To: RetiredNow who wrote (307841 ) 10/27/2006 4:10:19 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571643 I have many times on this thread stated that sometimes government action is necessary, and that sometimes when it isn't necessary its clearly worth the cost. In many other cases its hard to tell if its worth the cost because while there is a clear benefit, its impossible to tell how much of the benefit might have been realized without the government spending, and its hard to tell exactly what was lost because of the government spending. I've never argued that all government investments, even in areas where government spending isn't necessary wind up being negative for the country. If we'd spent $500B on oil independence, we'd have already guaranteed we'd get there within 20 years. Instead we spent that on Iraq. 1 - We would have guaranteed no such thing. 2 - Do you think we will spend $500bil a year (presumably in 2003-6 dollars not in 2023 dollars) for 20 years in Iraq? Even if we spent $1 trillion to buy every US car driver, a plug-in, hybrid, flex fuel vehicle, we'd make our money back in less than 5 years. $1trillion wouldn't be enough. And no we wouldn't make our money back on that investment in 5 years. Figure $25k a vehicle. Then you have over 100 million vehicles. I'll round down to 100 mil, it makes the math easier and my figures more conservative. So you have $2.5 tril. Then figure you use 50% less gasoline. You save maybe something like 35 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Figure something like $1.75 per gallon (after subtracting the gasoline taxes). That means you save something like $61 bil a year. Factor in lower prices do to lower demand and maybe your saving $100 bil a year. Ignoring interest that would give you a 25 year payback period. Add in interest and the interest cost might be roughly about what your savings are. (4% APR would mean your paying $100bil a year in interest) In other words the investment might never pay for itself. (and 4% is a very modest discount rate, most investments would be measured against much higher rates) Now true that's just considering dollars and cents. We might get other benefits from the plan, but then there would be non dollar losses/costs as well. Calculating both sides of the non dollar cost benefit ratio would be very subjective, but the benefits would have to be truly huge to justify just the dollar cost, let alone any non dollar costs or harm done by the plan. I haven't even included all the other benefits, such as a reduced need for military spending in places like Iraq As far as the current conflict goes, I don't think there would be any reduction in spending. Well maybe if gasoline is cheaper we could fuel the vehicles there cheaper, and that might not be a small savings, but its small compared to the cost of the program. and the money we can make from licensing all of our patents on new automobile technology for cars that don't use oil, etc. Its unlikely that the US would develop some special magic solution that would require everyone to pay enormous sums of cash to get the patents from us. Either the patent payments would be low compared to the huge investment, or the patents will be worked around or ignored. Likely the patents would be held by foreign companies either already or as they develop technologies to server the new market for plug-in, hybrid, flex fuel vehicles.