Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Fracking is completely safe....

I think what you're suggesting is that the market system - deregulated - will not innovate alternative energy sources.

I think you are suggesting the failure of the market to remedy the problem of global warming, and, in fact , suggesting that the market created these problems...

Is it fair to infer that you favor government intervention?

To solve a problem created and perpetuated by the market?

But your "problem" isn't so much "the market", but people.
You want to blame the system, but want to divorce people's choices from your "problem". Instead of of burning fuel in your car to catch fish in the Catskills, or using electricity created from burning coal to power your life or using fracked natural gas to heat your home, you DO all those things, complain about the companies YOU PAY to do it and then you demand that the government make rules on others to stop the "problem" YOU create every day because of the choices YOU make...
You're in denial, GB. (and being a silly hypocrite about it...)
 
But your "problem" isn't so much "the market", but people. You want to blame the system, but want to divorce people's choices from your "problem". Instead of of burning fuel in your car to catch fish in the Catskills, or using electricity created from burning coal to power your life or using fracked natural gas to heat your home, you DO all those things, complain about the companies YOU PAY to do it and then you demand that the government make rules on others to stop the "problem" YOU create every day because of the choices YOU make... You're in denial, GB. (and being a silly hypocrite about it...)

We've got two possible situations.

The first is proposed by eddavison, who says that there are plenty of alternative, green energy sources.

The second is that there aren't. Mac suggests that there are not alternative, green energy sources, available on the market to the consumer. I would define that as saying that there is no consumer choice in the market for green energy.

Eddavison may be right, that there is a choice for consumers for green alternatives, but my observations tell me that Mac is probably more accurate in his description of the energy market, where there is no consumer choice available on the market for green alternatives.

Which leads to the conclusion that government regulation is necessary of the fossil fuel industry.

It is you who is whining, not me.
 
We've got two possible situations.

The first is proposed by eddavison, who says that there are plenty of alternative, green energy sources.

The second is that there aren't. Mac suggests that there are not alternative, green energy sources, available on the market to the consumer. I would define that as saying that there is no consumer choice in the market for green energy.

Eddavison may be right, that there is a choice for consumers for green alternatives, but my observations tell me that Mac is probably more accurate in his description of the energy market, where there is no consumer choice available on the market for green alternatives.

Which leads to the conclusion that government regulation is necessary of the fossil fuel industry.

It is you who is whining, not me.
Who said you are whining...
I mean you ARE, but I didn't mention it...
(We all just accept that as a given)

There are MORE than two "situations" here, GB...
Have you purchased an electric car yet?
A bank of solar panels to charge it?
Heating your home with solar captured heat?
another bank of solar panels to provide you with light and power for your computer?

NO?
Seems you, the consumer, have choices, but...

NOT practical given the way you live?
You have the choice to relocate and live a simpler, greener life...
You know you do...
Haven't done that?
Huh...

Every individiual has choices GB...
You choose to burn fracked gasoline for your hobby...
Coal and Fracked natural gas for your electricity...
Fracked natural gas to heat your home....
You CHOOSE to do that, because it's easy and cheap.

You propose to make everyone lose the very choices YOU'VE made...
Even though you have OPTIONS, but refuse to utilize them.
 
Who said you are whining...
I mean you ARE, but I didn't mention it...
(We all just accept that as a given)

There are MORE than two "situations" here, GB...
Have you purchased an electric car yet?
A bank of solar panels to charge it?
Heating your home with solar captured heat?
another bank of solar panels to provide you with light and power for your computer?

NO?

No.

Are you surprised I haven't?
 
No.

Are you surprised I haven't?

Of course I'm not surprised.

To do those things would mean that you'd have to not only believe those stances you take, but follow through and live them. You'd have to take personal responsibility for the choices you make.

It seems you'd rather live the way you'd like (be it because it's easiest/cheapest/most satisfying) but then blame the companies you pay to supply your energy needs for making you do it and your government for not making rules to make you stop you from committing your own poor behaviors...

No, I bet NONE of us are surprised; you've shown us for years that you enjoy playing the victim.
 
Of course I'm not surprised.

To do those things would mean that you'd have to not only believe those stances you take, but follow through and live them. You'd have to take personal responsibility for the choices you make.

