However, if you want to understand who is "loaning us money at near zero percent interest", you need look no further than the NEW #1 holder of US debt. Care to take a WAG ?
The Federal Reserve ................... say Inflation anyone ?
You can't logically deduce that on your own?
Last edited by Karl; 01-09-12 at 01:38 PM.
Now if you'd like to concede failure on the oil argument, we can move onto something else, although I'd suggest a separate thread. But simply trying to deflect from your loss in order to cover it up is not going to work.
However, since it has seemed to be needed at other points in this thread, I will state the obvious -- until electric vehicles can be powered by clean sources of energy, the total 'green' benefit will not be realized. If someone wants to use that as an argument to not even go down the renewable path, then go right ahead and enjoy the failure that argument will produce. In the meantime, regardless of the source of the electricity used to recharge the vehicle, it will most definitely reduce oil consumption, which is the subject of the thread.
Last edited by Karl; 01-09-12 at 01:42 PM.
All this nonsensical talk of getting out ahead on green-energy production is near the stuff of stupidity. All it will do at this time is get us behind further on our comparative disadvantage. China, and other nations against which we must compete economically, are not going to compel themselves to switch to green energy before it is time. We have already seen Spain as a massive fail in ts endeavor, and yet folks still argue non-existent merits as if we are blind to the advantage-disadvantage examples currently available to us.
Green Energy is a farce at this time. It will be a fool's gold for at least the next 50 years, if not substantially longer.
1. The cost of installing solar in a home, although getting cheaper due to tax payer subsidies, is still prohibitive in relative output potential.
2. Upkeep and maintenance issues are far greater for a public that has less, and less time, nor ability to maintain these systems. So ongoing cost is higher than traditional energy.
3. Then there is the issue that warranted or not, recent fire hazards, coupled with the cost of these cars are still out of reach of the masses.
I find it amusing that liberal progressives will attack the oil, and energy sectors screaming about subsidies going to these entities, but at the same time turn your blind eye to the massive subsidies that prop up this green push to the point that without it, the green sector would collapse.
Why not? Are you really so arrogant that you think that only those that agree with you have a corner on logic?You can't logically deduce that out on your own?
I accept your concession.I'll let the posts speak for themselves.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Obama in 2009: If I canít fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama
Of course, at that time a new battery bank will likely be needed, but that is merely a fraction of the original installation cost. 10 years going forward, the homeowner will actually save money. Not to mention the benefits in the first 10 years of reducing fossil fuel consumption as well as reducing load on the grid and related infrastructure.