21 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Bloomberg said:

Today's sustainability indicator, $409 billion, is the worldwide government subsidies given to the fossil-fuel industry in 2010. That's more than six times the $66 billion provided for renewable energy.

read more

considering that $72 billion of that was shelled out in the US I don't know what we are complaining about well-fare moms. This is more like well-fare corporations.

Edited by questionmark, 25 April 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[tapirmusic]

End all federal subsidies.  
I've got no problems with that!
Is that what you are suggesting?

[questionmark]

tapirmusic, on 25 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

End all federal subsidies.  
I've got no problems with that!
Is that what you are suggesting?

I am saying that we cry about the wrong things when we squeal about welfare.

[tapirmusic]

Well more squealing won't fix anything.  What's your solution?

[questionmark]

tapirmusic, on 25 April 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Well more squealing won't fix anything.  What's your solution?

If you have to give give to the needy, but not to those who will get it anyway. Better if you don't have to give because there are no needy.

[tapirmusic]

questionmark, on 25 April 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

If you have to give give to the needy, but not to those who will get it anyway. Better if you don't have to give because there are no needy.

There will ALWAYS be needy.  I think it's better not to be FORCED by governments to give at all.  Then you have more money and are free to give to charities of your choice, or not to give anything at all.

[Rafterman]

questionmark, on 25 April 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

considering that $72 billion of that was shelled out in the US I don't know what we are complaining about well-fare moms. This is more like well-fare corporations.

I agree that subsidies should be done away with, but it's also important to note that welfare moms don't drive the world economy either or employ millions of people directly or in related fields.

[questionmark]

tapirmusic, on 25 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

There will ALWAYS be needy.  I think it's better not to be FORCED by governments to give at all.  Then you have more money and are free to give to charities of your choice, or not to give anything at all.

Ever noticed that the highest criminality happens i countries were the government does not care about the needy? It is cheaper to feed a bum thanto feed him plus pay a guard.

[questionmark]

Rafterman, on 25 April 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I agree that subsidies should be done away with, but it's also important to note that welfare moms don't drive the world economy either or employ millions of people directly or in related fields.

Well fare moms drive the economy in a much more effective way than giving to corporations so they have a few unneeded workers on welfare. The welfare mom at least spends all her welfare on the economy, not in a certain casino called wall street (were absolutely nothing is produced).

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 25 April 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

considering that $72 billion of that was shelled out in the US I don't know what we are complaining about well-fare moms. This is more like well-fare corporations.

So should we give those Billions to the welfare cases and then allow the price of fuel to double? At $8 a gallon gasoline will hit everyone rather hard, not just welfare recipients. It is a balance I think, not easily calculated.

It would be just another way to "even out" the economy, as the poor would get more wealthy, and everyone else (But the fuel companies) would get pulled DOWN to match. It sure would get (buy?) a lot of those Poor Votes for the Dems.

Edited by DieChecker, 26 April 2012 - 01:57 AM.

[Mr. Smith]

I say we just kill all forms of govt payments to everything and everyone they aren't employing or trading with for something tangible. Problem solved.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 26 April 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

So should we give those Billions to the welfare cases and then allow the price of fuel to double? At $8 a gallon gasoline will hit everyone rather hard, not just welfare recipients. It is a balance I think, not easily calculated.

It would be just another way to "even out" the economy, as the poor would get more wealthy, and everyone else (But the fuel companies) would get pulled DOWN to match. It sure would get (buy?) a lot of those Poor Votes for the Dems.

The point you are not getting is that they increased the gas prices "despite" getting subsidies. And, the 72 billion above are put under "job preserving measures" therefore count into this "welfare" that everybody is always crying about. And, there are no tens of billions in welfare case, those 500 billion everybody always talks about include these72 and many other billions given to industry and farming.

The total expenditure for "welfare cases" does not reach 1/100th of that figure. Wasteful spending is done somewhere else and ends up in the pockets of the famous 1%, not in the pockets of welfare mothers.

[Rafterman]

questionmark, on 25 April 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Well fare moms drive the economy in a much more effective way than giving to corporations so they have a few unneeded workers on welfare. The welfare mom at least spends all her welfare on the economy, not in a certain casino called wall street (were absolutely nothing is produced).

You really don't understand the purpose of the stock market or how investment works do you?

Let's say I have a company and I want to build a new manufacturing plant.  I don't have the capital to do that right now so I offer small portions of the interest in my company to folks who want to buy it.  In return for me letting go of some control in my company, I get capital to then use to build my new manufacturing plant.

If I'm a sound company and all goes well, my investors get paid a dividend and the value of their piece of my company increases.  They can then hold on to it or sell it.

So tell me how "nothing is produced"?

[questionmark]

Rafterman, on 26 April 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

You really don't understand the purpose of the stock market or how investment works do you?

Let's say I have a company and I want to build a new manufacturing plant.  I don't have the capital to do that right now so I offer small portions of the interest in my company to folks who want to buy it.  In return for me letting go of some control in my company, I get capital to then use to build my new manufacturing plant.

If I'm a sound company and all goes well, my investors get paid a dividend and the value of their piece of my company increases.  They can then hold on to it or sell it.

So tell me how "nothing is produced"?

The point is: That is the theory. In practice it has not worked like that for the last 20 years, which is why we have the accelerating succession of bursting bubbles.

The  most successful companies before the dotcom bubble did not even pay a dividend (see Microsoft) because the accelerating value (with evidently no counter value) of the stock left shareholders quite content just speculating. Then somebody realized that the emperor had no clothes, in fact was stark naked and the whole thingy went down the drain, a few years later the same with real estate and next will be the commodity bubble. None of these have produced anything but  a few more billionaires and added government debt.

But the Wall Street gamblers have finally full filled their biggest dream: They tapped into government money to happily keep on speculating. The result is that money is drawn out of companies, investments are not made and when the whole thing becomes economically nonviable (see Flint Michigan) it is scrapped. Those plants became unrentable not for high salaries (cause else the Germans would not be the biggest exporter in the world at an average of $90 an hour labor cost) but because of lack of investment.

[questionmark]

In related news:

Bloomberg said:

Sustainability Indicator: $5 Trillion
Today's sustainability indicator, $5 trillion,  is the global investment needed by 2020 in renewable power and energy  efficiency to contain climate change, according to the International  Energy Agency.

Source