It seems you'd rather live the way you'd like (be it because it's easiest/cheapest/most satisfying) but then blame the companies you pay to supply your energy needs for making you do it and your government for not making rules to make you stop you from committing your own poor behaviors...

No, I bet NONE of us are surprised; you've shown us for years that you enjoy playing the victim.

Poor, poor Beetle, he is a product of the machine....shouldn't you feel sorry for him?:)
 
Of course I'm not surprised.

To do those things would mean that you'd have to not only believe those stances you take, but follow through and live them. You'd have to take personal responsibility for the choices you make.

It seems you'd rather live the way you'd like (be it because it's easiest/cheapest/most satisfying) but then blame the companies you pay to supply your energy needs for making you do it and your government for not making rules to make you stop you from committing your own poor behaviors...

No, I bet NONE of us are surprised; you've shown us for years that you enjoy playing the victim.



That, right there, could be the Wikipedia definition of liberalism in a nutshell.....
 
Of course I'm not surprised.

To do those things would mean that you'd have to not only believe those stances you take, but follow through and live them. You'd have to take personal responsibility for the choices you make.

It seems you'd rather live the way you'd like (be it because it's easiest/cheapest/most satisfying) but then blame the companies you pay to supply your energy needs for making you do it and your government for not making rules to make you stop you from committing your own poor behaviors...

No, I bet NONE of us are surprised; you've shown us for years that you enjoy playing the victim.

Just to be clear, I think you've gone off the rails a bit with this argument.

What I am suggesting is that there are not reasonable, and available, green alternatives to oil and natural gas. On the market - green energy alternatives available to the consumer - to choose instead of oil and gas.

The implication of this is simple: its the moral basis for government regulation.

It isn't reasonable to suggest that the people who disagree with you, FF, shouldn't heat their homes in the winter, and, if they do, to say they're not "following through on their stance" on the issue, or whatever hogwash it is that you're saying.
 
As a person who abides by logic and being accurate I'm surprised (not really) that you misquoted me. I said there are no alternative green energy sources that deliver at scale and that are economical. Both are important elements. If there was we would all be using said green energy source. Now I will further clarify my point by stating my definition of alternative green energy would be one that doesn't involve any fossil fuels or nuclear energy given that you object to these sources. It's also intersting that you chose to redefine what all this means. According to you it's just not available so government must intervene (cause we know they will do a bang up job in providing more choice) I submit this is also complete bullshit and what you are really saying is I want the government to destroy one industry so that another industry can be a more likely option. The attempt to destroy the coal industry is exhibit A. Come on now John your ideological bent is showing. Btw I hear you can get one of those electric cars real cheap now:)
We've got two possible situations.

The first is proposed by eddavison, who says that there are plenty of alternative, green energy sources.

The second is that there aren't. Mac suggests that there are not alternative, green energy sources, available on the market to the consumer. I would define that as saying that there is no consumer choice in the market for green energy.

Eddavison may be right, that there is a choice for consumers for green alternatives, but my observations tell me that Mac is probably more accurate in his description of the energy market, where there is no consumer choice available on the market for green alternatives.

Which leads to the conclusion that government regulation is necessary of the fossil fuel industry.

It is you who is whining, not me.
 
..it's just boring around here and I want some controversy.....

th
:)
 
Btw I hear you can get one of those electric cars real cheap now:)

An electric car would be good. Have I ever told the story of the time Beetle ran out of gas on i287 south? It's real good. It involves a leaky Hyde flat-boat that mudbug lent us, Beetle being like "man i'm really starting to get cold, this is not good" like 19 times, us arriving at Hale Eddy in the dark (but our car was parked at Balls Eddy so we had like another hour of paddling). Hmmm let's see what else happened. Beetle left the drift boat anchor at the launch, I circled back to get it, but was so tired that I forgot to leave it for mudbug and had to bring it to him @ his liberal hippy office. Oh yess, and I lost an 8-Weight and my car broke down on the drive back to the city.
 
An electric car would be good. Have I ever told the story of the time Beetle ran out of gas on i287 south? It's real good. It involves a leaky Hyde flat-boat that mudbug lent us, Beetle being like "man i'm really starting to get cold, this is not good" like 19 times, us arriving at Hale Eddy in the dark (but our car was parked at Balls Eddy so we had like another hour of paddling). Hmmm let's see what else happened. Beetle left the drift boat anchor at the launch, I circled back to get it, but was so tired that I forgot to leave it for mudbug and had to bring it to him @ his liberal hippy office. Oh yess, and I lost an 8-Weight and my car broke down on the drive back to the city.

