If a company -- green, black gold, aerospace, etc. -- chooses to accept federal developmental funds, then all or a commensurate part of the technology / viability created should belong to the people of the United States as an investment return. That would deter the Solyndras from taking our money for their gain.
No it wouldn't. Any investment has a chance of success and a chance of failure. The alternative energy investments like Solyndra have had about 60% rate of gain, which is far higher than most private investments.
Fine, then we the people should get our fair share (just like Obama is keen on saying). Remember, no one is forcing them to take our investment money.
My point is the people who stand to gain don't always have the purest of motives. That goes for Big Green as much as Big Oil.
You're comparing the green trade, in its infancy, to the oil trade that's been around for generations. Of course the money pales in comparison TODAY. Nothing wrong with making money off of new practices and technologies, but don't believe money doesn't corrupt just because we're trying to save the Earth.
of course money is always a part of it, capitalism FTW. but the relative money that comes from sustaining a non-for-profit by offering advisory services implies more of a purer motive than taking the world's resources for massive private gain.
That would be more fair than the current system. IMO, local and state colleges should be free to local and state students. Out of state students should be charged greater fees for not attending their own state's schools. Foreign students should be charged maximum fees as dictated by the state. As far as private colleges and universities, they should be allowed to set their own rates, but they should not be eligible for state or federal dollars unless they pay back a fair rate of return on those investment dollars that they accept. That rate of return should not be less than principal plus 5 percent. Also, the bottom 10 percent of each college class should be dropped from enrollment in any college for at least one year.
And you don't think that creates a far huger impetus to preserving the status quo of fossil fuels? True that happens but you seem to be looking at the relative paltry sums going into green technology while ignoring the gigantic sums in fossil fuels. Under your own reasoning that would mean that there is far more corruption in fossil fuels than in green.
A subsidy for fossil fuel should be treated the same way. That goes for agricultural subsidies as well. As I have stated in other threads, all subsidies and tax shelters should be eliminated in favor of a graduated flat tax. If the government set its rate of investment return at principal plus 5 percent for all types of loans, private banks would probably come in at principal plus 4.99 percent. Everybody wins.
Yes, probably so. It's a problem that isn't exclusive to any single industry so I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the potential that exists regardless of scope or volume of dollars.
Do you experience any cognitive dissonance in taking both sides on a question of fact in order to advance a political ideology?
you're conflating accepting a premise with believing it The video was accepting the premise of CO2 warming algorithms in order to demonstrate the cost of changing the climate.
