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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (15393)	4/22/2012 6:08:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies. And when your considering how much subsidies and targeted tax breaks distort the economy, you have to consider not just the gross amounts, but the effective subsidy per unit of energy or per dollar spent by the consumer of energy. Since alternatives produce much less energy, which sells for fewer dollars, than fossil fuels, it takes much less to distort those markets. Oil, is a much bigger market, even if it was subsidized as much as some claim (and it isn't, in fact the net subsidy is negative), would still make sense even if you add the cost of the "subsidies".