Sustainabilty is a Hoax

[j_b]

troll.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

troll.

 

I like your new sig!

[JayB]

Green Energy! Massachusetts leads the way!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959104576081991727353356.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[prole]

 

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

JayB gloats about the effects of "free trade", i.e. competing with subsidized industry in China, and concludes that energy subsidies don't work. What A joke!

[JayB]

Energy subsidies work like a charm, for their actual purpose - which is to use public means to enrich private economic interests. Particularly when they can do so behind the PR-veil provided by tropes like "Green Energy!!!" and "Energy Indpendence!!!!"

 

Exhibit A: Corn Ethanol.

 

Exhibits B through infinity....every other specialized tarriff, subsidy, or preferential exemption from competition.

 

 

[prole]

...use public means to enrich private economic interests.

 

This neatly constitutes the role of the capitalist state in all its iterations. The only question is to what degree is economic well-being shared amongst the populace.

[j_b]

Without subsidy there would be no nuclear industry but that won't prevent JayB from telling us that nuclear is the way to go. Talking from both corners of his mouth per usual. We also won't discuss external costs (like what coal extraction does to other activities) left to pay by the citizenry because that's not subsidy according to JayB's strange math.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Energy subsidies work like a charm, for their actual purpose - which is to use public means to enrich private economic interests. Particularly when they can do so behind the PR-veil provided by tropes like "Green Energy!!!" and "Energy Indpendence!!!!"

 

Exhibit A: Corn Ethanol.

 

Exhibits B through infinity....every other specialized tarriff, subsidy, or preferential exemption from competition.

 

 

Subsidies for stupid things, like corn-based ethanol (cellulose based ethanol is actually not a bad idea) result in, well, stupidity. Subsidies for smart things, such as energy saving appliances in the home, can greatly accelerate real solutions to problems, particularly where there is technological risk involved.

 

Of course, all subsidies are evil, because, as we all know, gubmint is evil. Sarah knows that, and so did the FOUNDING FATHERS .

 

 

[j_b]

What is evil is pretending the neoliberal race to the bottom doesn't demand that leveling occurs near the bottom for all peons (except for medical doctors with their protected status).

[JayB]

Energy subsidies work like a charm, for their actual purpose - which is to use public means to enrich private economic interests. Particularly when they can do so behind the PR-veil provided by tropes like "Green Energy!!!" and "Energy Indpendence!!!!"

 

Exhibit A: Corn Ethanol.

 

Exhibits B through infinity....every other specialized tarriff, subsidy, or preferential exemption from competition.

 

 

Subsidies for stupid things, like corn-based ethanol (cellulose based ethanol is actually not a bad idea) result in, well, stupidity. Subsidies for smart things, such as energy saving appliances in the home, can greatly accelerate real solutions to problems, particularly where there is technological risk involved.

 

Of course, all subsidies are evil, because, as we all know, gubmint is evil. Sarah knows that, and so did the FOUNDING FATHERS .

 

 

 

Since the determination of what constitutes a "smart thing" to subsidize or exempt from competition is completely subjective, the objective factor that actually determines the magnitude and duration of a given subsidy is the political power of the constituency that will benefit from it.

 

You can make a defensible case for the public paying for things that aren't a good or service that the private sector could conceivably provide - like public lands, national defense, etc - but that's about it.

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Libertarians like JayB often bring up corn ethanol subsidies (a bad idea to be sure), yet they never mention the much more important subsidies to fossil fuels that have been written into the tax code. Anybody knows why that would be?

[JayB]

...use public means to enrich private economic interests.

 

This neatly constitutes the economic role of the capitalist state in all its iterations. The only question is to what degree is economic well-being shared amongst the populace.

 

More in agreement with that statement than not with the above modifications.

 

[j_b]

You can make a defensible case for the public paying for things that aren't a good or service that the private sector could conceivably provide - like public lands, national defense, etc - but that's about it.

 

if we had waited for the private sector to invest in electrification, railroads, and pretty much everything else we'd literally still be living in the 19th century.

[JayB]

Libertarians like JayB often bring up corn ethanol subsidies (a bad idea to be sure), yet they never mention the much more important subsidies to fossil fuels that have been written into the tax code. Anybody knows why that would be?

