Archduke Russell John wrote:Again, you are still arguing based on unproven assumptions. I am saying the fact that the average salary of a Volt purchaser is $170,000 says the subsidy is not needed. That it is just an example of the rich getting to keep more of their money. Which you lefties seem to be against.

Yes, I saw that argument already, you don't need to repeat it. The thing is, I think there are a few steps between "the average buyer now is rich" and "there's no reason to subsidise it" that you have skipped over. Some 'assumptions' appear to have been made.

Government has a history of subsidising transport in developmental stages, from canals, railways, roads, airports etc etc. Just because the early levels are more likely to be used by the rich (like trains, cars, planes were), does not mean that there is not a reason to subsidise the development so that it is more likely to be viable - and thus more quickly affordable to the rest of us.

If you want to prove that the wealth of customers is a direct reason not to subsidise, you'll need to show your workings. If it's just a way of baiting liberals, fair enough (but Steve is far better at tendentious arguments).

Remember, I said I'm not going to die in a ditch to defend subsidies. I'm just not sure that you have proven definitively that this one is completely pointless. The actual test will be in some time from now, not this early.

It is still nto a subsidy. It is still just the government acting in the market place. Just because it is stupid enough to over pay doesn't making it a subsidy any more then a general consumer overpaying something makes it a subsidy.

Hmm. Because governments are just ordinary actors. They don't set regulations, they can't be lobbied by interests, they don't have the ability to just print money rather than having to justify it to shareholders, they can hold no-competition tender exercises for the pals of Senators... Sure. Just like any other general consumer.

Besides, the roadbuilding was clearly an indirect subsidy that you have not acknowledged, which I guess is why you are labouring the point on overpriced government contracts.

Ray Jay wrote:The refutation is that many technologies have made it to version 5 without government help. If they will be economically viable, they will be funded by people who make their living evaluating economic risk and reward.

That is not a refutation, it's a rebuttal.

There are also many technologies that have made it to version 5 with government help. Enjoy using the world wide web over the internet using a computer? Each one of those developments was subsidised by governments at different points and in various ways.

Could they have got where they did without government subsidies? Well, it's not possible to prove easily, but the fact that private enterprise didn't beat them to it suggests that it at least helped.

And equally, how do we know that the 'many' that didn't would not have developed more quickly and more successfully with a bit of government subsidy? Or if superior products and technologies have fallen by the wayside because they lacked support?

Not all technological developments are equivalent. So your fact that many didn't need subsidy and could rely on these geniuses who 'make their living evaluating risk and reward' does not prove that all developments could do the same. Or even that this particular one could.

Ray Jay wrote:Geo, you are correct that there are plenty of dumb subsidies. But I don't think you are being fair to Steve on this. Every time Steve and I make the point that the Volt subsidies make no sense, Ricky defends them with several poorly organized arguments that we then have to refute.

We've demonstrated that the subsidies make little sense from an energy independence perspective (other administration policies are of a larger magnitude and detrimental to our energy independence), from an environmental perspective (the benefit is limited, there are more important things going on, and 7 or 8 other companies are doing the same thing anyway) from an industrial policy perspective (it is not part of a coherent national policy). At the end of the day, I think we have to face facts that this is a payoff to Obama's union supporters (wrapped up in the bow of environmentalism and industrial policy). Isn't that the most logical explanation at this point?

It's hard to write this response, because I don't agree with the Volt subsidy, but it is so much better than the truck tariff, or the ethanol subsidy, or the sugar tariff, or so many hosts of others, which really do just take money from consumers or taxpayers and put it into the pockets of people for whom 170,000 a year is chump change. They benefit multi-billionaires who can pay for congressmen to write the laws that ensure they are enriched. That's what you should be enraged about. The Volt is wrong, but so is jaywalking. It's so tiny in comparison to some of these others, it's rounding error.

Further, the Volt subsidy IS part of national energy policy. If it were some kind of payback to a special interest, it's so tiny, who cares? What does it matter to GM, a company that did $40,000,000,000 in sales last QUARTER? The risk reward doesn't even make sense for them nor the UAW nor anyone else. I agree with you that there are some worrisome aspects . . . the gird, the battery, replacement batteries, the concerns you and Steve expressed are real. But it is the result of people in power saying, we need to change how energy is produced and consumed in America, and we've seen concerted efforts to produce more energy from renewals, tax credits for wind farms, solar, and more. The Volt subsidy is a part of that policy.

