Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (183481)	2/24/2004 11:08:46 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577594

John, re:And there lays the problem. It's an economic reality, how many people do you know with $17K appliances in their homes? Solar panels are nothing more than another appliance, get it into the $2K range and you'll have plenty of takers all over the nation. re:The second objection to solar is that, frankly, solar panels are ugly. So is T-11 siding but people use it because it's cheap. re:Truth is that the oil guys in the White House don't have a lot of imagination or vision. They may give lip service to alternate forms of energy but... You are so desperate to force a solution that is not economical you resort to calling everyone names and look for conspiracies at every turn.

To: Road Walker who wrote (183481)	2/24/2004 5:47:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577594

Providing tax benefits, not just on the end user but also on the R&D and manufacturing end, would produce a new thriving industry with new jobs, and provide the major political benefit of moving us closer to energy independence. If the tax benefits are not balanced by higher taxes somewhere else then your getting a tax cut which is good in some ways but it would increase the deficit. Also such a narrowly targeted tax cut has less of a positive economic effect then a more general rate cut would. If the tax cuts are balanced off by increasing other taxes then you don't create any net new jobs or economic growth you just take a bit from the rest of the economy and put it in one area. The new jobs will be more visible then the lost jobs so on the surface it will look like you have new jobs but really there is no net job creation. The move to energy independence would be a small one. Even with the tax benefits many won't sink the money into solar power. If 2% of the people reduce their household use of (non-solar) energy by 30-40% that would only be .6 to .8% of household energy use, and since your ignoring industrial and transportation and other uses the final energy reduction would probably be less then .1%. Even that .1% would largely be a reduction in electricity use and much of our electricity is produced by domestic coal, or nuclear, and some is produced by wind or hydro power or other domestic sources. Tim