All this, after spending the day talking about starting a guide service...
 
Just to be clear, I think you've gone off the rails a bit with this argument.

What I am suggesting is that there are not reasonable, and available, green alternatives to oil and natural gas. On the market - green energy alternatives available to the consumer - to choose instead of oil and gas.

The implication of this is simple: its the moral basis for government regulation.

It isn't reasonable to suggest that the people who disagree with you, FF, shouldn't heat their homes in the winter, and, if they do, to say they're not "following through on their stance" on the issue, or whatever hogwash it is that you're saying.

Off the rails?

What argument? That you are a hypocrite?
That you have CHOSEN a lifestyle that requires that you buy the very energy that you demonize? All the while provided opportunities to live a lifestyle where you can minimize your reliance on companies that utilize policies that you abhor? But you don't?

A simple google search will provide you a great starting point.
Try here GB:
Cost of Solar, Financing & Solar Leases

Who would disagree with me, that you have opportunities to live a greener life?

Certainly anyone should heat their homes, but it's silly for them to then demonize the companies that allow them to keep their kids warm and safe.

You PAY these companies to Frack and strip mine, dispose of waste water and pollute the air...
But you don't have to...
You'd rather just write the check and blame them for your choice to use THAT energy...

And you DO have choices...
and you'll LOVE this... the government will even subsidize your choice to go green.

So why haven't you?
 
We're all hypocrites. We all are forced to take part in systems that we don't believe in. That's not the definition of liberalism, it's the definition of being part of a complex modern society.

But anyway...

everything I've been hearing suggests that scalable economical alternative energy sources are finally on the verge of becoming a reality, thanks to government intervention (not so much regulation as subsidies), technological advancements (that would be the market at work), and consumer choice.

For example, from a little over a year ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...rt-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html

Am I wrong about all this? Just curious, not looking to criticize or scrutinize others.
 
The subsidies don't always make economic sense.
A few months ago I had to replace my boiler.
Within my budget there were two choices....

  • For a little more than $7000 - A slightly more efficient boiler that did not qualify for a subsidy.

    For over $10,000 plus additional plumbing costs - A much more efficient, boiler that qualified for a $300 subsidy. At my age, the increased efficiency, is unlikely to save the difference within my projected lifetime. At anyone's age, investing the difference would yield a better return.

Just wondering... If everyone (energy producers and energy users) took advantage of all the subsidies, where would the money to pay the subsidies come from?
 
The subsidies don't always make economic sense.
A few months ago I had to replace my boiler.
Within my budget there were two choices....

  • For a little more than $7000 - A slightly more efficient boiler that did not qualify for a subsidy.

    For over $10,000 plus additional plumbing costs - A much more efficient, boiler that qualified for a $300 subsidy. At my age, the increased efficiency, is unlikely to save the difference within my projected lifetime. At anyone's age, investing the difference would yield a better return.

Just wondering... If everyone (energy producers and energy users) took advantage of all the subsidies, where would the money to pay the subsidies come from?

Pete that's been my experience as well with those programs. I understand and agree with the logic behind them, but the way they're applied seems haphazard.

To your second point, Joe Taxpayer has been subsidizing energy industries (primarily fossil fuel) to the tune of 10-15 billion dollars per year for most of the last century.

Sometimes subsidies make sense - to me it makes sense to subsidize technological innovation in alternative energy sources - but most of the time they're just payoffs for campaign donors and industry lobbyists.
 
Pete that's been my experience as well with those programs. I understand and agree with the logic behind them, but the way they're applied seems haphazard.

To your second point, Joe Taxpayer has been subsidizing energy industries (primarily fossil fuel) to the tune of 10-15 billion dollars per year for most of the last century.

Sometimes subsidies make sense - to me it makes sense to subsidize technological innovation in alternative energy sources - but most of the time they're just payoffs for campaign donors and industry lobbyists.

MB you hit the nail on the head. Both parties are equally at fault doing this.. The problem is the subsidies are used to fleece the tax payer. I don't believe that the government should subsidize any industry. What it should do, is ease the tax constraints on private investors. Let the privet sector take the risk and lower the taxes on an return of that investment. This would ensure that the most innovative companies get the funding that they need and just not an individual with bogus intentions.
 
