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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (8272)	5/26/2010 7:34:27 PM
From: Jim S	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

That wasn't a rant, Sam, that was a good post. You stated your case very well. My counter point would be based on one word: debt. For most of the American expansionist period, the main contribution of the gov't was in non-cash benefits to the recipients. Railways mostly got land, utilities got tax breaks and cash from private bonds. You made a good case for bennies going to the AE industry, and I won't argue against that being a good cause. Trouble is, it will have to be at the expense of something else. Social spending, defense, etc, etc, all have their hands out and either can make an equally good pitch for their sector, or are funneling cash into the pockets of the decision makers. We are already at 90% debt to GDP, a no-kidding tipping point. Spending MUST be reduced or the economy would have to grow geometrically if we are to avoid a breakdown in our economy.

To: Sam who wrote (8272)	5/27/2010 12:37:15 AM
From: Doren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

But what is "appropriate" is the issue. This is also the traditional libertarian viewpoint. Most of us, even libertarians, agree the highway system and the defense system are appropriate government institutions. Farming, ranching, timber, mining, all sorts of transportation and communication industries, energy--they all owe a great deal to Fed aid of various kinds, and not just for "enforcing the sanctity of contracts," as libertarians would often have it. This is what I would call the Johnny Come lately extremist Libertarian viewpoint which is too bad. In general I agree on less government, particularly subsidies, but there are exceptions. Personally I believe that Energy Policy is strategic and therefor appropriate, depending on where and what is done. If we don't conserve and create we are cooked. I would like to see college level research get A LOT of money, with profit/patent sharing going back to the government.