CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Any way you look at it, installing alternative forms of energy, and going "green" is going to cost a lot. One generation is going to have to pay for it, so that future generations can have cheaper bills, and more efficient and environmentally friendly energy sources.
I was speaking to a contractor who solely takes Green contracts in NYC. He's saying the same thing.
Yes, there will be high start up costs, as is the case with any new technology, but the benefit is that we will potentially have an infinite supply of energy, that will decrease in price over time. This frees us from dependency from foreign oil, and is over all, much better for the environment.
That anybody opposes this is absolutely astounding to me.
Yes, there will be high start up costs, as is the case with any new technology, but the benefit is that we will potentially have an infinite supply of energy, that will decrease in price over time. This frees us from dependency from foreign oil, and is over all, much better for the environment.
That anybody opposes this is absolutely astounding to me.
Windmills were installed into the Essex County area not that long ago and the people of that area are still paying them off and they have not gotten any cheaper electricity. Is it really putting money in your pockets? No!
If they put them in not that long ago, why would you expect them to be payed off by now?
If the people are paying the same price for their electric bill, but included in that is the cost for the windmills, then they are paying less for electricity...
Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years. That is a pipe dream. Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive, if renewable energy so great and less expensive, the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market. Subsidies are the only reason why renewable energy exist. If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive. These subsidies now are the only reason why companies are experimenting; otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the cost.
It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy. Renewable energies have been the talk since the turn of 20th Century. Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.
We won't get anywhere with that attitude!!! Jk, though. No one should expect for someone to snap their fingers and everything be changed over to renewable energy...these things take time.
Of course it's expensive. Anything new is going to be expensive, no one ever said it would be cheap. As time goes on it will be cheaper because it will not cost as much to get air that blows naturally, rather than coal and oil that you have to get people to go out and dig for. I just got a new washer and dryer set, they are energy star. They may be more expensive than my old ones, but if my new washer uses about 10 gallons of water less per load than my old one, then I will begin to see savings in the future.
No one should expect for someone to snap their fingers and everything be changed over to renewable energy...these things take time.
Good, because I don't anyone to snap thier fingers because that is a pipe dream as well, but in reality, that is exactly what you think is going to be done with alternative energy.
Of course it's expensive.
Good, then you can pay for it all while I will still be paying for cheap energy, so I can still life within my means without going broke paying high energy bills.
Anything new is going to be expensive, no one ever said it would be cheap.
True, but that is not the point, the point is if the alternative energies is so great and cheaper than fossil fuels, it would be here already, but it is not because it is unreliable and inefficient.
As time goes on it will be cheaper because it will not cost as much to get air that blows naturally, rather than coal and oil that you have to get people to go out and dig for.
True, when fossil fuels goes more expensive than alternative energy, it will make sense to investment in it because it is now cheaper because private investment has been researching and developing more reliable and efficient uses, and all this comes from the free market. This exact same thing happened from the transfer from horses to cars. Cars can at the free market, not government force as what you advocate.
I just got a new washer and dryer set, they are energy star.
Did ya, how does that feel? I bet you think you are now saving the Earth. Energy Star is an government scam.
I said "No one should expect for someone to snap their fingers and everything be changed over to renewable energy...these things take time." You then responded with, "but in reality, that is exactly what you think is going to be done with alternative energy."
Am I looking at this wrong?!?! How can you possibly get that from what I said??? It's completely opposite...=/
True, but that is not the point, the point is if the alternative energies is so great and cheaper than fossil fuels, it would be here already, but it is not because it is unreliable and inefficient.
What?! Just because something isn't being used doesn't mean that it isn't great. There are plenty of things that weren't used before that are now
Am I looking at this wrong?!?! How can you possibly get that from what I said??? It's completely opposite...=/
If you don't think alternative energy is not just a snap of the fingers, then why are you so pushy for alternative energies as if it were just a snap of the fingers?
What?! Just because something isn't being used doesn't mean that it isn't great.
Alternative energy is being used right now, yet it is more expensive because there is not even research and development, which is due to its unreliability and inefficiency. You want to force soceity to pay for expensive energy, just for your convenience now. Clean energy will come, but not now. The free market will decide this. Again, it decided when for cars.