........To your second point, Joe Taxpayer has been subsidizing energy industries (primarily fossil fuel) to the tune of 10-15 billion dollars per year for most of the last century......

So... To fund the subsidies, they need everyone to pay, but only a few taking advantage of the subsidies.

If no one accepted a subsidy, everyone's taxes would go down....

If everyone took a subsidy, taxes would go up by (at least) the amount of the subsidies, plus the cost to administer them (which may or may not include some additional graft).

Seems to me that IF......
  • There are viable cost effective alternate (green) energy sources.
    AND
    A demand for viable cost effective (green) energy sources.
They would become available without government intervention.
 
Seems to me that IF......
  • There are viable cost effective alternate (green) energy sources.
    AND
    A demand for viable cost effective (green) energy sources.
They would become available without government intervention.

On a purely theoretical level, yes. But on a practical level, almost nothing becomes available in our economy without subsidies. Enormous subsidies are handed out to every single industry at all levels of government.

Why do pigs eat soy and corn? Because we subsidize the shit out of those crops.
Why did that Dairy Queen or that lumber mill open in your town rather than the one next door? Because they got a tax break.
Why are the big investment banks still paying their CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses when they all should have tanked in 2009? Because we bailed those fuckers out.

So, on one hand, you're right. If these subsidies were not handed out by the government, our taxes would go down. But on the other hand, it seems like you might have it wrong. There is not, nor has there ever been, a market that was free of "government intervention." The government provides the legal, regulatory, and financial context in which any market operates. Like it or not. It always chooses the winners. For fifty or sixty years, it chose domestic coal and petroleum. Now it's choosing natural gas and renewables.

Ideally, solar and wind would be viable without these subsidies. Ideally, so would rail travel. But the government subsidized the crap out of the automobile and now has to prop up Amtrak every year in order to keep it in business. And so forth and so on.

Where I agree with the spirit of what you're saying is that certain kinds of subsidies could actually inhibit technological innovation. If the government encourages consumers to buy sort of energy efficient washing machines, it doesn't really encourage corporations to come up with something better, right? You don't want that government intervention to become a crutch, as it has in the case of something like Amtrak.
 
...... There is not, nor has there ever been, a market that was free of "government intervention." .......
So... if it's never been done before...Let's try it and see if it works.
Next election, everybody vote for me (as dictator of the universe).
My only campaign promise "I will never show up for work".
 
So... if it's never been done before...Let's try it and see if it works.
Next election, everybody vote for me (as dictator of the universe).
My only campaign promise "I will never show up for work".

You're hired:)
 
So in effect we have never had free markets which means we've never really experienced capitalism. At best its been corparitism. If that's the case why does the left blame free markets and demand more government intervention and control. I agree we have never experienced completely free markets but what's taken place in the last 20-30 years is not comparable to whatcame before it. There is clearly a role for state and federal regulation and oversight of industry but invariably that Leads to these same entities legislating for more control. There is a balance to be struck that seems to escape us. The banking crisis is/was a great example. Then pres. Bush asserted he had to suspend the rules of the free market in order to save it...nope doesn't work that way and 7 years later we have essentially the same structure with banks that are larger and have more leverage. So the rule of the free market would have said if you do something bad like some of these banks did you will go down and the only help you will get is what awaits you in bankruptcy court. Knowing this would be the consequence I'm guessing far less damage would ls have occurred. Similarly you had pres Obama rescue GM and hose the shareholders. Yeah I think we could use less gov control but actual enforcement of fewer regulations. The current situation resembles a jack in the box right before the last note is hit:)
On a purely theoretical level, yes. But on a practical level, almost nothing becomes available in our economy without subsidies. Enormous subsidies are handed out to every single industry at all levels of government.

Why do pigs eat soy and corn? Because we subsidize the shit out of those crops.
Why did that Dairy Queen or that lumber mill open in your town rather than the one next door? Because they got a tax break.
Why are the big investment banks still paying their CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses when they all should have tanked in 2009? Because we bailed those fuckers out.

