In addition the wealthy are more interested in tax breaks to buy third vacation homes than such socialist projects as government basic research in the sciences.
Well, China has infrastructures too, but it doesn't give a damn about tearing them down when necessary. If the question is put in a slightly different way, why don't the foreign investors flock to the world's largest democracy, which is not known for its infrastructures?
That's why we need to expand the Demo majority in 2012 to the point where the Blue Dogs, (Dems in name only) can't block change with their GOP buds. The lovers of grid-lock who prefer split government between the executive and legislature don't get this.
That's for sure, took several trips to Shanghai this year, hold crap are they turning the whole place over again.
That is like trying to come with an alternative explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. You can come up with one, but the well established facts pertaining to the rotation of the earth and the geometry of the solar system means that it will probably be wrong. The carbon offsets exist. It isn't a hypothetical concept that may or may not be happening.
Yeah right, that China attracts foreign investors in green energy is equivalent to that sun rises in the east, where there is no other explanation.
Again you don't seem to understand the nature of the carbon credit marketplace which is a very real thing setup by the UN. It has absolutely nothing to do with investing in projects.
Enlighten me why carbon offset has not shown its footprint in China's next door neighbor, world's largest democracy?
Because they aren't expanding capacity at the rate that China is. They are still just talking about it. Also, India is obsessed with nuclear plants, which aren't eligible for CDM credits.
But it is not fair; they are not hobbled by libertarian economic fallacies. They don't play fair and they don't hate government spending on infrastructue. Dirty Keynesianians.
OK, the carbon offsetting scheme doesn't magically fall into its place. The obsession with nuclear plants is not nearly as intense as you try to make it to be. Check the table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#Table
Investors don't flock here? That's strange, i seem to recall a certain authoritarian entity which owns $800 billion in U.S. treasury bonds.
China's power grid isn't planned by the central committee. I know it blows your mind and Glynch's, but it is a series of for-profit business run by publicly traded power corporations in much the same way it works in the USA. If it was more economical and efficient to build coal plants, they would do so. If they can get someone to give them a whole bunch of money to build wind plants - so much so that it makes it cheaper than coal - they will jump all over that like any good capitalist would do. It is really bizarre to me that you want to turn a very straightforward fact of existence into a morality play of Chinese socialist superiority.
I never remember mentioning the details of China's power grid. No morality play here. I'm pragmatic when it comes to state planning versus private firm planning. I think you should be attacking the libertarians and their kissing cousins the conservatives when it comes to dogmatism concerning government vs private control of the economy. Capitalism is a fine system. You just need to decide to intervene at times at two points. 1) You have to decide what to do on certain important goals-- such as the environment and 2) You need almost always need to intervene when it comes time to decide how the profits are divided up between the few (captialists) and everyone else. I believe I learned this from economist Robert Heilberoner or perhaps Lekachman, back in the day.