You can disagree with the policy, and I'm skeptical of its overall effectiveness, and certainly of its cost effectiveness, but that's where this comes from: Policy. Idealistic, misguided, dumb, all three, it was an effort to do something good. And as a benefit, at least consumers get another product in the marketplace that increases their choices when they look for a car. Better than just paying more for your truck for no good reason.

danivon wrote:Hmm. Because governments are just ordinary actors. They don't set regulations, they can't be lobbied by interests, they don't have the ability to just print money rather than having to justify it to shareholders, they can hold no-competition tender exercises for the pals of Senators... Sure. Just like any other general consumer.

Not in the case you argued for as a subsidy, i.e. Ford getting military contracts in WWII. And it still doesn't matter, if the government is acting as a consumer in the market it is not a subsidy.

danivon wrote:Besides, the roadbuilding was clearly an indirect subsidy that you have not acknowledged, which I guess is why you are labouring the point on overpriced government contracts.

I ignored it because I thought it was a stupid argument. Of course the answer could be that roads existed before cars and were built and maintained before internal combustion so it wasn't really much of a subsidy.

Yes, roads already existed. But not to the same construction standards. So to get a road up to the quality needed for heavier and faster motorised traffic meant higher costs.

You acknowledge that there was a subsidy yet claim the argument is stupid as it was 'small'. What do you think the extra costs were?

Furthermore, George is arguing that the Volt subsidy is also relatively small. If he's right, then by your logic, objections to it could also be 'stupid'.

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Geo, you are correct that there are plenty of dumb subsidies. But I don't think you are being fair to Steve on this. Every time Steve and I make the point that the Volt subsidies make no sense, Ricky defends them with several poorly organized arguments that we then have to refute.

We've demonstrated that the subsidies make little sense from an energy independence perspective (other administration policies are of a larger magnitude and detrimental to our energy independence), from an environmental perspective (the benefit is limited, there are more important things going on, and 7 or 8 other companies are doing the same thing anyway) from an industrial policy perspective (it is not part of a coherent national policy). At the end of the day, I think we have to face facts that this is a payoff to Obama's union supporters (wrapped up in the bow of environmentalism and industrial policy). Isn't that the most logical explanation at this point?

It's hard to write this response, because I don't agree with the Volt subsidy, but it is so much better than the truck tariff, or the ethanol subsidy, or the sugar tariff, or so many hosts of others, which really do just take money from consumers or taxpayers and put it into the pockets of people for whom 170,000 a year is chump change. They benefit multi-billionaires who can pay for congressmen to write the laws that ensure they are enriched. That's what you should be enraged about.

I am enraged about this. I'll hazard a quess that Steve is moreso. There is a tremendous amount of waste and fraud in the federal government. I think that you (and others) should be enraged that Obama promised to go through the budget line-by-line and cut out waste and fraud. There are definitely Republicans who are insanely critical of the man; but why aren't Democrats pissed that he has done virtually nothing to deal with our bloated federal government when he promised to do so?

You can disagree with the policy, and I'm skeptical of its overall effectiveness, and certainly of its cost effectiveness, but that's where this comes from: Policy. Idealistic, misguided, dumb, all three, it was an effort to do something good.

I sort of agree. Certainly the support of the average joe is based on idealism. However, in the political backroom weird stuff happens. Let's agree that it was an effort to do something good heavily influenced by Obama's union and environmental constituents. I hope you would agree that there is typical sausage making happening here.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:The refutation is that many technologies have made it to version 5 without government help. If they will be economically viable, they will be funded by people who make their living evaluating economic risk and reward.

That is not a refutation, it's a rebuttal..

Really? Is that necessary? Here's the on-line definitions:

re·fute (r-fyt)
tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

re·but (r-bt)
v. re·but·ted, re·but·ting, re·buts
v.tr.
1. To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case.
2. To repel.
v.intr.
To present opposing evidence or arguments.

There are also many technologies that have made it to version 5 with government help. Enjoy using the world wide web over the internet using a computer? Each one of those developments was subsidised by governments at different points and in various ways.

Even though you've bolded a few key words I don't find this to be a compelling rebuttal or refutation of Volt subsidies. I don't recall the government giving a credit for every router or CPU purchased by an individual. As I've said, there are compelling reasons for government research on energy alternatives. My issue is with special subsidies for particular products or companies.

And equally, how do we know that the 'many' that didn't would not have developed more quickly and more successfully with a bit of government subsidy? Or if superior products and technologies have fallen by the wayside because they lacked support?

Not all technological developments are equivalent. So your fact that many didn't need subsidy and could rely on these geniuses who 'make their living evaluating risk and reward' does not prove that all developments could do the same. Or even that this particular one could.

I just don't think you'll ever get to this level of proof in the social sciences. There are always odds and ends in the development of technology.

Ray Jay wrote:I think that you (and others) should be enraged that Obama promised to go through the budget line-by-line and cut out waste and fraud. There are definitely Republicans who are insanely critical of the man; but why aren't Democrats pissed that he has done virtually nothing to deal with our bloated federal government when he promised to do so?