So, on one hand, you're right. If these subsidies were not handed out by the government, our taxes would go down. But on the other hand, it seems like you might have it wrong. There is not, nor has there ever been, a market that was free of "government intervention." The government provides the legal, regulatory, and financial context in which any market operates. Like it or not. It always chooses the winners. For fifty or sixty years, it chose domestic coal and petroleum. Now it's choosing natural gas and renewables.

Ideally, solar and wind would be viable without these subsidies. Ideally, so would rail travel. But the government subsidized the crap out of the automobile and now has to prop up Amtrak every year in order to keep it in business. And so forth and so on.

Where I agree with the spirit of what you're saying is that certain kinds of subsidies could actually inhibit technological innovation. If the government encourages consumers to buy sort of energy efficient washing machines, it doesn't really encourage corporations to come up with something better, right? You don't want that government intervention to become a crutch, as it has in the case of something like Amtrak.
 
On a purely theoretical level, yes. But on a practical level, almost nothing becomes available in our economy without subsidies. Enormous subsidies are handed out to every single industry at all levels of government.

Why do pigs eat soy and corn? Because we subsidize the shit out of those crops.
Why did that Dairy Queen or that lumber mill open in your town rather than the one next door? Because they got a tax break.
Why are the big investment banks still paying their CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses when they all should have tanked in 2009? Because we bailed those fuckers out.

So, on one hand, you're right. If these subsidies were not handed out by the government, our taxes would go down. But on the other hand, it seems like you might have it wrong. There is not, nor has there ever been, a market that was free of "government intervention." The government provides the legal, regulatory, and financial context in which any market operates. Like it or not. It always chooses the winners. For fifty or sixty years, it chose domestic coal and petroleum. Now it's choosing natural gas and renewables.

Ideally, solar and wind would be viable without these subsidies. Ideally, so would rail travel. But the government subsidized the crap out of the automobile and now has to prop up Amtrak every year in order to keep it in business. And so forth and so on.

Where I agree with the spirit of what you're saying is that certain kinds of subsidies could actually inhibit technological innovation. If the government encourages consumers to buy sort of energy efficient washing machines, it doesn't really encourage corporations to come up with something better, right? You don't want that government intervention to become a crutch, as it has in the case of something like Amtrak.

MB

This is where you are wrong. You are making an argument that subsidies and tax incentives are one in the same and both bad. It is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference between tax incentives and subsidies. Most tax incentives are symbiotic but there are exceptions in some cases. A company wants to open a facility. The State, County and Local governments all agree to a lower tax rate for that facility. The incentive gives the company a reason to thrive. The company agrees to build the facility. Jobs are created in the construction process. The facility needs to hire individuals for the various operations so the company can produce a product. This benefits both the company and the sounding community. Although the tax rate is lower then average for the facility, the tax revenue for the sounding community increases. The surrounding real estate values increase. A sub-economy is created in the surrounding communities in direct response to the new facility (hotels, restaurants, home construction, and specialized services……) all will add to the increase tax revenue for the surrounding communities. This creates a mutual benefit for all stake holders (the company, the community and the local governments)

Most Subsidies (bailouts) on the other hand are parasitic only benefit a few on a single entity again there are some exceptions in a small number of cases. The difference is there is no incentive for economic advancement with subsidies. They have their wealth handed to them by the tax payer. The company is handed capital to use as it sees fit and in most cases without restriction on what the money is used for. In most cases no retribution for failure. The fact is the companies that have political clout are rewarded for failure with free handouts.
 
MB

This is where you are wrong. You are making an argument that subsidies and tax incentives are one in the same and both bad. It is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference between tax incentives and subsidies. Most tax incentives are symbiotic but there are exceptions in some cases. A company wants to open a facility. The State, County and Local governments all agree to a lower tax rate for that facility. The incentive gives the company a reason to thrive. The company agrees to build the facility. Jobs are created in the construction process. The facility needs to hire individuals for the various operations so the company can produce a product. This benefits both the company and the sounding community. Although the tax rate is lower then average for the facility, the tax revenue for the sounding community increases. The surrounding real estate values increase. A sub-economy is created in the surrounding communities in direct response to the new facility (hotels, restaurants, home construction, and specialized services……) all will add to the increase tax revenue for the surrounding communities. This creates a mutual benefit for all stake holders (the company, the community and the local governments)

Most Subsidies (bailouts) on the other hand are parasitic only benefit a few on a single entity again there are some exceptions in a small number of cases. The difference is there is no incentive for economic advancement with subsidies. They have their wealth handed to them by the tax payer. The company is handed capital to use as it sees fit and in most cases without restriction on what the money is used for. In most cases no retribution for failure. The fact is the companies that have political clout are rewarded for failure with free handouts.