There are plenty of things that weren't used before that are now
This doesn't make sense. Of course, some things weren't used before but now are probably because they didn't exist.
If you don't think alternative energy is not just a snap of the fingers, then why are you so pushy for alternative energies as if it were just a snap of the fingers?
How am I being pushy? This is just one small step. If I was pushy I would say that all electricity should come from renewable energy right now. Can you please tell me when I said that?
there is not even research and development
Really? Are you being serious? How do you think any information that we have now came to be? Oh...right...it just fell from the sky...
Of course, some things weren't used before but now are probably because they didn't exist.
You proved my point. We have always had the renewable resources, until recently we haven't been able to harness that energy.
...but only recently have the average family been able to buy anything that is family friendly and small enough to actually put into a house. How many people do you know that have a self-owned dam or nuclear power plant in front of their homes?
Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years.
From mid 2009 10.4% of our energy came from renewable sources to early 2010 11.14% of our energy comes from renewable sources. That is an increase of over 1% in less than a year, at this rate we could conceivably entirely replace fossil fuels in well under your proposed 100 years.
In a joint address to the Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama called for doubling renewable energy within the next three years.
Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive.
How do you reason, If the government is the one funding such construction projects? If anything construction companies will receive a much needed boost in business. More work generally means more profit. You're not making a whole lot of sense here.
the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market.
Well, some of it is, but like you said these technologies aren't cheap. So what often happens is the government will either subsidizing or fund these projects, so that in the long term, we will reap the benefits.
If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive.
Technologies become cheaper over time, so they wouldn't vanish it would just take much much longer to get to the level of development that we will have in the immediate future.
It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy
You'd still have to pay higher anyway even if we weren't developing technologies for alternative energies because the total supply of fossil fuels can only decrease driving up prices. The benefit of having renewable sources of energy is that we will never run out, so costs would only decrease over time.
Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.
Yes, because the oil companies are so much more invested in helping the poor. {chuckles}
From mid 2009 10.4% of our energy came from renewable sources to early 2010 11.14% of our energy comes from renewable sources.
Do you have to back up this claim because if it existed, you have already posted it.
That is an increase of over 1% in less than a year, at this rate we could conceivably entirely replace fossil fuels in well under your proposed 100 years.
If the government is the one funding such construction projects?
My reason is perfectly fine, maybe you should double check yours.
Government can't create wealth, because it possesses no assets or doesn't produce anything, so it is merely transferring jobs from one industry to another industry through subsidies such as the case construction projects.
So what often happens is the government will either subsidizing or fund these projects, so that in the long term, we will reap the benefits.
Subsiding projects doesn't make it any cheaper because taxpayers are still paying for it. Benefits if only private investment/
Technologies become cheaper over time, so they wouldn't vanish it would just take much much longer to get to the level of development that we will have in the immediate future.
True, I agree, but it must be done as private investment. The transition from horse to cars was done by private investment.
More work does mean more profit but not by subsidies.
You'd still have to pay higher anyway even if we weren't developing technologies for alternative energies because the total supply of fossil fuels can only decrease driving up prices.
No, the alternative energies are the reason for high prices in fossil fuels because the demand is down, but when fossil fuels is more expensive due to short supply than alternative energy, then it makes sense.
Yes, because the oil companies are so much more invested in helping the poor.
They are in business, they are not a charity. Look elsewhere for charity. Plus, the poor benefits with cheap energy sources.
Your argument is a video of a Man selling his book on FOX. Congratulations you win the argument.
I actually did watch the video, nowhere in the video are any of my numbers disputed. As it stands the numbers that I'm showing you now CLEARLY contradict your claim that energy Independence is impossible within the next 100 years. What I've shown you is that at the current rate we can be 100% Energy Independent in about 80 years.
Robert Bryce, the author of the book mentioned in your video is simply arguing that we shouldn't become energy independent (not that we can't), because our purchase of foreign oil is part of the global market.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you aren't going to admit your error.
My reason is perfectly fine, maybe you should double check yours. Government can't create wealth, because it possesses no assets or doesn't produce anything, so it is merely transferring jobs from one industry to another industry through subsidies such as the case construction projects.
