I dont think that you can have a new "inovative" product appear from the free market without "incentives, hich is importent for a sociatal inferstructure reform - such as green energy.
Being a pioneer is something to risky for a big company and the usual profits are far less risky and comfortable to get.

Counter examples will be well received, I dont see my statement above as a "law", but as my resumee after a brief observation.

(November 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm)festive1 Wrote:

(November 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Subsidations? Could work? Did work in the US where 97% of subsidized greenenergy companies flurished and are now independant participants of the market.

Aren't subsidies just another way of saying "incentives?" Damn corporations are what really runs America.

Its a subset of incentives... I wouldn't say they are synonymous no.
The risk of getting taken to court, pleasure, bad/good press, the prospect of making a lot of money... also incentives.

The bigger picture is created one vote at a time Tibs. Of course he is[a man of principle], and I disagree with those principles [insomuch as I am able to discern them]...but that's okay. Allowing the free market eh? Looks to me like he's entirely okay with buddying up to oil..but not alternatives. I don't see anything in his voting record that is unfriendly to oil (and a great deal that is very friendly), and I don't see anything in his voting record that is friendly towards anything else what-so-ever. Look, I understand that his principles might just line up with the oil industry's interests in such a thorough fashion for reasons entirely unrelated. I'm simply more cynical of our politicians than you seem to be. The "last honest man in washington" bit (not your baby, I understand) just doesn't sit. Allow me to bitch about my representatives and the effects their votes have had on my country. Allow me to wonder what goes through one of those representatives heads when their public statements are such brilliantly crafted examples of politics while their voting records are consistent, steaming, piles of shit. This is the voting record of a shill, in my estimation. You disagree, and that's okay. Ultimately though, I have to live under the rule of these votes in aggregate don't I? You know it's not even my position that this man is an intentional and willful shill. That his positions are intended (by him) to be doublespeak. Trust me, I can imagine a great many scenarios in which Mr. Paul is a well meaning and highly principled individual who has nevertheless managed to rack up an impressively horrid voting record on nearly every issue that is important to me. The issue, for me, as I have so often expressed, is that the narrative of who Ron Paul is does not seem (to me) to line up to the narrative offered in his voting record. I would absolutely expect there to be a way to argue that it does..he is a successful politician, and they make their living (in this country at least) convincing us that they mean what they say and hold the principles they advertise for the reasons they advertise....even when they do not.

Libertarians are free market types. Okay. Ron Paul looks to be a free market type, he does look to be just a -wee- bit more friendly to a specific segment of that "free market" then he is towards others. This may not trigger alarm bells for you, but here, when oil is involved, it is very often involved (I mean this in the strongest sense of the word).

I do understand his dilemma though (as I perceive it anyway), voting against oil overtly in any way would be political suicide.
-So supposing that he would take issue to subsidies for oil (and we do give oil subsidies)
-and supposing that he had an opportunity to vote against them (and he has...not so curiously our representatives aren't actually required to vote on every proposition btw....play around with that political maneuvering tool in your mind for awhile..see how it tastes)
-and finally supposing he is a man of principal (we're supposing that right?)
Then one's mind (at least this one's mind) begins to wonder why his voting record is so overwhelming in the favor of a particular industry that absolutely avails itself of subsidy both officially and behind closed doors. Right along with the rest of his party.....the party line.

---

Yep, Stue, that would be the bill. There's a short section in the full quotes for two arguments offered both for and against the bill. Everything the government does (and everything they piggyback into their bills) seems suspect to me..lol. Ultimately its a vote (and bill) that I don't completely understand either, and I'll gladly concede that I may be completely in error. Bills like these, with amendments and motions such as the one this one went through are often little more than political traps. I'd be perfectly willing to entertain that as well. But here again we see a reliable friend of oil (not that I'm unfriendly) and we might just see a politician working his trade.

(November 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm)festive1 Wrote: But how do we get clean energy without incentives? We won't make the energy companies become public (government run), maybe we shouldn't... But how to get the big energy companies to become cleaner? I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but pragmatically speaking how do we get from where we are now to green energy?

Easily. Convert the market to a free market by ending corporatism (handouts to businesses, excessive regulation, allow small business to form without red tape getting in the way). Now you have a market which is totally controlled by the will of the consumer. Get enough consumers to demand cleaner energy, and the demand will be large enough to prompt either a current company to take action (by focusing on cleaner energy in order to gain / keep consumers) or for a new company to form in order to meet the demand.

Either way, the consumers will get what they want, and the more people that get converted to the "green energy" way of life, the more demand there will be. Companies that refuse to go green will rapidly lose consumers, and without government to prop them up, they will face declining profits and eventual bankruptcy if they do not meet with demands.

Consumer action rules in a free market. Think about the decline of newspaper sales in recent years; it's not because the government has started giving out money and incentives to develop tablet PCs and other methods of digital reading; it's because the demand was there for such devices. People like the fact that they can buy a single device which weighs less than one newspaper, but can hold millions of them...in the palm of their hand, and as a bonus, you can read books on it and (in some cases) play games, do work, and browse the web.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Easily. Convert the market to a free market by ending corporatism (handouts to businesses, excessive regulation, allow small business to form without red tape getting in the way). Now you have a market which is totally controlled by the will of the consumer.

