• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill

Baralis said:
We need more government pressure on banks to extend credit to homeowners. :shock:
Click to expand...

We don't need more credit until we have the correction. Forcing credit too early will just inflate another bubble.
 
The silenced majority said:
OK, given that absolutely ridiculous statement, it should be easy to point to where the private sector routinely engages in investing in impractical ventures when more practical, viable alternatives (how green energy is presented, but isn't) are out there.

Care to do that?
Click to expand...

Define impractical. And it's not hard. Does the private sector invest in low profit ventures when higher profit ventures exist? No. This often leads to bad outcomes. Firms invest in stupid crap like chia pets rather than energy development. Capital follows profits. Wonder why there are so few grocery chains in the US? The profits are so low that only a few established firms can operate. Kids toys are one of the best examples of impractical ventures. And people invest large amounts of money into the makers of kids toy's stock rather then firms like nanosolar.

The notion that capital doesn't follow profits is to fail to understand capitalism. Do you realize that a huge portion of the products that are derived from scientific breakthroughs came from government funding? The NIH produces a wide body of drug information that is later sold to big pharm. Universities across the US do government research that is later commercialized. Aside from a few industries, private capital doesn't fund that kind of stuff because the required rate of return is unknown or insufficient.

Your idea that required rate of return is "absolutely ridiculous" is certifiably insane. A simple cashflow understanding is useful. If we borrow at 3%, we need usually a 5% return to stay in business. Industries that do not supply that 5% are not going to get our money. Thus, if that industry is practical but not economically profitable enough, it does not get capital at least from the 3%-5% circumstance.

Is Kandahar the only person who went to business school here?

Green energy is not practical without subsidiaries, but neither is nuclear. But people tend to forget that subsidiaries are often the infancy of many of our industries.

I think that relying on pixie-dust Ewok-power is something that the private sector has reasonable apprehensions about.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the private sector has reasonable apprehensions about long term returns. Solar in this country has had serious problems because Congress kept monkeying around with its subsidiaries. Imagine the nuclear industry where the subsidiaries per kilowatt kept changing every year. You would see much less investment. Germany and Spain (and the Netherlands) have changed this by promising 10 year subsidiaries. Constantly changing subsidiaries makes it essentially impossible to reasonably forecast returns. Firms need to know that their required rate of return is being met. When they cannot do that, investment rarely follows.

That's whats going on here. The Government is essentially placing one energy commodity off-limits while hoping (with some Government incentives) that a new viable alternative will emerge before become the world circa 1750AD.
Click to expand...

How so?

You aren't comparing a cottage industry targeting .000000001% of the world's population to the energy source that powers the modern industrialized world , are you?
Click to expand...

No. It was an analogy that practical =/= profitable and thus the nature of how capitalism functions changes. Merely because something can be done does not mean it will be done, especially when the profits are not there.

That's because there has never been anything "practical" about providing something for nothing.
Click to expand...

That's questionable. There is likely a way to strangle some profits out of poor healthcare. It's just that the margins are likely to be less than grocery stories. At that point, why bother? When you can make 5% here, why settle for .05% there?
 
phattonez said:
We don't need more credit until we have the correction. Forcing credit too early will just inflate another bubble.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my sarcasm :2wave:
 
phattonez said:
You haven't given a good reason why we should except what Keynes said other than because he said it. The burden of proof lies with you.
Click to expand...

Because it makes sense? Do you think that the government should not provide internal and external security? Infrastructure is a basic part of a functional society. Without it and clear plans to maintain and expand it as necesasry, we have your beloved 1990s Somalia.
 
obvious Child said:
Because it makes sense? Do you think that the government should not provide internal and external security? Infrastructure is a basic part of a functional society. Without it and clear plans to maintain and expand it as necesasry, we have your beloved 1990s Somalia.
Click to expand...

Enough with your straw man of Somalia! I'm not an anarchist.

Now who's to say that private companies can't provide infrastructure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom