My thoughts on Alternative Energy subsidy by the Government

What incentive is there to make an operation cost effective, efficient, and profitable if there is strongly competing incentive to remain costly and inefficient at taxpayer expense?

My take is that only subsidy that originates from within private enterprise and within the structure of a capitalist profit motive is moral and just. Government subsidy is immoral and unjust since it burdens the taxpayers and/or future generations. There is no similar burden when subsidy originates from within the private sector.

What to you is moral purity, may to me be sin. Government subsidy can be useful in the short run to jump-start an industry. For example, natural gas production is increasing rapidly in the US, and presumably NG could offset a lot of gasoline use in cars and make the US more energy-independent. But in areas where there are no NG filling stations, nobody owns NG cars. And since nobody has the cars, filling stations won't spend the money to put in NG islands. So the private subsidy that we all prefer just won't be there -- too much risk for the small group providing the subsidy. But a well-designed government subsidy (oxymoron?) for filling stations could get the ball rolling, then be phased out.

When you talk of burdening the taxpayer and future generations, you are speaking of subsidies that are ill-conceived and that fail. The keys are the design of the subsidy and the phasing out, not getting into another silly program like subsidizing ethanol forever and forever even though nobody but the corn farmers want it.

And when in christ's name have gov. programs ever phased themselves out?????

Kevin

rberq wrote:When you talk of burdening the taxpayer and future generations, you are speaking of subsidies that are ill-conceived and that fail. The keys are the design of the subsidy and the phasing out, not getting into another silly program like subsidizing ethanol forever and forever even though nobody but the corn farmers want it.

Like say....Solyndra?
Oh, since when are you for Gov'ment getting out of the way of anything...jeeze you almost sound reasonable.

some people would like to remain in the 19th century, and advocate no community ( yes taxpayer) involvement to help promote and advance new technologies, example, clean energy. almost all latest and greatest things we take for granted today were subsidized by the government in one way or another, think NASA, Military research. yes, most great companies Did rely on the infra fracture that was built by everyone else, just like President Barack Obama said in a speech. and very true.

Lets not forget that just about all energy sources get subsidies, in effect a subsidy by any other name is still a subsidy. What municipal project of any magnitude gets done without Fed. monies of some type? Why would you agree that zero tax plus a subsidy would be OK for a well established multi billion dollar industry but not for a upstart one?

you are delusional. sorry, just the facts. The Gov is the answer to nothing. If you were correct, the world would be filled with successful Socialist/Communist societies. It aint. The desire to excel, exceed expectations, and PROFIT are the motivations for humans. Gov. only sucks the life out of the successful ones to benefit the useless ones. Human nature. "I coulda been a contender" famous underachiever quote.

Trade em for his REAl certificate and maybe some transcripts from high school and college???

Kevin

Wrong thread.

rberq wrote:What to you is moral purity, may to me be sin. Government subsidy can be useful in the short run to jump-start an industry. For example, natural gas production is increasing rapidly in the US, and presumably NG could offset a lot of gasoline use in cars and make the US more energy-independent. But in areas where there are no NG filling stations, nobody owns NG cars. And since nobody has the cars, filling stations won't spend the money to put in NG islands. So the private subsidy that we all prefer just won't be there -- too much risk for the small group providing the subsidy. But a well-designed government subsidy (oxymoron?) for filling stations could get the ball rolling, then be phased out.

When you talk of burdening the taxpayer and future generations, you are speaking of subsidies that are ill-conceived and that fail. The keys are the design of the subsidy and the phasing out, not getting into another silly program like subsidizing ethanol forever and forever even though nobody but the corn farmers want it.

How many gas stations existed when Henry Ford started pumping out Model T's?

What was the government subsidy to build gas stations?

Milton Friedman said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions and not their results."

I think we can agree the government has more than its share of misses vs. hits.

If you're going to consider the viability of subsidies you need to consider why they are. In the case of alternatives the subsidy is for production to make them economically viable, without the subsidy they don't exist. We've been subsidizing both solar and ethanol for decades, while the ethanol subsidy has gone away the failed product is still here because of mandates. They are similar mandates for other renewable energy so even with the removal of the subsidy they aren't going away.

Consider all the private investment in ethanol, how do you pull the plug on something like that? You have government generated market that should of never been created in the first place. These investors may still lose their shirts because in addition to the removal of the subsidy the tariffs have been lifted too, don't be surprised if over the coming decade these companies go belly up and that government mandated ethanol that was supposed to help make us energy independent is being imported from Brazil where they can make it much cheaper from sugar cane.

The oil subsidy is for bad wells, while Exxon can absorb those costs smaller companies will not. The long term beneficiary or removing it is Exxon and other large oil companies. The coal subsidy is ironically one industry where most of it is for R&D. Keep in mind if the oil and coal industry lost these subsidies it would be a blip on the screen, it would be catastrophic for the renewable sector.

You want energy independence with a domestic product? Subsidize coal to liquid fuels tech, they can make it for the equivalent of $50 a barrel. There is no private investment because it's risky. For example guarantee the producers $50 a barrel, they only collect a subsidy if conventional oil drops below that mark. This technology would explode and there is many benefits to that. First and foremost you'll have secured a domestic supply for liquid fuels safely within the borders of the US and you'll drive down the cost of conventional oil. While this proposal makes complete economic sense it doesn't fit the green agenda and coal has been so demonized I doubt even the Republicans would be able to support it .

It's good thing we didn't wait for cars and airplanes and a million other things to get government subsidies to "make them economically viable"

I wonder what money Steve Jobs took to make the Apple 1 or the Lisa?

A subsidy by any other name Jpete, creative tax avoidance, loopholes in the tax codes (intentional IMO) otherwise they could & would have been closed. I don't think it was about the R&D Credit but I remember Apple going to court over taxes. High Tech needs no home base, they can be anywhere unlike a coalmine, kind of hard selling globally without coming back to that hole in the ground.

samhill wrote:A subsidy by any other name Jpete, creative tax avoidance, loopholes in the tax codes (intentional IMO) otherwise they could & would have been closed. I don't think it was about the R&D Credit but I remember Apple going to court over taxes. High Tech needs no home base, they can be anywhere unlike a coalmine, kind of hard selling globally without coming back to that hole in the ground.

So you are in favor of the government giving money to large companies but not individuals?

Once again Jpete, where did I say that? Steve Jobs was brought up by you as never having any Gov. help, did he or didn't he?

samhill wrote:Once again Jpete, where did I say that? Steve Jobs was brought up by you as never having any Gov. help, did he or didn't he?

To my knowledge, Apple Computer was pretty successful without government help.

As was Ford Motor Company, Edison Electric, Westinghouse, et al.

The question is, are you arguing FOR or AGAINST what you call "subsidies?"