For fuck's sake Tom, how many times?
Than vs Then | e Learn English Language
 
MB

This is where you are wrong. You are making an argument that subsidies and tax incentives are one in the same and both bad. It is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference between tax incentives and subsidies. Most tax incentives are symbiotic but there are exceptions in some cases. A company wants to open a facility. The State, County and Local governments all agree to a lower tax rate for that facility. The incentive gives the company a reason to thrive. The company agrees to build the facility. Jobs are created in the construction process. The facility needs to hire individuals for the various operations so the company can produce a product. This benefits both the company and the sounding community. Although the tax rate is lower then average for the facility, the tax revenue for the sounding community increases. The surrounding real estate values increase. A sub-economy is created in the surrounding communities in direct response to the new facility (hotels, restaurants, home construction, and specialized services……) all will add to the increase tax revenue for the surrounding communities. This creates a mutual benefit for all stake holders (the company, the community and the local governments)

Most Subsidies (bailouts) on the other hand are parasitic only benefit a few on a single entity again there are some exceptions in a small number of cases. The difference is there is no incentive for economic advancement with subsidies. They have their wealth handed to them by the tax payer. The company is handed capital to use as it sees fit and in most cases without restriction on what the money is used for. In most cases no retribution for failure. The fact is the companies that have political clout are rewarded for failure with free handouts.


All you're doing here Tom is outlining a best-case scenario for tax breaks and a worst case scenario for subsidies.

Believe me, there are plenty of municipalities and state governments that have gotten shafted by a corporation after giving it a generous tax break. It happens in NYC all the time. They promise jobs and other community benefits but don't deliver. Eventually it turns out there was a back-room handshake between the corporation and city agencies. Everybody wins, yes, except the public. The federal government gives enormous tax breaks all the time supposedly to spur industry that actually amount to a wealth transfer from you and me to private corporations. It's not all as rosy as you paint it.

And there are plenty of subsidies that have worked well. See my next post...
 
So, this is right on time. A column in the Times today outlining "The Conservative Case for Subsidies". I know we're all liberals here, but it's good to play devil's advocate from time to time. :)

Here's an excerpt that is relevant to this dry ass thread we've created:

Of course, conservatives will respond that their core objection remains: Solar functions only because of government subsidies. But there are a couple of issues to consider.

For one thing, not all subsidies are created equal, and the government actually has a good track record in promoting new energy technologies. New developments often face two market gaps that can potentially delay or even kill them: the “technological valley of death,” in which promising advances hit a technical brick wall, and the “commercialization valley of death,” in which an effective technology can’t get to market. Government research labs and subsidies have supported a number of forms of energy — from nuclear energy,to hydraulic fracturing, to photovoltaic solar — through these troughs.

And there’s nothing unique about the government’s support for solar. According to the Congressional Research Service, total government support for the oil and gas sector over the years dwarfs the amount of support for the solar industry. Furthermore, the solar investment tax credit is pretty smart. It’s structured so that as solar power becomes more efficient, the effect of the credit on each watt produced becomes smaller.

Ideally, we would let markets decide the winners on their own, but so long as government is intervening in markets, it should do so in an evenhanded way. Similarly, any government support for the solar industry should be impartial, rather than having government bureaucracy pick and choose favored companies as it does through its loan guarantee program. The solar investment tax credit comes close to that ideal.

And there’s nothing in free-market economic theory that precludes government support. Markets tend to underproduce what economists call positive externalities — that is, the broad social benefits, like a cleaner environment, that aren’t captured on a company’s balance sheet.

Solar panels, and the companies that make them, are replete with such benefits: They eliminate redundant power plants that otherwise lie idle, empower consumer choice and have fewer negative consequences than most other forms of energy. But markets don’t always reflect these, which is why it makes sense for subsidies to enter the picture.
 