Let me understand this...Private businesses will lose money over the construction of Government funded windmill projects, even though they are gaining work, because the government cannot create wealth?!
This argument is entirely non-sequitar. How does Private business losing money follow from the inability of government to create wealth? The government doesn't need to "create wealth" for business to NOT lose money, especially in something they aren't paying for in the first place.
If I offer you a Job, how are you losing money?
Subsiding projects doesn't make it any cheaper because taxpayers are still paying for it.
It certainly makes it cheaper for the industries developing 'said technologies. Instead of paying for 100% of the costs they are paying for a percentage of the total cost and the Government is paying the rest. This is so, instead of waiting 20 years for wind or solar power we can have it in 5 years, for instance.
True, I agree, but it must be done as private investment.
And why is that?
The transition from horse to cars was done by private investment
True but Horse are a renewable resource, no? We were not in danger of running out of horses, so there was no reason for a subsidy.
No, the alternative energies are the reason for high prices in fossil fuels because the demand is down
Bullocks!
A gallon of gas cost about 11 cents in 1908 and has been steadily rising ever since. Do you really expect me to believe that Gas went from 11 cents to 4 dollars, over the past 100 years because of alternative energy?
The reason there is a decrease in demand for fossil fuels, is because it is getting too expensive. People are trying to save money.
but when fossil fuels is more expensive due to short supply than alternative energy, then it makes sense.
What do you think is happening right now?
They are in business, they are not a charity. Look elsewhere for charity. Plus, the poor benefits with cheap energy sources.
Which they will have when we switch over to mostly renewable sources.
Private businesses will lose money over the construction of Government funded windmill projects, even though they are gaining work, because the government cannot create wealth?!
The problem with subsidies is that it doesn't help the consumer as much as it benefits the producer shown in video and this one So, companies become dependent of government and try to justify more and more subsidies, which is masqueraded as to help the consumer but in reality it benefits the producer because they keep most of the subsidy. The consumer is paying the full price because he is paying in taxes as in the form of a subsidy then the price for the product. There is a transfer of wealth from the consumer to the government to the private company. Therefore is no reduction in cost, it is only distorted by government subsidies.
If I offer you a Job, how are you losing money?
In relation to a government not creating wealth, well, if you are getting money from the government, that is a transfer of wealth because the government had to take from other producers, then by offering me a job, it is only a transfer of jobs from one sector to another. No new net job growth.
It certainly makes it cheaper for the industries developing 'said technologies.
Yes, it is cheaper for industries because taxpayers are paying for it instead of private investment.
This is so, instead of waiting 20 years for wind or solar power we can have it in 5 years, for instance.
Wrong, if it takes 20 years for to develop wind or solar power through private investment, it will take the same if government uses subsidies because again, it is only a transfer of wealth. It may take longer. The subsides have proven it. Subsidies for alternative energy have been taking place for years, yet no alternate energy because the investment isn't there.
True but Horse are a renewable resource, no? We were not in danger of running out of horses, so there was no reason for a subsidy.
Sure, but do you know why horses were eliminated from the market as a means of transportation? It was the amount of manure. So, imagine the amount of manure if there were 1 billion horses, and they are not as efficient cars. So, correct, there no reason for a subsidy because the time for private investment into new transportation was now, and guess what, it delivered.
A gallon of gas cost about 11 cents in 1908 and has been steadily rising ever since. Do you really expect me to believe that Gas went from 11 cents to 4 dollars, over the past 100 years because of alternative energy?
Well, that is not the sole reason, it is a contributing factor, fossil fuels has increased in price mainly because of supply and demand. In 1908, there were very few vehicles on the road in America and the world whereas today, there are 200 million vehicles just in America and 1 billion in the world.
The reason there is a decrease in demand for fossil fuels, is because it is getting too expensive. People are trying to save money.
You sound just like the stooge, avesde.
Of course it is getting expensive, because the demand is increasing, so if there are alternative energies supplies, the cost of fossil fuel will increase because of the decrease in supply due to the fact that alternative energy is replacing it.
What do you think is happening right now?
If so, alternate energy would be here right now. Fossil fuels are still cheaper.
Why would you want to learn of your error? I suppose if you wish to remain in denial, there would be no motive to explore all of the evidence. The reason fundamentalists are so gloriously ignorant of science.
