would have both less risk dependent reward (similar to black market operations), and much much much more innovative reward (creating something new that changes the way people think i.e. facebook/youtube/gps etc...).

Unproductive speculation can be reduced by simply refraining from intervening on behalf of failure.

[JaggedEdge]

Our quality of life is a little too high at the moment, materially. I really can't give any amount of a shit whether or not new environmental measures will result in your average person not being able to afford an HD TV.

Really, our quality of life is to high? I also thought we wanted to continue to improve the quality of life. If you want to live in a cave, go right ahead. America, has one of the highest quality's of life, if not the highest in the world. That's why our poor live in shitty apartments, public housing, trailers; yet still have running water, electricity, many can afford some form of transportation, and have t.v's.

Do you even know the implications that will likely result due to what environmentalists and liberal politicians want to do in the name of our environment?

I can't think of anything more dire than the future of the planet, but apparently our consumerist "quality" of life takes precedence.

That is the problem, you assume our planet is in dire need of saving, it isn't.

I used the birds as one example...the birds aren't the only victims of human "progress."

I was talking about DDT specifically and you come back with some tree hugging crap about saving birds. So back to DDT, do you have sources that have not been debunked which claim DDT kills birds?

I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.

What exactly is green? I hate that fucking term. Could you be anymore abstract? Is green anything that has absolutely no adverse effects on the environment or the smallest atom within? Those are strict standards.

You can't throw around a term like green, that encompasses nearly everything you ideologues want to accomplish, regardless of it's actual influence on the environment.

I'm not a liberal, just a guy who tries to look at everything on its own terms. I'm typically pretty anarchistic, but I'm all for keeping people from doing irrevocable harm to the beautiful world. One day humans will be extinct and the earth will get a reprieve.

Simply because you claim you aren't a liberal doesn't make it so. Your views suggest you are a liberal. You can claim you look at things openly, however, if you had, you would see the outright lies told to you about global warming.

You also aren't an anarchist, if you were, you would believe people should do what ever the hell they want to their environment. Everything you have said is authoritarian in nature, which is in direct contrast to the philosophy of anarchism.

[Coelho]

You also aren't an anarchist, if you were, you would believe people should do what ever the hell they want to their environment.

Their environment? Who the hell said that the environment is a human property, like their cars, houses and etc?

This kind of thought only made sense when men were "Gods image" and thus entitled to do whatever it wished with the earth, that was, after all, just a playground made for its own use and benefit... but nowadays evolution states that humans are just one more species on the earth, and this species hasnt anything "special" that justify that it use the entire earth for its own benefit...

[JaggedEdge]

Their environment? Who the hell said that the environment is a human property, like their cars, houses and etc?

This kind of thought only made sense when men were "Gods image" and thus entitled to do whatever it wished with the earth, that was, after all, just a playground made for its own use and benefit... but nowadays evolution states that humans are just one more species on the earth, and this species hasnt anything "special" that justify that it use the entire earth for its own benefit...

Yup, our environment. Simply because I say it is ours doesn't mean I believe we are the sole possessors.

If I share a house with someone, does that mean it isn't my house anymore? Nice try though...

[Coelho]

If I share a house with someone, does that mean it isn't my house anymore?

Well... remember that humans were one of the last species to evolve until its atual stage... the plants and animals were already here WAY before us... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...

[JaggedEdge]

Well... remember that humans were one of the last species to evolve until its atual stage... the plants and animals were already here WAY before us... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...

We are creatures, same as all the others. Beavers alter their enviornment... (sorry, it isn't theirs, they weren't first...) yet we should not be allowed to alter it.

So by your logic, the last born child should not be able to alter anything in their household? When the parents die, the first born shall inherit the entire estate?

Your logic is so ridiculous it is laughable.

Now that you mention it, we should surgically alter our brains. Our mere ability to build homes and clear forests is a travesty. It can't be tolerated. It simply isn't fair that we are superior to our animal kin!

You hippies need to make up your mind. Are we a part of the natural world or are we not. If we evolved from monkey's than we are. Does the natural world and the rest of it's inhabitants care if they effect our species negatively? I'm not saying we shouldn't protect some aspects of our environment and the lesser species, but you loose all credibility with these extremist environmental views.

By the way, as a new found liberal, I propose the eradication of all beavers. Their diverting rivers is horrible and most be prevented at all costs!