The politics of energy independance, & technologys

[Neil D]

Another issue that is sure to be bounced in the minds of Americans from moveon.org

[:"green"] Just imagine what the world would look like today if we spent 300 billion dollars on alternate energy research, investment and subsidies instead of the Iraq war. I believe that investment would have lead to a far safer United States, well on its way to energy independence and with fewer enemies. It would have also put the US in the leadership position in the world in developing and commercializing these technologies. Our sons and daughters would be inheriting a technology leadership position in alternate energy rather than a massive deficit to pay off. With Bio fuels in the mix, it also has strong appeal in the traditional Republican farm states. No single other issue has the potential to unite so many Democrats as well as crossover Republicans. Lets make this our issue an own it!

– Duane B. from Vashon, Washington [/]

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

what the world would look like today if we spent 300 billion dollars on alternate energy research, investment and subsidies instead of the Iraq war.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is a flawed arguement that the left-wing keeps using.

Let's say that my daughter needs an organ transplant so we take out a loan to pay for the surgey. Then, while they are operating on her my wife says, "Imagine the other things we could have bought with the money we are paying for this surgery." The money wasn't ours to begin with. It was only borrowed because of the urgent need.

The money used to fight the war in Iraq is borrowed money. Our children are going to have to repay it. Well, in my case, I may be repaying some of it myself. Whatever the case may be, it isn't our money. It is borrowed due to the urgent need.

Now some may debate that terrorists blowing up skyscrapers and military headquarters doesn't create an urgent need. And that debate is likely to go on for years. However, borrowing money to pay for war has been done by many nations throughout history. If it wasn't for the Iraq War we would be pretty close to running a balanced budget, not spending it to make alternative fuels.

[Bravus]

True, but it's also possible to borrow money to invest. What the article Neil posted is suggesting is that that investment would mean future alternative energy revenues, not your children, would be paying off those debts.

There are fallacies in both of your arguments, my friends:

Shane, Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists blowing up skyscrapers.

Neil, that article basically assumes that the purpose of the war in Iraq was to secure oil supplies for America - which I don't thikn is necessarily a fair assumption.

[Dr. Shane]

The primary reason we went into Iraq is because the intelligence communities throughout the world believed Saddam had WMDs. After terrorists blew up skyscrapers we understood like never before that terrorists were a real threat. With that understanding, we were unwilling to allow Saddam to aquire WMDs.

If 9/11 had never happened there is a very strong possibility that the US would be running close to a balanced budget. So there is a link between 9/11 and the US budget deficits.

Wouldn't it be better to make oil companies use part of their profits to develope alternate fuels rather than borrowing more money and increasing the deficit?

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Wouldn't it be better to make oil companies use part of their profits to develope alternate fuels rather than borrowing more money and increasing the deficit?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Heh, I'd love to hear Ed D's comments on *that* proposal!

[there buster]

I seldom read the funny papers or moveon.org.

Sometimes for laughs. Never for information.

Same for Neil's posts.

[Bravus]

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I was actually talking about your comments on Shane's comments on Neil's post... the government forcing the energy companies to develop alternative technologies just seemed so opposite to your recent libertarian rants... but I definitely got a smile out of your post above. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I believe that all oil companies except Exxon/Mobil (the biggest and richest) are investing in alternative fuels. I don't think it would be a bad thing for the government to mandate that oil companies use 5% - 10% of their profits each quarter to invest in alternative fuels the following quarter. I do not see that the same as an excessive-profit tax in which the government takes the money and does whatever it thinks is right. I think money spent by the private sector on alternative fuels is much better spent than what the government spends.

[there buster]

Libertarian?

Not even close.

Government is efficient at collecting money, terrible at spending it. I say this as a first-hand witness at the sausage factory (cf. Otto Von Bismarck).

It makes no sense for government to tell the private sector how to spend money, since that's what they do least well.

Legislation is blunt instrument, not agile enough to deal with economic situations. The more legislation regulates the market mechanism, the more they gum up the works.

Before any one makes the obvious mistake, contract laws and laws against fraud don't regulate market activity, they just keep it honest. It's the difference between referees playing with one team or the other to produce an outcome (regulation), or keeping the game fair (refereeing).

One last time, I'm not a libertarian. National defense, for example is necessary. But, like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and the other founders, I recognize government as a necessary evil. Unlike socialists, I recognize it is incapable of being benevolent. Much like fire, it can make a useful servant if carefully restrained, but it is a terrible master.

[Robert]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane said:The primary reason we went into Iraq is because the intelligence communities throughout the world believed Saddam had WMDs.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Q] Then why aren't we in North Korea?

A] We can't bully them to well, huh?