It's funny because you ask for a source, I give you a source, and then you refuse to look at it. Your loss, not mine.
The problem with subsidies is that it doesn't help the consumer as much as it benefits the producer shown in video and this one So, companies become dependent of government and try to justify more and more subsidies, which is masqueraded as to help the consumer but in reality it benefits the producer because they keep most of the subsidy. The consumer is paying the full price because he is paying in taxes as in the form of a subsidy then the price for the product. There is a transfer of wealth from the consumer to the government to the private company. Therefore is no reduction in cost, it is only distorted by government subsidies.
Your argument isn't matching your conclusion here. You stated that companies will lose money, and yet all of your arguments are concerning cost to the consumer and whether or not subsidies "create wealth" which in no way supports your conclusion. It's a non-sequitar argument.
In relation to a government not creating wealth, well, if you are getting money from the government, that is a transfer of wealth because the government had to take from other producers, then by offering me a job, it is only a transfer of jobs from one sector to another. No new net job growth
Again, you still doing the same thing here. I didn't say anything about "net job growth" or "creating wealth". The issue is over profit. You keep getting sidetracked with irrelevant quarrels. You made the statement that building wind turbines via government contract or subsidies somehow causes the construction companies building them to lose money, this is contrary to basic logic. Receiving a government contract or subsidy in no way reduces profit. It may not create 'new' jobs, but it doesn't have to for the previous statement to be true.
Yes, it is cheaper for industries because taxpayers are paying for it instead of private investment.
Oh, good then you concede my point, yes?
Wrong, if it takes 20 years for to develop wind or solar power through private investment, it will take the same if government uses subsidies because again, it is only a transfer of wealth.
Nearly everything in economics is a transfer of wealth, this in no way invalidates my statement. If in this case it is a transfer of wealth to the wind turbine company, wealth it can then utilize on R&D;of these technologies. Effectively reducing the time it would take to create cost effective turbines.
You don't seem to comprehend the sense of urgency we have. Oil production will peak in the next 10 to 40 years. 10 years according to a recent scientific study, and 40 years according to BP. So even if we take the most conservative estimate, that isn't a whole lot of time. We have a fossil fuel-based economy, if we do not switch to renewable energy before oil production peaks we will see an economic crisis that will dwarf the great depression, and it will be worldwide. We simply do not have enough time to wait around until it makes economic sense to develop these renewable technologies, we need them NOW!
So yes, it will be burden on the taxpayer, but if we do nothing, we will see ruin like we have never seen before.
Well, that is not the sole reason, it is a contributing factor, fossil fuels has increased in price mainly because of supply and demand. In 1908, there were very few vehicles on the road in America and the world whereas today, there are 200 million vehicles just in America and 1 billion in the world.
1 billion vehicles and the supply is only getting shorter, we have used up most of our easily accessible fossil fuels, and are now relying more on difficult to obtain fossil fuels under the ocean. Which costs a lot more to acquire.
So what does that say about your claim that alternative energies are the cause for the high cost in gas?
You sound just like the stooge, avesde.
Of course it is getting expensive, because the demand is increasing, so if there are alternative energies supplies, the cost of fossil fuel will increase because of the decrease in supply due to the fact that alternative energy is replacing it.
Wait, hold on. Did you just claim that using alternative energy REDUCES the supply of fossil fuels??
So building and using wind turbines and solar panels reduces the amount of oil under the earth? How, magic?
And by the way, avesde, makes a lot of good arguments. More-so than you're doing right now.
If so, alternate energy would be here right now. Fossil fuels are still cheaper
Long term, renewables are cheaper, but of course if people like you continue to oppose the construction of wind turbines, it will take a lot longer.
It's funny because you ask for a source, I give you a source, and then you refuse to look at it. Your loss, not mine.
Although Wikipedia is a source, any idiot can post a link to Wikipedia as claim it as a source. So, Congratulations on posting a link to Wikipedia.
Receiving a government contract or subsidy in no way reduces profit.
Confusion in my previous posts, but true. yet it hurts the consumer more than the producer. Yet, it hurts those businesses that don't receive the subsidies because they don't have friends in government.
