America's learning

Damocles said:
Dano, regardless of whether global warming exists do you think it would be a good thing to invest in and manufacture the next level of energy here in the US?

Or do you think it will be better for us if we simply just keep going as we are and let some other nation get that goodie?
Click to expand...


This was an excellent question, Damo. I must say, I am truly shocked that Dano ran away from trying to answer it honestly...
 
Damocles said:
Dano, regardless of whether global warming exists do you think it would be a good thing to invest in and manufacture the next level of energy here in the US?

Or do you think it will be better for us if we simply just keep going as we are and let some other nation get that goodie?
Click to expand...

Well I don't really see it as a goodie. I mean ecofuels are not illegal, they are not selling that well because other fuel is cheaper. Yes we could have more farming jobs from that, but we could also have more clothing jobs by say taxing foreign clothing and subsiding (please don't say investing, investment denotes a return) American clothing alternatives. But we don't need to do that, jobs are what they are based on market demand and we are doing fine.

We buy clothing, electronics and other goods abroad, there is nothing special about not buying energy abroad.

Also there is another angle here, if we subsidize say solar or wind or ethanol, what is to say in 20 years you find a better power source or AGW proven outright false? Then try repealing the subsidy, it becomes ingrained, I remember reading Gingrich and his struggles to remove subsidies for obscure things like Angora wool.

Just let things happen naturally in freedom, I can and always have supported removing oil subsidies, but beyond that we just need to let the nation naturally transgress (if it desires) from oil to other sources, just as we once moved from wood heating to oil, without any government interference.
 
Onceler said:
This was an excellent question, Damo. I must say, I am truly shocked that Dano ran away from trying to answer it honestly...
Click to expand...

He asked it a few minutes ago you moronic shit, my detailed thoughtful answers take longer than Lorax's prepped ridicule/hollow responses that somehow you are deluded enough to believe actually constitute "debate".
 
TheDanold said:
Well I don't really see it as a goodie. I mean ecofuels are not illegal, they are not selling that well because other fuel is cheaper. Yes we could have more farming jobs from that, but we could also have more clothing jobs by say taxing foreign clothing and subsiding (please don't say investing, investment denotes a return) American clothing alternatives. But we don't need to do that, jobs are what they are based on market demand and we are doing fine.

We buy clothing, electronics and other goods abroad, there is nothing special about not buying energy abroad.

Also there is another angle here, if we subsidize say solar or wind or ethanol, what is to say in 20 years you find a better power source or AGW proven outright false? Then try repealing the subsidy, it becomes ingrained, I remember reading Gingrich and his struggles to remove subsidies for obscure things like Angora wool.

Just let things happen naturally in freedom, I can and always have supported removing oil subsidies, but beyond that we just need to let the nation naturally transgress (if it desires) from oil to other sources, just as we once moved from wood heating to oil, without any government interference.
Click to expand...


Dano - Please google "externality." Once you grasp the concept you will understand that your "free market" fantasy is complete bullshit.
 
Dungheap said:
Dano - Please google "externality." Once you grasp the concept you will understand that your "free market" fantasy is complete bullshit.
Click to expand...
Uh-heheh, you're a funny little boy.
People are well aware of externalities like pollution, not very many of them to the point where they are willing to pay more for fuel to avoid them.
They have freely decided that price is more important to them than other factors or externalities, you can respect their free decision or you can FORCE them to buy more how you'd like to direct them to with government action.
 
TheDanold said:
Uh-heheh, you're a funny little boy.
People are well aware of externalities like pollution, not very many of them to the point where they are willing to pay more for fuel to avoid them.
They have freely decided that price is more important to them than other factors or externalities, you can respect their free decision or you can FORCE them to buy more how you'd like to direct them to with government action.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what the term means.

The simple fact is that the cost of fossil fuels are not reflected in the price of fossil fuels. On the same token, the benefits of alternative fuels are not reflected in the price of alternative fuels. As a result, the market is flawed and the fact that people use fossil fuels as opposed to alternative sources is the result of free market functions. It's not a free decision. It's a decision based on an imperfect flawed market where the price of goods is not reflective of their true cost.

Nice try though.
 
TheDanold said:
Well I don't really see it as a goodie. I mean ecofuels are not illegal, they are not selling that well because other fuel is cheaper. Yes we could have more farming jobs from that, but we could also have more clothing jobs by say taxing foreign clothing and subsiding (please don't say investing, investment denotes a return) American clothing alternatives. But we don't need to do that, jobs are what they are based on market demand and we are doing fine.

We buy clothing, electronics and other goods abroad, there is nothing special about not buying energy abroad.

Also there is another angle here, if we subsidize say solar or wind or ethanol, what is to say in 20 years you find a better power source or AGW proven outright false? Then try repealing the subsidy, it becomes ingrained, I remember reading Gingrich and his struggles to remove subsidies for obscure things like Angora wool.

Just let things happen naturally in freedom, I can and always have supported removing oil subsidies, but beyond that we just need to let the nation naturally transgress (if it desires) from oil to other sources, just as we once moved from wood heating to oil, without any government interference.
Click to expand...
Farming fuels are not the new level, they are a weak substitute.

I am talking about what will replace oil. Do you think it would be good for the nation to be the ones that produce the next cheap energy source rather than relying on others to provide it for us?
 
Dungheap said:
You clearly do not understand what the term means.

The simple fact is that the cost of fossil fuels are not reflected in the price of fossil fuels. On the same token, the benefits of alternative fuels are not reflected in the price of alternative fuels. As a result, the market is flawed and the fact that people use fossil fuels as opposed to alternative sources is the result of free market functions. It's not a free decision. It's a decision based on an imperfect flawed market where the price of goods is not reflective of their true cost.

Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, you clearly don't give people credit for understanding the obvious. People in LA do well feel/see the negative externality of smog coming from fossil fuel burning and it's health effects which they absord to some degree, but they are still looking for price. Why? Because the health effects aren't bad to the point where it's the deciding factor.
Same reason people don't today just switch to (non-clean burning) coal for heating because the health effects are bad enough not to use it.

There is no such thing as a flaw in a free market, a free market by it's very definition denotes free individuals making decisions based on THEIR best interest, who the fuck do you think you as one individual are to tell them their decisions are flawed and need to be overridden and altered by the force of government?
 
Damocles said:
Farming fuels are not the new level, they are a weak substitute.

I am talking about what will replace oil. Do you think it would be good for the nation to be the ones that produce the next cheap energy source rather than relying on others to provide it for us?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the question as worded, if it's a cheap energy source then it would already be made and being sold. Plenty of companies are looking to do this all the time, but have made some progress but not to the point where consumers would switch over.
Government funding any of that makes them less desperate to get results because their funding needs aren't as desperate and they aren't as pressed for time to get a return.

I think oil as it gradually increases in price will at some point get overtaken by ethanol or perhaps something will be invented by then, we'll see. I also think nuclear will play a bigger role and investors know that which is why the price of uranium has seen such incredibly huge gains recently.
Remember that most of America's newest success stories like in high tech had the least amount of government involvement.
 
TheDanold said:
Bullshit, you clearly don't give people credit for understanding the obvious. People in LA do well feel/see the negative externality of smog coming from fossil fuel burning and it's health effects which they absord to some degree, but they are still looking for price. Why? Because the health effects aren't bad to the point where it's the deciding factor.
Same reason people don't today just switch to (non-clean burning) coal for heating because the health effects are bad enough not to use it.

There is no such thing as a flaw in a free market, a free market by it's very definition denotes free individuals making decisions based on THEIR best interest, who the fuck do you think you as one individual are to tell them their decisions are flawed and need to be overridden and altered by the force of government?
Click to expand...


You are utterly clueless. Let's start from the beginning. Don't google "externality." Google "market failure."

By the way, the whole point of what I am saying is that the price decision that people are making is not reflective of reality as the true cost of fossil fuels use is not reflected in the price of the fossil fuel good. On the flip side of the coin, the price of alternative fuels is not reflective of their true cost as the positive externalities are not included in the price of the good.
 
TheDanold said:
American's mistrust is good news? Hokay.

You know if you post news about the stock market being up or say Americans earning more or unemployment rate being down, jobs created - that's good news for all to hear.
But you don't ever do that, it's not in your nature, Liberals really are just perpetually unhappy people.
Click to expand...

Danold, get a fucking life please. It's such a crock of shit that the lauded patraeus report will be intercepted and filtered by the white house. If this doesn't smell to you then you already have too much Bush shit crammed up your nose.
 
We caught him in a dead lie the other day - and the easiest kind of lie to disprove too. He said he didn't say something. Ornot quoted him directly, and he still didn't admit he was wrong. It was in the embarrassing thread about polar bears where he said something to the effect of "global warming helps polar bear populations grow" then denied saying it, despite the fact that we quoted him saying it.

Arguments with Dano often feel like you're being bukkaked with stupid.
 
I really have difficulty understanding how minds like Dano's works. Just too alien to the way I think.

And yes he has skewered himself several times lately.
 
TheDanold said:
I don't understand the question as worded, if it's a cheap energy source then it would already be made and being sold. Plenty of companies are looking to do this all the time, but have made some progress but not to the point where consumers would switch over.
Government funding any of that makes them less desperate to get results because their funding needs aren't as desperate and they aren't as pressed for time to get a return.

I think oil as it gradually increases in price will at some point get overtaken by ethanol or perhaps something will be invented by then, we'll see. I also think nuclear will play a bigger role and investors know that which is why the price of uranium has seen such incredibly huge gains recently.
Remember that most of America's newest success stories like in high tech had the least amount of government involvement.
Click to expand...
You are being deliberately obtuse.

Do you think it would be good for the nation if we funded and researched and thus created the next advancement for energy, and because it was created and manufactured here do you think it also would be good for the nation?

Or

Do you think it would be better if we continued to ignore the funding, let it be created elsewhere, manufactured elsewhere, and thus grew more dependent on foreign sources for our energy, all because we were upset about scientists using scare tactics?

Seriously, does it matter WHY we do it, so long as we are the ONES to do it?

Regardless of whether the scientific 'consensus' is right, or if they are trashing skeptics in some conspiratorial scientific witch hunt, most of the world is jumping on this and will welcome the next advancement in clean energy production. If we are not on that bandwagon because we wish to continue to worry about whether or not scientists are "scaring" us into some unneeded action, and we thus miss this boat we are missing out on one of the largest cash cows ever.

Much like NASA, such research could infuse a serious amount of cash into our economy, boosting it beyond measure instead of leaching more money into foreign markets boosting theirs. All while creating joy-joy feelings in people who think they are saving the planet regardless of whether they were "frightened" into doing so by scientists.

My point. I don't give a rat's butt if they are wrong, I do if we dismiss them when they are creating the largest market for something I think we can produce right here with a "fly to the moon" type of national interest and drive. Let this create the drive in the US to take the next step while creating a huge market for the device that ends up being created, built and sold by Americans. Instead of fighting them for no reason, all of us would like clean air and water, use them to help drive that interest that can make all of us even richer and drive the nation to new heights.

In short. There is no reason to fight this, but there is every reason to use it wisely thus creating a better future for the US and cleaning up the air and water regardless of whether what we are doing accelerates a warming effect or not. Standing around being "anti-science" is helping you not at all, using the driving force to create something that will drive the world's economy and manufacture and sell it from here.... Such a better choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top