Its ironic but the Atlas Shrugged movie coming out next month Dagny Taggart builds a high speed rail line.
I'm curious but what do you think about subsidies and other benefits to things like the oil and automobile industries?
i don't have much of a problem with subsidies for industries that are not based on a fictional need. Corn subsidies are OK if it can be shown the result is cheaper food prices and keeping farmers afloat. If it is being used to help further the Ethanol crusade and pay lobbyist, I hate it. Ethanol being put in our gasoline is crazy. I googled for oil subsidies and found that they total less than 4 billion per year which isn't much considering the massive oil industry in the country. And again, what are the subsidies for? Research into finding new ways to clean up spills? New drilling technology that is more environmentally friendly? That is the beauty of subsidies, the money is usually used in a specific way. This brings me back to my point of usage. I dislike subsidizing to make crap electric cars that no one wants or GE to make renewable energy more efficient and still not have it close to nuclear or coal.
I think sometimes we get so distracted by side arguments that we miss the forest for the trees.... GE made $5.25 billion....and didn't pay a dime in taxes. Insane.
The socialists truly think they are entitled to the possessions of others. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cuts-protest-200-arrested-500k-march-cut.html
Nevermind that the nuclear industry only exists because it was heavily sudsidized in the first place. As was every internet company currently in existence, and a whole array of technologies that we now use.
They are never good. "Good stuff" does not need to be funded by fiat. If it's good, it doesn't need a subsidy.
Except there are other ways oil is subsidized. One is that a large part of our foreign and military policy is geared towards protecting international oil supplies. We wouldn't have to do that if we relied on renewables.
Which all had the technology needed to exist. What is the point of your post? We have known since the 1950's nuclear power was an excellent and massive source of power. Electric cars do not have the battery tech to succeed. If you want to fund better batteries give it to universities and let them do the inorganic chemistry research to do it. Don't let GM build a bunch of cars no one can use.
Or cold fusion, but until those show a slight hint of a possibility to provide power for us we should look elsewhere. When the technology is not there (like current battery tech) making a bunch of cars with that tech does nothing to get better batteriey chemistries.
That is the point though of subsidizing R and D into those technologies so we can try to develop better technologies. Under your argument we would essentially stick with minor improvements of the status quo regarding energy when we already know that oil is a finite resource and there are lots of negative externalities to things like coal. Also since you brought up nuclear keep in mind that nuclear technology was developed almost completely through government spending. I see Major already brought that up.
