Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what if you don't believe in climate change, green technology would create a real economic boom. Young men would work jobs to put solar panels on roofs. Engineers would design the new technology. Infrastructure projects would stimulate areas and it would create demand in the service sector. This is not a bubble. It's real economic growth.
This is not a partisan discussion. This is about the health of the US economy.
Sorry. The govt facility I work in just spent over 23 million to install solor panels. They will off set only 7% of our current energy bills. ROI is looking like 2095. The technology isnt there to create the efficiency incentives for a thriving industry
You shouldnt buy obamas pipe dream and political lobbies so naively
So what if you don't believe in climate change, green technology would create a real economic boom. Young men would work jobs to put solar panels on roofs. Engineers would design the new technology. Infrastructure projects would stimulate areas and it would create demand in the service sector. This is not a bubble. It's real economic growth.
This is not a partisan discussion. This is about the health of the US economy.
I am all in favor of exploring new technology, if for no other reason than to ween ourselves off of foreign oil. However, I would be cautious about saying that creating infrastructure out of thin air isn't a bubble; it would be a bubble if there is no demand for it. That's what's going on in China with some of its ghost cities, and that's what we've seen in Japan, with its construction of highways to nowhere and sea walls that essentially do nothing. Eventually, the project is finished and the construction has to halt. When it does, the value of the project is no longer determined in jobs created but more in terms of what it provides in terms of true infrastructure for economic growth. That's why, even though I support Obama's ideas in general, I do so cautiously. I think our investments in infrastructure should firstly focus on improving the efficiency of existing infrastructure, and then seeing if we can't explore other ideas later. The question is, what would the solar panels do, what would they be used for, and how much real demand would there be?
I am all in favor of exploring new technology, if for no other reason than to ween ourselves off of foreign oil. However, I would be cautious about saying that creating infrastructure out of thin air isn't a bubble; it would be a bubble if there is no demand for it. That's what's going on in China with some of its ghost cities, and that's what we've seen in Japan, with its construction of highways to nowhere and sea walls that essentially do nothing. Eventually, the project is finished and the construction has to halt. When it does, the value of the project is no longer determined in jobs created but more in terms of what it provides in terms of true infrastructure for economic growth. That's why, even though I support Obama's ideas in general, I do so cautiously. I think our investments in infrastructure should firstly focus on improving the efficiency of existing infrastructure, and then seeing if we can't explore other ideas later. The question is, what would the solar panels do, what would they be used for, and how much real demand would there be?
Good points
But industries do you think could fuel economic growth?
Sorry. The govt facility I work in just spent over 23 million to install solor panels. They will off set only 7% of our current energy bills. ROI is looking like 2095. The technology isnt there to create the efficiency incentives for a thriving industry
You shouldnt buy obamas pipe dream and political lobbies so naively
Agreed. I got really excited about this a few years ago and was even considering investing some capital in a start-up company that installed solar panel roofs. After doing some research though, I found that solar panels are not cost effective at all, even in the sunniest states.
So what if you don't believe in climate change, green technology would create a real economic boom. Young men would work jobs to put solar panels on roofs. Engineers would design the new technology. Infrastructure projects would stimulate areas and it would create demand in the service sector. This is not a bubble. It's real economic growth.
This is not a partisan discussion. This is about the health of the US economy.
You say that it shouldn't be a partisan discussion, but the fact of the matter is that the Federal Government has injected itself into the discussion by dispensing tax dollars on failed and unproven techonology. One could make a valid argument that an industry **could** be jump-started by a Federal infusion, but doing so completely removes the dependency on the free-market to develop the technology and instead creates reliance on government to make it happen through additional tax dollars and tax credits. And if they don't continue to get those dollars or credits, the innovation dries up too.
Bottom line, when the government tries lift an industry up from its infancy, it is invariably a partisan affair. There's nothing free market about that.
They already did this... and it failed... next... next time come up with a plan where people actually want to buy something that's useful for them and not companies..
As you can see, despite the criticisms, much of the stimulus came in the form of tax incentives. Obama actually gave out a lot more in tax breaks than what Americans actually paid for directly to invest in infrastructure. In fact, when you consider that $288 billion dollars (36 percent) of the bill was tax incentives, compared to $111 billion dollars (14 percent) for infrastructure and $43 billion (5 percent) on energy then you can see how inadequate the investments on infrastructure and energy really was. It's true that a whopping $4 billion out of $787 billion (. 05 percent of the whole stimulus and 1 percent of the tax credits) were used to encourage spending on home energy...but that's hardly a stimulus.
The fact is that for all of the conservative whining about Obama's stimulus, the sizable chunk of that stimulus came in the form of tax breaks -- which is what conservatives say that they're all about. And conservatives in congress are now trying to take away much of those so that they can *keep* the historically low tax rates for the elite in this society.
But industries do you think could fuel economic growth?
It's a combination of things, really. I think that the government needs to do more R&D that the private sector is unwilling to do by itself. We also need the government to become more aggressive in terms of managing our resources. We need policies that are going to control our wasteful consumption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
