oregoncatalyst.com — Only consumers are able to determine what products suit them best. If electric cars are technologically and financially viable, the free market will encourage their development without the need for government subsidies.
Sep 1, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountSep 1, 2009
Buried for convservative propaganda nonsense. You never hear conservatives/libertarians whining about the huge tax breaks and subsidies the oil companies get.God forbid the government backs technologies that clean the air instead of foul it.
Closed AccountSep 2, 2009
The Market doesn't take environmental responsibility into account. In fact, it usually tries to avoid it because it interferes with the bottom line.
nmrgentlemanSep 2, 2009
Such arguments are irrelevant anyways. If something is wrong, it is wrong. If the people who say it is wrong are also hypocrites - well, they shouldn't be, but it doesn't change the truth of what they say.
drazen77Sep 2, 2009
I'm glad you came back to acknowledge the correctness of the statement... however, math is your friend and you probably could have figured it out for yourself if you had taken the time... since that is high school math he used to formulate his response. >.<
seculrprogrsiveSep 2, 2009
The government's role should be to maintain a truly free market, instead of giving advantages to the people who pay the most bribes. End corporate personhood.
kokomonycSep 2, 2009
<----- Idiot.Now that that's out of the way, can somebody explain to me why stuff like this is always judged solely on money and ROI and all that Western Economics crap? I think we justify subsidizing electric cars for two reasons that are not necessarily monetarily quantifiable, i.e. 1) We don't want to fund terrorism, and 2) The environment is threatened by carbon emissions. Isn't it a bit flawed to think of things only in terms of money and not at all in terms of things like human need, environmental damage, artistic and intellectual integrity, etc? Isn't that kind of thinking part of the reason why there's a "Health Care Debate"?Where's the moderation, the complexity of thought necessary to evaluate problems in a complex world in constantly demanding what the "Free Market" wants?
Closed AccountSep 2, 2009
@cerin, If producing things that blow up = prosperity than I suppose that's cool. Last time I checked in WW2 people weren't allowed to eat butter because there just wasn't enough for the soldiers, but I digress.I can only think in logical terms, not words like "boom" and stuff.Tell me how building things that blow up makes us richer? It seems just as logical as the government paying someone $25/hr to digg a hole and paying another person $25/hr to fill it back in. Sure those people have nice paying jobs, but the last time I checked that is a net loss to society.What is produced from labor is what counts, not the fact that labor is working. I wish people could hammer that important and pivotal point into their heads.
emailowndmeSep 3, 2009
Galt, it made us richer because it bolstered our manufacturing capacity, because government grants were given to college students to take up the new fields of quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, aeronautical engineering, nuclear engineering, (most of whom would not have gone to college otherwise) etc.and most of all, put currency back into the market which allowed for more investment and consumption again.It was a loan, to be repaid, and well on it's way to being repaid with tax revenue until Reagan. But furthermore, you asking the question, is akin to asking, "How does investing in a company (a small startup as opposed to the NYSE for the sake of this argument) help them out? It's just adding to their debt!" Basically, the company, if well managed will make 2-3 times your investment, with your investment,by selling a product(s) on the market, assuming a worldwide market, high demand, and extraordinary uniqueness, which the world, post ww2, was.America became the kings of cars, of consumer electronics, of weapons, of nuclear technology, the education of our people was second to none, we were the healthiest and richest people on the planet, thanks to having work, and being well paid soldiers, our men and women enjoyed the highest average quality of life on the planet, and the private companies that received the stimulus of war spending made 10 times what they made from our government in WW2 in the years immediately after. Maybe you've heard of these companies, GM, GE, Boeing, (and several others that didn't fall into disrepair).The fact that you can't understand a simple concept like investment, means you probably shouldn't involve yourself in anything resembling a economics argument.