Here it is again.
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce,
I would have thought that oil didn't get any kind of government subsidy. Also coal surely didn't.
But, I repeat that it would be better if there no government subsidies for any energy source.
Two problems arise from subsidies. One is that it throws off the market mechanism, so you don't know which is the best fuel. Second, it directs research in a particular direction, which may not be the best. This means major money goes chasing after perhaps a false path.
At the same time, those who might be interested in pursuing innovative alternatives are dissuaded by the enormous advantage enjoyed by those subsidized.
In other words, perhaps solar, wind, and nuclear might now be supplying us with electricity if government were not involved.
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce wrote:
Harry, I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or a big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And nuclear really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were "bad"? Or is it only new subsidies that are "bad"? What has changed other than who are the economic royalists? WWHGsay?Bruce Leier
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
