Lego Government. Let's Build Our Own

That is true and that is why I think it should be left to the free market to produce it. We should provide some money for R&D but make it more incentive based to encourage the market to produce it. In the least we could do like what was done with the FCC and the laying of fiber optic cable across the US. This would make it a federal mandate to have the work completed in so many years so that the infrastructure is completed by the time the tech is ready for mass distribution.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

When it comes to the environmentalist stand point we can't really use windmills because they would have to be put up areas where we have lots of wind and that would require cutting down trees and dotting our landscape with huge monstrosities.

Not exactly true. In Germany, for instance, it is planned to build windmills at a platform in the North Sea which will provide energy to 200,000 households, without having to 'cut down trees' or 'dot our landscape with huge monstrosities'.

0 Replies

Do you have any idea how little of the US is within the same distance from the coastline as is all of Germany? Do you have any idea how little of the US coastline see similar wind patterns to those of the North Sea? Can you understand how few homes 200,000 is when compared to the population of the US?

I think it's great that Germany is doing this if it's the best solution for getting power to those 200,000 homes. I believe wind power is being implemented where viable in the US. There are wind farms in Upstate NY that I see from the highway when traveling up there. But for most of the US, wind farms would in fact--do, in fact--require clear-cutting of trees to erect.

0 Replies

Scrat, I was talking 'in general' (although I do realize this is a thread concerning the US). And I'm not saying this is THE alternative for the US. Merely was I pointing out that Baldimo's analysis was 'not exactly true'.

0 Replies

Germany being a small country has a better opportunity to push eco sound tech due to its smaller population. I admire Germany for starting the infrastructure for hydrogen-fueled cars. If I recall they have several gas stations that provide hydrogen fuel for a line of BMW cars that were being tested. This is a start in the right direction.

0 Replies

Re: Lego Government. Let's Build Our Own

Scrat wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
I want clean, inexpensive energy.

What is keeping you from having it now?

Let me see . . . How about $2.09 a gallon for gasoline? I have no other alternative to fuel my automobile. Therefore, I have no other choice but to pay an outrageous price for an energy source that is anything but clean. . . .

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
I want clean, inexpensive energy.

What is keeping you from having it now?

Let me see . . . How about $2.09 a gallon for gasoline? I have no other alternative to fuel my automobile. Therefore, I have no other choice but to pay an outrageous price for an energy source that is anything but clean. . . .

You could go buy a hybrid car which is much cleaner compared to what you drive now. Or better yet you could go buy an electric car, which don't use gas and are very clean.

0 Replies

A gallon is like 3,78 liter right? $2.09 a gallon you said Debra_Law? LUCKY YOU. Here, in the Netherlands, a gallon would be approximately $5,70. Rolling Eyes

Again: consider yourself lucky.

0 Replies

"enumerated powers"

Scrat wrote:

Please note that I'm not stating that the federal government shouldn't fund medical research, I'm stating that they should only have power to fund ANYTHING within the areas of their enumerated powers. If we wanted our nascent government to fund medical research, we'd better clearly lay out in our consitution what role that government will have in medicine.

If we assume the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause are still included within the "enumerated powers" of our "fake" government, then our government may use its PURSE as a means to regulate commerce and to fund whatever else is necessary and proper to further a political agenda (e.g., providing the citizens with a source of clean & inexpensive energy).

0 Replies

Tax incentives

Piffka wrote:

I think the baby government (it needs a name) should encourage the R&D in cottage-energy... small power-plants that supply the needs of one home. It seems to me that we have lots of free energy potential -- from tides, from wind, from small streams and rivers. If people could take the costs of purchasing these small power -plants off of their taxes, there'd be a much greater interest in them.

Piffka:

I agree. Our new government (in SquinneyLand) could offer tax incentives to wean the citizens from their reliance upon oil and to entice them to invest in cleaner, more reliable sources of energy.

0 Replies

Re: Lego Government. Let's Build Our Own

Thomas wrote:

To make the price of an energy source reflect its true cost, impose effluent taxes on pollutants, but leave it to the market to figure out the best tradeoff between cheapness and cleanness.

This is a good point, Thomas. The government could impose a significant tax on imported oil that is borne by the producer initially and then indirectly passed onto the consumer. The government could impose high taxes upon pollutants that are borne directly by the consumers.

If this taxation is counter-balanced by tax incentives to consumers who choose clean energy sources, then people will eventually move toward energy sources that might be more expensive initially to establish, but cheaper and cleaner in the long run.

However, this is not a free-market approach. This is a "manipulate the market" approach. It works. . . .

squinney wrote:

What research should we support?

Thomas wrote:

Whatever the universities feel like reasearching. It oughtn't be a political decision in my opinion.

Thomas: This is bootstrapping! Will our new government have no publicly-funded universities? If our universities are funded with public money, then the public has the right to determine how the research dollars given to universities shall be spent. After all, the university will be applying for research grants. I think the people have a far greater right to determine how their tax dollars will be spent (a political decision) than a professor at a university.

0 Replies

SquinneyLand
I want to earmark a portion of the taxes we collect through our governmental "market manipulation" plan to finance research and development for cleaner, cheaper sources of energy. (I also want to earmark a significant portion of those collected taxes to finance public education and excellence in academics.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Thomas: This is bootstrapping! Will our new government have no publicly-funded universities? If our universities are funded with public money, then the public has the right to determine how the research dollars given to universities shall be spent. After all, the university will be applying for research grants. I think the people have a far greater right to determine how their tax dollars will be spent (a political decision) than a professor at a university.

I agree with you on this one. It should be the people who deceide what should be researched. It would be the govt who would provide the pro's and con's for each type of energy. Of course we as the govt will have a final say as to what is done, only after the people have been informed. We don't want the sometimes uninformed public to deceide on something that wouldn't be pratical or cost effictive because the govt has to run on a budget.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Scrat, I was talking 'in general' (although I do realize this is a thread concerning the US). And I'm not saying this is THE alternative for the US. Merely was I pointing out that Baldimo's analysis was 'not exactly true'.

And I was pointing out that for the US, his analysis is close enough to true to let it stand as written. Cool

0 Replies

Does that mean I can not react to your post? Do you hear me saying you are talking nonsense?

0 Replies

Of course not. Neither does it mean I can't respond to yours. Smile

0 Replies

Exactly. It seems we agree Cool

0 Replies

Re: Lego Government. Let's Build Our Own

Debra_Law wrote:

Thomas wrote:
To make the price of an energy source reflect its true cost, impose effluent taxes on pollutants, but leave it to the market to figure out the best tradeoff between cheapness and cleanness.

This is a good point, Thomas. The government could impose a significant tax on imported oil that is borne by the producer initially and then indirectly passed onto the consumer. The government could impose high taxes upon pollutants that are borne directly by the consumers.

It's easier to just tax it all when the consumer buys it. One of the more interesting finding is that the distribution of a tax burden between consumers and producers is independent of who's writing the check.

Debra_Law wrote:

squinney wrote:
What research should we support?

Thomas wrote:
Whatever the universities feel like reasearching. It oughtn't be a political decision in my opinion.

Thomas: This is bootstrapping! Will our new government have no publicly-funded universities? If our universities are funded with public money, then the public has the right to determine how the research dollars given to universities shall be spent.

My point is that it makes sense to have universities for basic research, but not for applied research along the lines you are suggesting. Once the government has learned there's a viable technology out there, industry has learned it too, and the applied technology ought to be researched with industry grants and industry research. I'm not saying government doesn't have a right to control where its money is going, just that it isn't very competent at controlling it on the level you are suggesting.

0 Replies

Lego Government. Let's Build Our Own

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know