Sure but at the same time you neglect to point out the vast array of regulations and statutes That amount to a cost to any business that looks to estsblsohment a presence in a community. Corporations getting tax breaks is smart because the reality is you are getting ta es from the folks that work there or through the ecosystem of business thats created indirectly or directly. Let's be honest here for every tax break that's given there is a Regulation that costs the company. There is no free lunch. You will see no better example of this by attending a township or city planning meeting. Watch any business like ok ing to build or open in a city or town and see the process first hand. I have seen people openly extorted.

All you're doing here Tom is outlining a best-case scenario for tax breaks and a worst case scenario for subsidies.

Believe me, there are plenty of municipalities and state governments that have gotten shafted by a corporation after giving it a generous tax break. It happens in NYC all the time. They promise jobs and other community benefits but don't deliver. Eventually it turns out there was a back-room handshake between the corporation and city agencies. Everybody wins, yes, except the public. The federal government gives enormous tax breaks all the time supposedly to spur industry that actually amount to a wealth transfer from you and me to private corporations. It's not all as rosy as you paint it.

And there are plenty of subsidies that have worked well. See my next post...
 
This is fine except what's happening is one industry is being artificially constrained (coal). As for oil and gas it's past time the government remove subsidies but it also needs to remove its own tax on fuels asx well. That would be even handed and fair.
So, this is right on time. A column in the Times today outlining "The Conservative Case for Subsidies". I know we're all liberals here, but it's good to play devil's advocate from time to time. :)

Here's an excerpt that is relevant to this dry ass thread we've created:

Of course, conservatives will respond that their core objection remains: Solar functions only because of government subsidies. But there are a couple of issues to consider.

For one thing, not all subsidies are created equal, and the government actually has a good track record in promoting new energy technologies. New developments often face two market gaps that can potentially delay or even kill them: the “technological valley of death,” in which promising advances hit a technical brick wall, and the “commercialization valley of death,” in which an effective technology can’t get to market. Government research labs and subsidies have supported a number of forms of energy — from nuclear energy,to hydraulic fracturing, to photovoltaic solar — through these troughs.

And there’s nothing unique about the government’s support for solar. According to the Congressional Research Service, total government support for the oil and gas sector over the years dwarfs the amount of support for the solar industry. Furthermore, the solar investment tax credit is pretty smart. It’s structured so that as solar power becomes more efficient, the effect of the credit on each watt produced becomes smaller.

Ideally, we would let markets decide the winners on their own, but so long as government is intervening in markets, it should do so in an evenhanded way. Similarly, any government support for the solar industry should be impartial, rather than having government bureaucracy pick and choose favored companies as it does through its loan guarantee program. The solar investment tax credit comes close to that ideal.

And there’s nothing in free-market economic theory that precludes government support. Markets tend to underproduce what economists call positive externalities — that is, the broad social benefits, like a cleaner environment, that aren’t captured on a company’s balance sheet.

Solar panels, and the companies that make them, are replete with such benefits: They eliminate redundant power plants that otherwise lie idle, empower consumer choice and have fewer negative consequences than most other forms of energy. But markets don’t always reflect these, which is why it makes sense for subsidies to enter the picture.
 
Sure but at the same time you neglect to point out the vast array of regulations and statutes That amount to a cost to any business that looks to estsblsohment a presence in a community. Corporations getting tax breaks is smart because the reality is you are getting ta es from the folks that work there or through the ecosystem of business thats created indirectly or directly. Let's be honest here for every tax break that's given there is a Regulation that costs the company. There is no free lunch. You will see no better example of this by attending a township or city planning meeting. Watch any business like ok ing to build or open in a city or town and see the process first hand. I have seen people openly extorted.

Been to many city planning meetings. Unfortunately. :crap:

Look, it depends on whether it's a buyers market or a sellers market. Small businesses can get extorted when they want to open. Even more so once they've opened, and are dependent on staying in a municipality. In this case, it can be asymmetrical: they need local govt. more than it needs them.

But when a city wants to attract a big corporation, it's the opposite. A buyer's market from the standpoint of the corporation. Localities will bend over backwards. And whatever they give up is just layered onto the obscene amount of tax loopholes that corporations already exploit, producing a negative tax rate in many instances, and making the US effective corporate tax rate far lower than our European competitors.

So small businesses and taxpayers lose and big business wins.

Read this
if you want to learn more about how this works.
 
Back
Top