However, profit is not the same as an subsidies because taxpayers are paying the full cost of the energy either way. It is just much easier to allow free market principles for exchanging services, which it will drive the cost down by competition rather than government picking and choosing winners and losers through subsidies, which then limits competition and artificially lowers the price but in reality it doesn't because they have to pay for in taxes and for the product.
This subsidy is much like public schooling. Parents who send their child to private school have to pay for schooling twice, taxes and tuition at private school.
If in this case it is a transfer of wealth to the wind turbine company, wealth it can then utilize on R&D;of these technologies
Wrong because profit create an inventive to innovation as don't subsidies.
"Allowing the profit and loss system to allocate resources efficiently in a free market is a less-costly way to encourage innovation in energy technologies. However, when the government provides subsidies for a favored industry or activity, it mutes the “loss” signal because it insulates producers from risk to at least some extent.
Additionally, in subsidy programs, the state government redistributes wealth to special interest groups in the form of concentrated benefits (e.g., fossil fuel producers, ethanol producers, wind producers) and it diffuses the costs of these benefits to all those who remain unsubsidized in the marketplace.
From the perspectives of economics and fairness, government subsidy programs targeting the energy industry defeat their ostensible intended purpose, which is encouraging innovation and the development of alternative energies. Furthermore, it is likely that a high level of government subsidy to the energy sector reduces the levels of private investment that would fuel innovation" PolicyMic
Oil production will peak in the next 10 to 40 years. 10 years according to a recent scientific study, and 40 years according to BP.
MASS HYSTERIA!!! YOUR DOING A GOOD JOB!!! KEEP IT UP.
"In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future." CERA
1 billion vehicles and the supply is only getting shorter, we have used up most of our easily accessible fossil fuels, and are now relying more on difficult to obtain fossil fuels under the ocean. Which costs a lot more to acquire.
Not according to the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who estimated over 3 trillion barrels of oil.
Did you just claim that using alternative energy REDUCES the supply of fossil fuels??
No, I said that gangsters like you and your friends want me to pay for alternative energy even though it is still very expensive due to demand being low and lack effectiveness and efficiency, so, what this is doing is replacing the consumption of fossil fuels, not reducing the supply of fossil fuels (SORRY TYPO), yet the demand for oil is still increasing, which makes fossil fuels more expensive.
And by the way, avesde, makes a lot of good arguments. More-so than you're doing right now.
Whatever! GO HUG A TREE. It needs your comfort.
Long term, renewable are cheaper, but of course if people like you continue to oppose the construction of wind turbines, it will take a lot longer.
Long term, it will be cheaper but until then, I will get in your way to prevent idiots like yourself from forcing me to pay higher energy prices when there is already cheaper energy.
As said before, the free market will gradually introduce renewable energy for consumption when the R & D is more advanced through effectiveness and efficiency through private investment.
Doesn't change the fact that your claim was/is false.
Confusion in my previous posts, but true. yet it hurts the consumer more than the producer. Yet, it hurts those businesses that don't receive the subsidies because they don't have friends in government.
Friends in government? You mean like the oil companies have had for the last 50 years (at least)? This isn't about "friends in government" this is about protecting our nation's economic security, when oil rigs come grinding to a halt. Our nation's economy is largely based around a finite resource which is being consumed at an uncontrollable rate, and is destroying our natural resources in the process. If we do not not switch over to renewable sources soon, we will face ruin.
However, profit is not the same as an subsidies
Didn't say it was. Profit is your income minus expenses. A subsidy is assistance given by the government to a private enterprise seen as beneficial.
It is just much easier to allow free market principles for exchanging services
Free market "principals" are what caused the problem in the first place.
which it will drive the cost down by competition rather than government picking and choosing winners and losers through subsidies
If the government is providing a subsidy to the industry as a whole, this would not affect competition at all. If the subsidy is for a specific "project" it will be based on whichever company offers the best price. Private businesses will often compete for a government grant. Rendering your argument moot.
Wrong because profit create an inventive to innovation as don't subsidies.
This shouldn't be considered a coherent sentence. I assume you mean to say "incentive" not "inventive".
My response is this:
Subsidies generally increase profit. Subsidies in no way inhibit, or reduce profit.
