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: Doren who wrote (11744)	9/16/2011 5:30:12 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

3) subsidize consumers, through tax breaks or feedback tariffs - the Solyndra debacle happened because an ignorant bureaucrat made a bad decision. Split the decision making among millions of consumers and the companies with the competitive edge, best tech, manufacturing and management will emerge. As opposed to giving a giant inefficient corporation a subsidy only because it's best at paperwork/lobbying and giving it an unfair competitive edge against smaller but more efficient companies that concentrate on products instead of bureaucratic expertise. Just thinking out loud here. Here's my question....who cares if we are first to renewable energies? I dont mean from the production side but from the consumption side. From a global warming/economic standpoint, the ideal scenario is one where the rest of the world heavily subsidizes renewable energy and the US gets a free ride on the lower greenhouse gases and lower commodity costs (oil, coal, etc). On top of that, when we do move heavily towards renewable energy, we get the benefit of more efficient equipment which might give us a long-term structural advantage in the cost of electricity. From a manufacturing standpoint, subsidizing consumers doesnt give us a domestic industry. Those subsidies can easily end up flowing overseas since we cant require that consumers use domestic sources. A post by Jacob yesterday outlined the three different industrial policies of the US, China, and Europe. Of the three, I would take the European approach last. Between the US and China, it really depends on whether you think we are going to see more discontinuous innovations in the sector. If no, then China is the obvious choice. If yes, then much of the Chinese subsidies will have been wasted and the question will be whether they have the flexibility to shift their resources into the new winners. Slacker