David Sirota--Back in the USSR
Another excellent offering by Sirota.
Has anybody thought this bailout is using money that might have been used to develop an energy independence infrastructure. The free market is not going to allow an alternative energy infrastructure to grow up on its own. That is not in the best interest of the existing infrastructure. The existing infrastructure will continue to do as its done. When the costs of the existing infrastructure get high enough that alternative infrastructure begins to get off the ground, then the existing infrastructure lowers costs enough to make alternative infrastructure unprofitable. Without some sort of subsidy, alternative energy will be highly difficult to make a reality.
Someone tell me the pros and cons of this thought.
Meanwhile, read David's article.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10561014
Has anybody thought this bailout is using money that might have been used to develop an energy independence infrastructure. The free market is not going to allow an alternative energy infrastructure to grow up on its own. That is not in the best interest of the existing infrastructure. The existing infrastructure will continue to do as its done. When the costs of the existing infrastructure get high enough that alternative infrastructure begins to get off the ground, then the existing infrastructure lowers costs enough to make alternative infrastructure unprofitable. Without some sort of subsidy, alternative energy will be highly difficult to make a reality.
Someone tell me the pros and cons of this thought.
Meanwhile, read David's article.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10561014
YOU: Has anybody thought this bailout is using money that might have been used to develop an energy independence infrastructure.
ME: NO, it never occurred to me. As in our personal and family finances, the question is not how we spend money that we don't have. The question is whether or not we spend money we don't have.
Today, the Silent Majority finally had enough and spoke. The outcry from voters, AKA taxpayers, was enough to drive a defeat of the $700 billion financial bailout. How? They, or we, told our elected representatives how we felt about this bailout. That was enough to cause politicians to worry about their jobs. About time.
4%, or so, of all mortgages are in default, or in danger of default. That leaves 96% of us who choose wisely, live within our means, and pay our bills. We do not want to subsidize those 4% who don't do those things.
Actually, in the long view, this apparent crisis may be a mixed blessing. It is possible that the seriousness of the situation will create a tipping point where our elected officials will actually come to realize the disadvantages of the finger-pointing we have seen and the advantages of working together to come up with a solution that works.
Our elected politicians now have a chance to show they can actually solve a problem. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe they can't. We will find out.
I remember a story about Henry Kissinger, I think, when he was Secretary of State.
He asked someone to write up a proposal.
A week later, the aide brought the proposal to him. Kissinger, without looking at it: I don't like it, go back and fix it.
A week later, the aide brought another version. Kissinger did and said the same thing.
Three days later, the aide brought another version of the proposal to him. Kissinger, without looking at it: I don't like it, go back and fix it.
The Aide: But sir, that's the best I can do.
Kissinger: Give that to me so I can sign it. That's what I wanted in the first place.
Today, the taxpayers, AKA voters, played the role of Kissinger. Congress is the Aide. They need to go back and get it right.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Hi, Jim.
Good comment. See my posting today from Stratfor.com. I think it really embellishes your thoughts here.
Regarding the comment about energy infrastructure--
Whether you're a household, a business or the government, money in the bank means the availability of funds for unforeseen circumstances. Without that money in the bank and/or if you have committed too large a percentage of your current income to debt obligations, then your ability to respond becomes severely limited.
Government, in particular, is not in the business of accumulating funds (with the exceptions of things like the Social Security Trust Fund). Government's goal should be to keep both taxes and debt low so it has the capacity to ask taxpayers to respond to some sort of crisis.
In our case, we have allowed debt to grow so large on a Federal Level we have lost freedom of maneuver financially. I am concerned the debt was allowed to grow under the flawed assumption there was no need to tax to gain the revenue needed for a balanced budget. Had we had that discussion, then we might have had the discussion about spending we needed to have. The result is the situation we have today.
At a time we may need government subsidy in order to develop an alternative energy infrastructure (and therefore gain energy independence) we are severely constrained by the level of debt we have already accumulated. Can this be done without government a' la T. Boone Pickens? I hope so, but so far we have a lot of false starts.
Reply to this