SN,
Krugman has no proof this would have worked it is opinion. BTW, his Nobel Prize was not for his work on Keynesian economics. Morgenthau, FDR's Sec. Treasury at the time, said at the time and I paraphrase...we spent all this money and all we have to show for it is more debt. The facts are the government doubled and it caused another depression 1937. Throwing government money at things does not guarantee the results you want. More taxpayer money at solar will not make it more efficient, it will only add to $17 Trillion in debt we already have. All they are is a drag on the economy.
I have asked and you, and other proponents of inefficient energy, have refused to answer, what are the classification of the tax breaks and how do they differ from what other companies get? The left loves this Frankenstein monster of a tax system when it is benefits their friends, not so much when it benefits unfriends...just a bit inconsistent. This is why I am for the elimination of income tax and a consumption tax...with zero business taxes.
If you want a healthy welfare state you need healthy growing populations. This is what you want. How do you subsidize things with a growing dependency class and shrinking working class. All this stuff has been in Time Magazine multiple times over the years. Obviously, this is something you what to ignore, which is typical of stage one thinking. The populations of most of Europe plus Japan are in irreversible decline. Half the households in Scandinavia are total one person. With decline in population comes economic decline. Tough choice will have to be made, cutting subsidies to efficient energy will be low hanging fruit. It is already happening.
Hmmm...100% Renewables. I don't remember anyone putting in separate lines for renewables. Power is a fungible good, signing up for green power is line buying a carbon offset for your Gulfstream G 5...it's all feel good. BTW, This does not say it reflect true cost plus profit.
Last edited by wbtravis; 01/23/14 10:46 AM.