Not only did he promise to do that, but he called Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" for adding $4T to the national debt. Yet, in three years President Obama has not proposed anything that would even begin to stop the deficit from growing and growing and growing. He has continued to let the government function without a budget (it's the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate who keep the Perils of Pauline act going with regard to continuing resolutions). He has proposed no entitlement reforms. All he has done is cut military spending. That's not enough. He keeps spending money on programs that don't work and telling us we need to "invest" in things the government should be pulling out of.

I wonder what Candidate Obama would call President Obama's performance? If Bush's was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic," . . . yikes!

That is the government acting as a consumer in the market place. Ford got the contract because they offered the best deal.

Ah conservatives. Spending is all about political decisions and cronism...except when it comes to buying tanks and MRE's.

Monte, you brought up the point about why Democrats are not upset that Obama has not cut waste.. I think for liberals the biggest issue that overwhelms everything else is fairness... As I see it, the big three programs that we have are Medicare, Social Security and Defense. Our defense budget is what 700 billion dollars and the next highest is 65 billion dollars? I think we can safety cut that budget in half without endangering our security. I think 350 billion dollars is an awful lot of wasted money that overhwelms any concern about the Volt subsidy. The Medicare issues cannot be resolved without resolving our health care problems. We need to lower the costs of healthcare from 17% of GDP to maybe 10% of GDP. How do we do that? We install a national single payer program with reimbursement set at 10% of GDP and everyone will get the same level of care whether they are rich are poor. That should carfe of that problem. As for social security, you need to make changes based on the fact that people live longer

Anyway, whatever solutions there are for bloated government they have to do with solving those three programs. But the solution has to be fair. Our society will not tolerate the current disproportionate amount of wealth going to the top 20% (more to the top 5%, even more to the top 1%) I'm all for the rich getting their money as long as the rest of the people share. Maybe we need to just say to corporations and the rich, you know what, if labor and the bottom 20% are getting a certain amount of the wealth then your taxes are low; if not, higher rates will kick in. This idea that we're going to continue with the wealthiest people getting an increasing amount of the nation's wealth and then the poorest will have a limited safety net because there is not money to pay for it is not going to fly

steve

Yet, in three years President Obama has not proposed anything that would even begin to stop the deficit from growing and growing and growing

Nothing? Just for starters...
Under the Budget Control Act, signed by Obama in August as part of a hard-won deal with Congress to lift the borrowing limit, the Pentagon budget must be reduced by about $487 billion in the next decade, a roughly 8 percent decrease.But under a process known as sequestration, that figure could double if Obama and Congress fail by the end of the year to cut an additional $1.2 trillion in government spending in the next decade.
Cutting the tax rate for miilionares would have provided more revenmue too.
And, most importantly, if the economy crashes, revenues would fall and no matter of austerity would prevent deficits... So propping up the economy after the crash, was vital. (Even if it didn't have a game changing effect.)

rickyp wrote:And, most importantly, if the economy crashes, revenues would fall and no matter of austerity would prevent deficits... So propping up the economy after the crash, was vital. (Even if it didn't have a game changing effect.)

It must really annoy the Republicans that the unemplyment rate is heading down with 200,000 net new jobs in a month.

freeman

As for social security, you need to make changes based on the fact that people live longer

Currently incomes over $106,000 are not subject to SS tax. If the caps come off and all income is subject to SS tax the actuaries for the fund say that fixes SS for as far out as they look.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:And, most importantly, if the economy crashes, revenues would fall and no matter of austerity would prevent deficits... So propping up the economy after the crash, was vital. (Even if it didn't have a game changing effect.)

It must really annoy the Republicans that the unemplyment rate is heading down with 200,000 net new jobs in a month.

because Republicans are small people who don't care about anyone else?

danivon wrote:Yes, roads already existed. But not to the same construction standards. So to get a road up to the quality needed for heavier and faster motorised traffic meant higher costs.

You acknowledge that there was a subsidy yet claim the argument is stupid as it was 'small'. What do you think the extra costs were?

I did not acknowledge there was a subsidy. I said the argument that this was a subsidy is stupid. Road builidng is a regular normal function of Government. The Constitution says that the Government is responsible for building and maintaining post roads (Art. I, sec. 8 cl. 7). Further, well maintained roads are a must for national defense. As the technology of post delivery and national defense changed, the level of road standard increased. That there was another seperate industry that benefited from and took advantage of this normal government duty is secondary. It doesn't make it a government subsidy any more then the creation and maintenence of the early Republic's roads was a subsidy to carriage makers. Or a subsidy to tavern keepers who built their facilities along those roads.