Comments on: US Missing Out on Green Energy Profits? - John Doerr

By: kevintype

kevintype — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:47:08 +0000

Daniel, I am neither a collectivist nor an individualist. I am a realist.

Reality includes certain facts: that individuals cannot survive in isolation, and that communities cannot prosper without respecting the individual.

Corporatists such as yourself fail to understand the nature of these facts.

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:16:19 +0000

@kevintype There is no forest there are only trees. Community is formed by many individuals cooperating to provide goods and services that any one individual cannot provide on his/her own. Capitalism is a natural phenomenon not an ideology as socialism is.

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:40:35 +0000

@kevintype I am not a corporatist. In fact you are. You are defending the practice of mercantilism which can also be called corporate socialism or welfare. It is very much like fascism. Stealing from the tax payer with government force to start a CORPORATION with no CORPORATE risk. Somehow green CORPORATIONS are more virtuous then others? It is clear you are taking this argument out of the realm of economic fact and into ideology.

By: kevintype

kevintype — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:57:12 +0000

Daniel, I seek to return the discussion to basic facts, and free it from all ideology, whether of capitalism or of socialism.

The facts are there on the ground, in the earth, and in the air.

The truth will not be found in the textbooks of the economists, no matter how eloquently they spin their justifications for the few to vastly enrich themselves at the expense of the many.

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:28:30 +0000

@kevintype Exposing what drives your thinking as well.
I am not against green tech. I am against these so called green corps using their political connections to loot the people for their own gains.
Taking money from the tax payer to fund green tech is like breaking windows to create jobs for the window industry without regard for the fact that some resources both monetary and commodity based are being deprived from other sectors in the economy. You obviously never owned a business.

By: kevintype

kevintype — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:50:17 +0000

Daniel, reality is what drives my thinking. Your attempts to paint me into an ideological corner are nothing more than a sad indication of the your own ideological blinders.

Now you are returning to the same tired old arguments you have already attempted previously, making this conversation circular, and exposing your admission of defeat.

So I bid you good luck, and good bye.

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:52:51 +0000

@kevintype If you purchase a spot on earth. What lies beneath it is yours. If you pollute the public space such as air or a stream of course you would pay a monetary restitution for it. Of course you would try and limit you impact or face a civil case. Many companies have been sued for this. Fact is taxes don’t make the air or water cleaner. In fact they aren’t even costing the corporations you hate. The costs are always passed down to the consumer. The diff is Taxes aren’t voluntary. Trade is

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:38:50 +0000

@kevintype Its your mind that is tired not the argument. Your calling me a corporatist while defending a corporation because you deem it somehow more virtuous then corporations that don’t take tax payer subsidies. Flawed logic and in fact not the realist you claim to be.

The reality is I commented on a failed and fraudulent policy of corporate welfare and you replied with your collectivist lack of respect for property rights, your lack of economic knowledge, and environmental fascism

By: Daniel44125

Daniel44125 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:29:23 +0000

@kevintype My first statement had nothing to do with pollution or corporate ethics involving pollution. My comment was based in economic fact solely. We can’t steal from individuals using gov force to give to corporations of any sort for their gain. That takes resources out of the market that the market decided was best spent elsewhere. If green energy is a good investment for anyone it would have been done on a voluntary basis as all other investments.

By: MysteryManoLove

MysteryManoLove — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:37:11 +0000

You know that in States like Washington, people still choose the cheaper energy a majority of the time. The other thing is green energy is highly inefficient compared to nuclear power, we need more nuclear power plants. It takes toxins to produce these more efficient energy products, perfect example? You know those efficient light bulbs? Full of mercury, the kind that damages nerves. And I’m sure everyone will dispose of those properly, the green industry is BS.