 

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates.

 

In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else.

[prole]

Since the determination of what constitutes a "smart thing" to subsidize or exempt from competition is completely subjective, the objective factor that actually determines the magnitude and duration of a given subsidy is the political power of the constituency that will benefit from it.

 

I feeel you, bro...

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Libertarians like JayB often bring up corn ethanol subsidies (a bad idea to be sure), yet they never mention the much more important subsidies to fossil fuels that have been written into the tax code. Anybody knows why that would be?

 

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates.

 

In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else.

 

It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized.

 

It happened through magic.

 

Then again, it's all subjective.

 

Except cultural relativism, of course.

 

Damn hard to think in binary these days.

Edited January 18, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

You can make a defensible case for the public paying for things that aren't a good or service that the private sector could conceivably provide - like public lands, national defense, etc - but that's about it.

 

if we had waited for the private sector to invest in electrification, railroads, and pretty much everything else we'd literally still be living in the 19th century.

 

If we'd allowed the dominant economic players in any particular era to rig the game on their own behalf, then they'd merrily go about squelching any threat to their position or status until competitive pressures from outside the said country made it impossible for them to continue doing so.

 

Generally the less capacity the state had to enforce the status quo on behalf of entrenched interests, the greater the rate of innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

cut the bull. Who would have paid for nuclear R&D if not the taxpayer?

[JayB]

Libertarians like JayB often bring up corn ethanol subsidies (a bad idea to be sure), yet they never mention the much more important subsidies to fossil fuels that have been written into the tax code. Anybody knows why that would be?

 

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates.

 

In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else.

 

It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized.

 

It happened through magic.

 

Then again, it's all subjective.

 

Except cultural relativism, of course.

 

Damn hard to think in binary these days.

 

 

"The term “Green Revolution” was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violet Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution."

 

The Green Revolution describes the transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s in developed countries and now in underdeveloped countries. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation...."

 

Might be instructive to add up the total combined value of 1st world farm subsidies, toss in the total economic damage they've done to poor farmers around the world, and divide that total by the amount that governments have spent on initiatives like Borlaug's...

[prole]

The real fallacy here is the notion that neoliberal policies ostensibly aimed at reducing subsidies and "letting markets rip" have reduced concentrations in corporate power and increased competition in any meaningful way. Of course, true believers can always point to the next horizon for their El Dorado rather than accepting the folly of their campaign. "The fabled city of gold is just ahead, just as soon as we eliminate the government!"

[JayB]

cut the bull. Who would have paid for nuclear R&D if not the taxpayer?

 

Who knows. Might have never been developed if it looked like it would be impossible to sell the power for enough to pay for the costs of generating it. How would society be worse off in that scenario?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Or any R&D for that matter.

[j_b]

cut the bull. Who would have paid for nuclear R&D if not the taxpayer?

 

Who knows. Might have never been developed if it looked like it would be impossible to sell the power for enough to pay for the costs of generating it. How would society be worse off in that scenario?

 

Without more subsidies the nuclear industry is going nowhere from here, so you can bet it would never have happened but I can't tell if we'd be better off, even though the negative of nuclear are very large. The model of subsidies in nuclear isn't the exception, it's the general rule with a few exceptions where taxpayer subsidy didn't play a role. Where would the highway lobby (automobile/tire/oil) be without taxpayer funded roads?

[JayB]

The real fallacy here is the notion that neoliberal policies ostensibly aimed at reducing subsidies and "letting markets rip" have reduced concentrations in corporate power and increased competition in any meaningful way. Of course, true believers can always point to the next horizon for their El Dorado rather than accepting the folly of their campaign. "The fabled city of gold is just ahead, just as soon as we eliminate the government!"

 

Compared to...what?

 

You really think corporate power is *undermined*, consumer welfare is enhanced, and political power more evenly dispersed under an explicit cartelization program?

 

The fact that a concentrated economic interest can make leftists believe it's going to be less potent and more inclined to act in the public interest if the state grants it a monopoly and enacts legislation to insulate it from competition might be one of the greatest marketing coups of all time.