As Gyrate said, the motive is relevant. If there was more profit to be made by polluting, companies would pollute. That one case may show the opposite is irrelevant. The free market hasn’t fixed anything.
Any comment on the rest of my post? The Space Shuttle was not 25 years after Gemini.
Also, with regard to government promotion of alternative energy sources, it’s worth noting that the US government is not here trying to fund the creation of something that no one else is doing
but rather playing catch-up with China which has, with its own government funding, spent the last decade developing a green energy industry (wind turbines in particular) while the Bush administration treated it as a non-issue.
Is it really necessary to “catch up” with China? Can we not simply buy wind turbines from China? We benefit from them developing an expertise in green energy, just as they benefit from us developing technology here.
The idea that the Bush administration of all things should have been centrally planning energy policy is laughable. The idea that any administration should be centrally planning energy policy is archaic.
“Unfettered capitalism” would include a banking sector not subsidized by FDIC and implicit bailout guarantees. Now would you like to tell me where we have unfettered capitalism so I can move there?
ETA: Also i would prefer an unfettered capitalism that doesn’t have employees moonlighting as “public servants” in the highest positions of the government.
Of course, tea partiers called Republican senator Granham a traitor and are looking to replace him in 2014.
Somalia. Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
Am i supposed to take advice from Lindsey Graham now? I guess we should be authorizing an attack on Iranin the next few months too right?
Care to make the case that Somalia is a capitalist society with property rights? Of course that may take more than one sentence, and probably little opportunities for attempted humor.
Well, if you get a time machine, you can go to Germany in the 30’s. No bailouts and in 1931 there were runs on German and Austrian banks and several of them folded. You do not want to know (or you are happily ignorant) of what the resulting levels of unemployment and the discontent generated, and what that led to.
Like it or not, you must live in the real world. There is no nation that meets your pure libertarian ideal nor will there ever be. We figured out long ago that there needs to be some restraint and government control over banking or else risk disastrous consequences.
Reaching for fallacies is the best sign of having no good arguments or reply to what the senator said.
Right. What the German economy needed in 1931 was another round of money printing! Or would draconian tax increases have been your method for paying for those bailouts of your? Lol think first bud.
The senator said nothing of substance. More importantly he did not address my claim that we benefit from Chinese green energy developments. Your quote of him did nothing to address my claim. I question your grasp of the division of labor, and its benefits.
I think you have the right to as much property as you can defend there.
You figured out long ago that the most profitable entities in the economy should be subsidized by taxpayers, gotcha.
Unless the US government funds your adversaries. The Somalian economy is hobbled by US intervention even more directly than our own.
A “well-regulated market” would have something different from the piecemeal and ineffectual regulatory structure the US currently has too. And what’s your plan to keep the banks from losing everyone’s money when they go bust without the FDIC in place?
That there are benefits was granted, that you do not what to deal with the also ongoing reductions in support of newer technologies and local development has to be avoided by people like you.
Of course that shows more ignorance, the borrowing was one of the reasons why they got in the problem in the first place, as many point out the increase in taxes and the reduction in local investing was a problem, but once again, from the beginning one of the main problems was to not invest in development when the recession hit.
The Republicans figured out a long time ago, regardless of how profitable they get, fossil fuel companies still get their subsidies.
BTW claiming that the senator said nothing of substance points to your position as one that denies that there is any problem with human induced global warming, is that right?