Sam, we’ve gone through this before. You’re an interesting poster and debator on many topics. That said, when you start in on this “just a non-partisan observation” schtick, it sure comes off as disingenious and probably deliberate lipstick on a pig partisan propaganda.
I don’t like this move. All green job creation should be given to people who actually want green stuff first, instead of jobs first. Task of creating green jobs should be given over to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club
That would be fine if Greenpeace didn’t stand foursquare against the most fundamentally green move possible.
But their name is Greenpeace!
What possible reasoning leads you to think that people who “want green stuff” have the remotest competency in job creation - most notably in the hard and risk business of implementing new technologies?
Wanting something is in no way synonymous with any capacity to effectively do something.
How many factories does Greenpeace own?
Good point. Let’s task them with bringing Peace to the Middle East. They can do it in a very green way, too!
The priority is Green. The happy collateral is jobs. Don’t we almost always find the jobs guy to create a green job, instead of the other way around (using a greens guy to create jobs)
I dunno, zero? That’s pretty green. They’d probably be heavy on creating jobs that doesn’t involve factories
Green is first though 
Win.
Are you serious?
I have to believe this is a joke.
I am hoping this is a joke.
Well, at least we are advancing on the “sneering at idealists” front.
I’d consider it more sneering at people who are willfully blind to an available solution - that of nuclear power. When idealists claim to support a certain goal, but turn up their noses at an available way of at least closing on that goal out of ridiculous reasons, then I think they deserve to be sneered at.
Yeah, I dunno. I think the market for handcrafted hemp hacky sacks is probably already pretty saturated.
Well if he is not trolling (in a light sense) for respones, then yes, I shall sneer. I am gob-smacked.
Presuming you actually want green industry to succeed - and not end up being a self-discrediting laughingstock, it would behove one to have proper industrialists and engineers involved, with an understanding of deeper than “green is good, hey man the Sun is like free power…”
No, the sun is not green, it’s yellow, so shouldn’t work. Fuel should be generated by plants because I hate plants
Trolling then. That is a relief, I had almost thought there could really be someone so dim…
I’m pretty sure Milton Friedman was aware of trustbusting and AT&T.
BTW, why the superfluous adjective in the thread title?
No, I also agreed that ‘crony capitalism’ sucks. I find the idea of “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” abhorrent, even though it seems to be a cornerstone of both business and government operation. As to being partisan, we’ve covered it and I’ll not belabor the issue any further.
Is this not the foundation of a commonly accepted definition of “fascism”? To wit: I think you’ll have difficulty finding anyone here who would disagree with that. Although I also think – and I’m sure you’ll agree – it is necessarily a matter of degree (arm’s length, but no closer!). That is, when business does well, the economy does well, and the economy doing well is (often) indicative of good governance. Government and business should work in concert to some degree (have to, I suppose); as usual, the problem is determining where to draw the line.
So, that’s where you’d draw the line (or a first approximation of the line, anyway). IMHO, even if it’s a start, it doesn’t go nearly far enough – any rule that would excuse the “Cheney energy task force” falls short. OTOH, your rule excludes the possibility that the person under consideration – Immelt, in this case – really might just be the best person for the job. (“Best” left undefined, as some nexus of qualifications, ability, opportunity, willingess, etc.) There are all sorts of questions raised to which I have few answers…
Perhaps the line you draw is simply the brightest one available – has some effect, even if minor, while being easy to implement and enforce.
Your historical question lies outside my realm of general knowledge, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some…umm, let’s call them “questionable”…situations in the robber-baron era – perhaps Andrew Mellon?
Like Halliburton and Cheney? Cause damn, if there were ever a war fought strictly for corporate interests, it was Iraq.