Comments on: "Reason"-ed Anal Openings

By: frank

frank — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:35:09 +0000

Mr. King,
Don't you feel a sense of irony in using a forum that government "invented" to argue against the government's position? Of course, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, as he has been slandered with. He rightfully claimed to have been an enthusiastic supporter of funding the military progenitor of the internet.

Almost all of the innovations you cite as coming from the private sector have also been the beneficiaries of significant government spending.

I also find it ironic that you cite an industry which builds a product unavailable on the free market exclusively for the government in an environment where any competition ends with the rewarding of the contract, as an example of "private" industry. Seems more like a captive industry with the question begging as to which is the captive.

I mentioned the nuclear industry's reliance on government aid in financing and indemnification. They are also reliant on government for disposal of the toxic waste. Even if one assumes that it can be disposed or stored in a repository, the cost is still prohibitive. Compare the amount of energy created by 1 lb of nuclear material to the costs and the amount of energy required to maintain its waste in perpetuity.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:29:33 +0000

Red herring.

I never said the private sector couldn't develop anything on it's own. They do it all the time.

What I suggested was when the private sector has a conflict of interest, when monopolistic control of an industry would be threatened by alternative methodology they could not control……they stick with the monopoly.

I may criticize big corporate industry too much…..but you trust in them way too much.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:59:48 +0000

That's right, Rev. The private sector can't develop anything on it's own. Big Brother must hold it's hand for anything at all to get done.

Except for airplanes, automobiles, light builbs, televisions, telephones, computers, cell phones, and almost everything other modern innovation, which all came from the private sector.

But Al Gore did invent the internet. There's that.

And guess who builds all that high-tech military equipment we have ? If you said "private industry," you win a cigar.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:48:36 +0000

Attaboy, pdt. You da man !!!

heh, heh.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:30:13 +0000

Hey King, after reading frank and Rev's posts, can you give me a little "atta-boy" every time I type something… we are on the same side, which is apparently all it takes.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:44:36 +0000

When it comes to issues where private industry will not venture their cash, government is the only institution that can demonstrate leadership, the only institution with the economic gravitas to change the equation.

Conservatives, apparently, do not agree with that evaluation and insist on private business solutions to all problems……except defense spending, naturally.

The most difficult step in a long journey is….the first step.

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:12:49 +0000

But frank, nuclear energy is still a VIABLE replacement for coal. It can produce massive amounts of energy. Solar and wind cannot, and they must be subsidized as well. If we have to subsidize something, how about we subsidize something that WORKS. I'm not against solar and wind, they have their place in the energy pantheon, but to act like they can replace oil, coal, and gas is a flight of fancy, don't you think ?

Rev, this isn't about conservatives vs. liberals. I know you see absolutely everything through that narrow distorted prism, but this is about logical vs. illogical means of mass energy production. And btw, you ignored every single point I made in my last post.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:08:26 +0000

Well said, as always frank.

The idea that the government, whose job conservatives tell me is to lookout for the national defense, should allow the private market to dictate the terms surrounding the national security issue of energy……is incomprehensible to me.

Would private entrepreneurs have gotten America to the moon before any other countries?

In some areas of life, government initiatives are the only way.

By: frank

frank — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:17:41 +0000

The Carter program was to subsidize alternative energy providers so that their programs could mature and develop the necessary technology. Reagan killed this program, relegating alternative energy to the margins. Mr. King calls for nuclear energy but fails to mention that it would not be economically viable without government support. Without the government, nuclear facilities would not get financed. Without government, the cost of disposing of the waste and insurance would doom nuclear energy to the same margins as other alternative energy.

The idea of expanding alternative energy technology is not to eliminate oil, but to make it merely one of a panoply of energy choices.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:02:35 +0000

"If Carter's programs held so much promise we'd have seen corporations–probably the oil companies or big utilities–making big money off them by now."

Not when's it easier and more profitable to just gamble on oil futures.

King rambles on…but does not answer why Reagan dismantled any government-led efforts to reduce our dependency on oil. Now, our dependency is exponentially worse.

I'm sure King recognizes that, currently, we can be sujected to $6, $8, even $10 per gallon gasoline which would bring our American economy to an end.

Apparently, that's just how market forces work.