The will of most consumers is to have a cheap, comfortably accessable product. Inovation is expensive - so inovative but better products might die out under such sircumstances.

To drill, pump, manifacture, transport, market and sell oil - is currently cheaper than building solar pannels and windmills.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Get enough consumers to demand cleaner energy, and the demand will be large enough to prompt either a current company to take action (by focusing on cleaner energy in order to gain / keep consumers) or for a new company to form in order to meet the demand.

And how will you get the consumer to buy and demand a more expensive product? And how will you get a companie to change from a less risky and comfortable way of production to a potentialy more risky one?

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Either way, the consumers will get what they want, and the more people that get converted to the "green energy" way of life, the more demand there will be. Companies that refuse to go green will rapidly lose consumers, and without government to prop them up, they will face declining profits and eventual bankruptcy if they do not meet with demands.

That is wishfull thinking aslong as there is no logisticaly possible concept to actualy achieve something like that.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Consumer action rules in a free market. Think about the decline of newspaper sales in recent years; it's not because the government has started giving out money and incentives to develop tablet PCs and other methods of digital reading; it's because the demand was there for such devices. People like the fact that they can buy a single device which weighs less than one newspaper, but can hold millions of them...in the palm of their hand, and as a bonus, you can read books on it and (in some cases) play games, do work, and browse the web.

Newspapers are not inferstructur - such as energy is. And the climate and with it it`s planet wont go up in a bunch of smoke and flames if people dont change their choice of media.

theres a bit more "urgency" gehind the green enrgy issue - to simply propose concepts without providing statistical evidence and calculations which show that it will defenatly work without risk of inefficency.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Get enough consumers to demand cleaner energy, and the demand will be large enough to prompt either a current company to take action (by focusing on cleaner energy in order to gain / keep consumers) or for a new company to form in order to meet the demand.

Starting to see that with Shell (or GE, slightly less related to all topics on deck), for example. Sure, some might say that they're just giving green energy lip service....but they didn't even see the value of lip service a decade ago.

(November 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm)festive1 Wrote: But how do we get clean energy without incentives? We won't make the energy companies become public (government run), maybe we shouldn't... But how to get the big energy companies to become cleaner? I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but pragmatically speaking how do we get from where we are now to green energy?

Easily. Convert the market to a free market by ending corporatism (handouts to businesses, excessive regulation, allow small business to form without red tape getting in the way). Now you have a market which is totally controlled by the will of the consumer. Get enough consumers to demand cleaner energy, and the demand will be large enough to prompt either a current company to take action (by focusing on cleaner energy in order to gain / keep consumers) or for a new company to form in order to meet the demand.

Either way, the consumers will get what they want, and the more people that get converted to the "green energy" way of life, the more demand there will be. Companies that refuse to go green will rapidly lose consumers, and without government to prop them up, they will face declining profits and eventual bankruptcy if they do not meet with demands.

I think removing regulations would allow a handful of monopolies to form. Welcome the second coming of the 1920's. Not so hot. I don't have a better plan, and the government has issues so I don't think government takeovers would help anything. Not everyone can choose to buy things because they fit their moral/ethical/green standards, they simply can't afford to. It's a tough question, I certainly don't have all the answers, but I don't agree with your suggestion.

The clarion call of "hands off", often accompanied by "deregulate" has been done to death in this country. It didn't work out the way that the current crop of proponents keep claiming that it will. That's how we ended up with the (admittedly...sometimes complete garbage) laws that we have.

When most politician say deregulate they mean take away all the sticks*, but keep sending the carrots.
We're talking about taking away most of both.
*for their favoured industry and it's already established players of course.

Yeah, currently they might be less able to festive, but that's not what Tib's is saying... That's part of the proposal, applied to the current circumstances, not to applied to this situation:

Quote: free market by ending corporatism (handouts to businesses, excessive regulation, allow small business to form without red tape getting in the way)

Trouble is, and again is a lesson the US learned, taking away the sticks and carrots is supposed to do what? There was a point in our history where the government was incapable of holding the stick (and where little to no sticks existed)...wasn't pretty. Business did fine, "we the people"..meh, maybe not. How might we even take away the carrots? The government is itself a very well funded consumer...capable of making demands (and the markets have to respond to those demands..ostensibly). There are so many permutations of the example of sticks and carrots (more sticks, less carrots..more carrots, less sticks, little of both, lots of both)in our history. It's really been a complete nightmare on so many fronts that I fail to see why retracing our steps in either of the two directions or both would return different results in such a general way.

What benefits does the free market have that might convince me to prefer it over a mixed market?
(it seems that you might actually favor a mixed market..from your comments about taking away most - you didn't say all- sticks and carrots. If that's the case, then what we might disagree with would be more along the lines of what places the government ought to intervene in the market...specific sticks..specific carrots.....but how is this different from what we currently do?)

I'm of the opinion, for example, that agriculture in this country needs to receive both greater levels of subsidy and stricter regulations (a great deal of which specific to those subsidies)...because we've been creating a profitable monopoly for some and a completely unprofitable market for others in the same breath with the policies we've been engaging in.