Let's stop the subsidies and give the free market system a chance.
There is no free market for oil. There is a large collusion of oil producers fixing prices in the market, and there are other producers setting their prices based on the going rate in that market.
Subsidized green energy is like that handloading press I mentioned. Without that press, you can charge me whatever you want for ammunition. With that press, I'll still buy everything from you, but you can't charge me more than what it would cost me to produce my own cartridges. That press looks like its a waste of money because I won't use it, but my owning it forces you to charge a reasonable rate for ammunition.
Subsidies for oil alternatives - natural gas, ethanol, hydrogen, electric cars, trucks, trains, and the infrastructure to make them feasible across the nation - forces OPEC to cut its prices to prevent those alternatives from competing. Without those "non-competitive" alternatives, we have nothing to prevent OPEC from keeping its prices down. Our own oil producers aren't going to sell oil for a hell of a lot less than the market rate unless they are socialized; taken over by the government and forced to sell at a price point where we want them to. But even that doesn't solve the problem, and instead creates a whole new mess of problems.
The government should do what it does best. It should run programs that are vitally important but are not commercially viable. Investment into alternative energy R&D is such a program.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The government seems a bit short on the intelligence to know where to invest, therefore should stay out of the marketplace no matter how many hand-loading presses one owns.
The government seems a bit short on the intelligence to know where to invest, therefore should stay out of the marketplace no matter how many hand-loading presses one owns.
Are you suggesting that we should bury our heads in the sand, pretend the market is free, and let OPEC completely dictate the price we pay at the pump? We should refuse to invest in any sort of alternative energy projects because OPEC will just render them commercially infeasible by undercutting them?
Come on, Eddie. Think things through before you speak.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Are you suggesting that we should bury our heads in the sand, pretend the market is free, and let OPEC completely dictate the price we pay at the pump? We should refuse to invest in any sort of alternative energy projects because OPEC will just render them commercially infeasible by undercutting them?
Come on, Eddie. Think things through before you speak.
WE have given government investment a chance and it chose spending instead, more failed policy won't help.
Just about everything, we can't continue to spend 1.69 times revenue.
Well, when I find myself short on cash, in addition to cutting non-essential spending, I take on extra work to generate more income. I propose that we modify the tax code to add a few new tax brackets above the current highest income level, and make it more difficult for large businesses to "rest on their laurels".
Now, I'm very well aware that this won't *directly* generate any additional revenue. Tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP, has stayed fairly constant since the industrial revolution, despite *massive* variation in tax rates. Since a change in the tax rate can't adjust revenue relative to GDP, the only thing we can achieve by adjusting the tax rate is a change in the GDP. If we can adjust the tax rate such that the GDP is increased, we will have indirectly generated new tax revenue.
What increased top-tier tax rates will do is make labor costs relatively less expensive. Basically, at the margins, employers will prefer to loosen the purse strings on their labor force ("buying" revenue-generating man-hours of labor) rather than cut a check to Uncle Sam.
This widespread trend will increase demand in the job market, increase compensation for workers, and thus increase consumer spending.
Basically, I propose that we solve the problem of a high debt-to-GDP ratio by focusing on increasing the GDP.
You suggest we need to cut non-essential spending. I agree. But you haven't put anything on the table and said "This is non-essential". When you do, we can discuss that. Until you are ready to do that, let's talk about my plan to increase the GDP, and thus increase tax revenue.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Actually I am not going to cut anything as I have no more influence than you, but with my one vote I am going to vote for "anyone" that will start the process. Spending 1.69 times revenue is not sustainable but the "nanny-staters" will always scream when any cut is proposed, they just hope the crash doesn't come in their lifetime.
Linear Mode