Allowing the profit and loss system to allocate resources efficiently in a free market is a less-costly way to --encourage---- innovation in energy technologies.
In what sense would this even be considered an encouragement? I wonder what other societal benefits we can encourage by doing absolutely nothing...
Additionally, in subsidy programs, the state government redistributes wealth to special interest groups in the form of concentrated benefits (e.g., fossil fuel producers, ethanol producers, wind producers) and it diffuses the costs of these benefits to all those who remain unsubsidized in the marketplace.
KEY TO POLITICAL RHETORIC:
Diffuses= lowers
Redistributes Wealth= Gives money to
Concentrated Benefits= Assistance
Furthermore, it is likely that a high level of government subsidy to the energy sector reduces the levels of private investment that would fuel innovation"
As a percentage perhaps, but not as a gross investment.
"In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents -- and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future."
And yet CERA has a long history of wildly inaccurate predictions:
Not surprising considering it is privately owned by an energy company.
Even according to their own estimates, Oil production will likely peak no earlier than 2030. Which still easily fits within the 10 to 40 year time frame, that I presented.
No, I said that gangsters like you and your friends want me to pay for alternative energy even though it is still very expensive due to demand being low and lack effectiveness and efficiency, so, what this is doing is replacing the consumption of fossil fuels
Well the actual figure in the entry is sourced. You can look at the root source if you prefer.
Now, your root source is a government source. Wow, what a shocker? You do know that despite being a democratic government, they have a agenda, which is to lie for that agenda. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ex. Iraq War
You mean like the oil companies have had for the last 50 years (at least)?
Then, it is a great reason to get rid of the current tax system and instituted a nationwide consumption tax, which would eliminate the power of politicians and lobbyists and pass a constitutional amendment to protect us from further taxation, and it would eliminate special interest groups looking for money.
If we do not not switch over to renewable sources soon, we will face ruin.
Mass Hysteria!!!
This isn't about "friends in government" this is about protecting our nation's economic security, when oil rigs come grinding to a halt
Actually, it is about friends in government because you advocate for subsidies, and there is only so much to go around, so government must pick winners and losers, and they do this by picking their friends in business.
Protecting the economic security is not the job of the federal government. Please cite the Constitution where it gives the government explicit authority to protect the economy. It is nowhere.
Free market "principals" are what caused the problem in the first place.
Wrong, sorry, it is bad government policy that caused the problem. Free market doesn't fail. The free market is everyone working together in their self interest in organized chaos, where government only works in central planning, and central planning always fails, and always will.
If the government is providing a subsidy to the industry as a whole, this would not affect competition at all.
See, they don't provide subsidies to every single producer in every single industry, when government gives subsidies to a company, it gives them a competitive advantage over other companies in the industry.
Private businesses will often compete for a government grant.
Not moot, because they typically only grant those who have friends in government, hence, again, they pick winners and losers. Basically, they are competing for favors. WHO SUCKS ON DADDY Government's TIT FIRST?
Subsidies generally increase profit. Subsidies in no way inhibit, or reduce profit.
Sure, but it kills innovation, why would any company pursue innovation if there is no competition and receiving free taxpayer money without doing anything. CORPORATE WELFARE, which is what you support. Keep supporting corporate welfare.
I wonder what other societal benefits we can encourage by doing absolutely nothing...
I am not concerned with social benefits or you, only if it makes economic sense. If it is too expensive, scrap it.
And yet CERA has a long history of wildly inaccurate predictions:
YET, YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PREDICTED ANYTHING WRONG. I would trust a private company any day before our federal government or any government.
Not surprising considering it is privately owned by an energy company.
Not surprising that the EIA is a government agency under the Energy Department.
Even according to their own estimates, Oil production will likely peak no earlier than 2030. Which still easily fits within the 10 to 40 year time frame, that I presented.
Wrong, in 2030, oil production will reach a undulating plateau, not a peak.
According to CERA, demand has already reached it's climax. Another failed prediction.
Wrong, demand will not grow decades after the plateau period.
"During the plateau period in later decades, according to the CERA analysis, demand growth will likely no longer be largely met by growth in available, commercially exploitable natural oil supplies. Non-traditional or unconventional liquid fuels such as production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids (GTL), and coal-to-liquids (CTL) will need to fill the gap."
