Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010
From: Tkalbfus1 (tkalbfus1_at_aol.com)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: Rolf Martens: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- Previous message: Matthew K Jensen: "Re: > > > > matt parker alias erik_van_lindt_hout matt parker alias geronimo jones bondage phuking matt parker alias kimberlyparker matt parker from cottage grove oregon spams the net with childporn http://tinyurl.com/6kmea matt parker alias evon lin"
- In reply to: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: Don Lancaster: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: Don Lancaster: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Sep 2004 06:58:42 GMT
>Shifting the cost of something to the government doesn't reduce the
>cost. In most cases, there's a premium to be paid in having the
>government handle it.
>
But it does make the cost more bearable. A hydrogen subsidy can be paid for by
a progressive income tax that puts more burden on the wealthy than on the
Middle and lower classes. I would consider it part of the defense budget.
>So, to ask the government to solve our energy problem by subsidizing
>uneconomic processes is worse than doing nothing. It perpetuates
>patterns of abuse that waste resources the market would otherwise put
>to better use. The recent history of coal conversion is a good
>example of this;
>
The government can plan ahead, the market cannot. Energy is a strategic
resource, and it would not do to have a foreign power sudenly cut it off and
disrupt our economy. I think its worth a higher price for converting to
hydrogen if we can preclude this from happening. You want another example: the
government now routinely buys extra doses of vaccines causing drug companies to
manufacture more than what they perceive is needed for the next flu season,
this is an insurance policy to guard against the possibility than more vaccine
may be needed than the drug companies anticipated. You see, drug companies have
an incentive to keep the vaccine supply tight, if they produce too much vaccine
for a given year, they won't sell it all and they'll lose money. The extra
vaccine won't be good next year as the flu virus would have mutated by then, so
drug companies try to come close to the mark and err on the side of vaccine
shortages rather than over supply. Since the government has an interest in
preventing vaccine shortages, it deliberately buys too much to guard against a
vaccine shortage. Most years this is a waste of money, but you don't know its a
waste of money until the flu season is over with, but sometimes the drug
companies underestimate next years need and the government's wasteful
expendituren actually saves lives by preventing vaccine shortages.
A similar role can be envisioned for government to prevent gasoline shortages,
both accidental and deliberate.
- Next message: Rolf Martens: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- Previous message: Matthew K Jensen: "Re: > > > > matt parker alias erik_van_lindt_hout matt parker alias geronimo jones bondage phuking matt parker alias kimberlyparker matt parker from cottage grove oregon spams the net with childporn http://tinyurl.com/6kmea matt parker alias evon lin"
- In reply to: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: Don Lancaster: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: Don Lancaster: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