Right now, this is evidence that demand for oil is increasing particarly, in developing nations and China. Demand
Such is the unamiable delusion of modern times. The free market is a blind process and as such is riddled with flaws and unanticipated, unintended consequences in the relentless pursuit of the Almighty dollar.
Prepare for a speech.
Planned obsolescence is a decision by manufacturers to design products in a way that they become obsolete or useless within a known time period, as to ensure future consumption. Planned Obsolescence creates a huge amount of waste by denying the consumer the best possible products and is huge contributor to overflowing landfills nation wide and around the world. They design product so they will not last, and they do this intentionally.
The free market has a negative impact on our nation's culture and health. The free market produces a culture of materialism, not out of some ideological reason, but because it is more profitable. Women are encouraged to desire diamonds, a shiny rock that literally does nothing but cost thousands of dollars. We are bombarded every day by thousands of advertisements encouraging us to buy this or that. Sex sells. Ads obsession with sex has had numerous negative impacts on society and contributes to a distorted sense of beauty in young women which can contribute to anorexia and bulimia. The use of sex has also had a negative impact on the sexual activity of young adults.
Now here is the ugly truth:
Top 1% of the richest people in the world is wealthier than the bottom 95% combined.
>
>
This is a colossal failure of our economic system. This is simply unacceptable.
But it gets worse...
Turns out, the world is 40 trillion dollars in debt.
The United States isn't the only country in massive debt. This seems to be a global phenomena. Global debt continues to grow, and grow and grow. This isn't just a failure in policy. It's a failure in design.
The rate at which we are using up our planet's natural resources is absolutely appalling! Rain forests are home to 50% of the worlds plant and animal species. Rain forests regulate global temperatures, the Amazon rain forest produces more than 20% of the world's oxygen alone, and it is being destroyed at an alarming rate. Rain forests once covered 14% of earth's land area, and now they cover less than half of that area. Rain forests that had existed for millions of years were destroyed in only a couple hundred years. Supply and demand, yes?
To deliver a profit to their share holders many international corporations, exploit developing nations. Making bad conditions worse.
It gets worse still.
Almost half the world, over three billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day. And around 5 million people starve to death every year.
The Free market concentrates resources in the hands of a wealthy few. The powerful use their power to exploit others, to further cement their own position in an economically stratified world. The economic systems we have help to keep the poverty stricken in poverty, and the wealthy in charge. Remember "separate but equal"? This is what we have today, when rich children go to better schools, receive better medical care, and generally live a lot longer.
A recent survey suggests that 42% of people on the Forbes 400 list inherited enough money to be listed among the Forbes 400, and another 27% came from very wealthy homes. So among the very wealthy most were born into a wealthy family.
To insist that the "Free Market Doesn't Fail" is a statement that requires a great deal of faith.
Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years.
This is because fossil fuels contain energy reserves which require relatively minimal effort to extract compared to what is released.
However our planet will most likely become uninhabitable for us if we continue using this resource another hundred years.
Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive, if renewable energy so great and less expensive, the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market.
Businesses are only concerned with profit. Not the environment. There is your answer. If it were more profitable to use nuclear fission, you can bet that today's hot-button issue would be about Big Nuclear dumping radioactive waste into our oceans and the increasing radioactivity of our air. But also you can bet that libertarians would once again defend Big Nuclear because it's the most profitable. Up until, of course, they contract cancer.
Subsidies are the only reason why renewable energy exist. If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive. These subsidies now are the only reason why companies are experimenting; otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the cost.
Correct. That's why we need to subsidise alternative energy and create an even larger budget for it. Do you want clean air? Green forests? Clean ocean and river water? You have to pay for it, because using toxic fossil fuels are a WHOLE LOT cheaper.
Don't like it? Tough luck. I think our health is more important than your ideological purity.
It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy. Renewable energies have been the talk since the turn of 20th Century.
So you'd rather that there were no subsidies then, and that we still use energy sources which steadily contribute to a damaged environment.
Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.
I think we can thank capitalism for that one. How much do you make every year? That's money which comes out of the paychecks of workers in South America, Africa and Asia.
Also, if we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars on a military budget, we can divert some of it to alternative energy.