$10 a gallon?

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think you can have it both ways, who gets to decide whether it will actually benefit everyone?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the government should be investing in these technologies to push the industry ahead faster than the market would do on its own..

There's other examples of everyone benefiting from similar investment, IE: NASA..

I think it's undeniable that we've benefited (especially in medical areas) from our mission to the moon, subsidized by the taxpayers, but I'm sure some small government people were against it because it was a 'waste' of money at the time.

I'm all for investing in NASA, the miltary, etc. All things I think we all actually benefit from. You actually see tangible results from the money you invested, not just speculation about poll numbers and what really effected the numbers.

[motivez]

The same can be said of a great many programs though

How many people have to benefit before it's okay for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on it?

[6SpeedTA95]

If oil hits 200/bbl we'll be in trouble...things would grind to a halt pretty quick and we'd enter a period of very rapid inflation.

As of right now the dollar has been doing ok and is poised to rebound in 2009. 200/bbl oil seems unlikely but 160 seems possible before we begin a decline back to the 50 to 80 range which we'll probably see by 2012 assuming we dont have any major terrorist attack or depression in the states.

This correlation of the falling/rising dollar and oil is also a bit manipulated by people wanting to hedge against the falling dollar.

I've been saying for awhile this oil bubble is no fun and its pissing off the energy companies as well, this notion that these companies like it is blatantly false, in fact I was at an LNG facility early this week and the spike in world natural gas prices has completely destroyed their local US business.

Other companies like conocophillips are really suffering due to decreased gasoline demand which is killing, absolutely KILLING their refining margins. Which in some cases they're losing money at the current time.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by motivez

The same can be said of a great many programs though

How many people have to benefit before it's okay for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on it?

I fully realize it's completely selective by me. In an ideal world I'd say let common sense dictate it, but I know that's not how anything works, especially concerning the federal govt. It's just an "I think it should be this way" comment by me.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I fully realize it's completely selective by me. In an ideal world I'd say let common sense dictate it, but I know that's not how anything works, especially concerning the federal govt. It's just an "I think it should be this way" comment by me.

I mean, I agree with you, it just seemed a shift from earlier positions, so I was curious, thanks for elaborating

I feel like the market moves at too slow of a pace in some areas, like I said, NASA is a key example.. some hardcore libertarians will argue the market would have produced those technologies in due time, but certainly not as quickly as they were developed through government funding in NASA and a necessity to solve problems to get us to the moon

I don't know how many lives were saved / improved / bettered, but I'd guess in the millions..

There's an obvious national security aspect to the government investing in the technology in addition to the environmental improvements we could see.. allowing us to GTFO the middle east entirely by ending a necessity to trade with them, and removing any justification some of these interventionists have for our continued presence there, along with not being subject to massive price fluctuations with China, India, and other countries coming on the scene as major powers.. I mean, there's really no decent rationale against the government spending money in this area IMO

[nbiggershaft]

People are just going to have to realize that they cannot live in places far away from their work. They will also have to accept that food will become a real cost, up to 50% of their income. Americans have been coddled long enough.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I mean, I agree with you, it just seemed a shift from earlier positions, so I was curious, thanks for elaborating

I feel like the market moves at too slow of a pace in some areas, like I said, NASA is a key example.. some hardcore libertarians will argue the market would have produced those technologies in due time, but certainly not as quickly as they were developed through government funding in NASA and a necessity to solve problems to get us to the moon

I don't know how many lives were saved / improved / bettered, but I'd guess in the millions..

There's an obvious national security aspect to the government investing in the technology in addition to the environmental improvements we could see.. allowing us to GTFO the middle east entirely by ending a necessity to trade with them, and removing any justification some of these interventionists have for our continued presence there, along with not being subject to massive price fluctuations with China, India, and other countries coming on the scene as major powers.. I mean, there's really no decent rationale against the government spending money in this area IMO

Those are all excellent points, whats really bad is how the government is in the process of making us dependant on foreign sources of natural gas in addition to oil!

In 25 years we could be in the same boat with nat gas as we are with oil....pretty scary considering the amount of nat gas available in the US and canada as well as off the continental shelf that we can't drill for.

[Ardentfrost]

Yeah! We got to the moon bitches! The fucking moon!

Seriously though, the moon got us nothing except international recognition as being the first to do it... and what did THAT get us? We were an industrial powerhouse before that and continued to be. We got velcro and certain types of plastics earlier than we otherwise would have, but allowing children and the elderly to dispense with the excessive daily activity of tying their shoes does not make up for the billions upon billions of dollars we have funneled into NASA.

I think NASA has done some really neat stuff. But unless we are running a REAL tight ship as far as government expenditures goes, I can't see how spending all that money for such little monetary recourse can be acceptable. And if all the stuff NASA brought us had REALLY helped our economy along, they wouldn't NEED billions and billions of more dollars... they could support themselves.

That's my opinion of the past.

But the reality of the situation is that we DID fund NASA and we DID get the various things it gave us such as the moon landing and advanced rocketry, but what about now? What about the many billions of dollars STILL being given to them to check out Mars? We are hurling money into the nothingness of space.

And that's my opinion of the now.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Those are all excellent points, whats really bad is how the government is in the process of making us dependant on foreign sources of natural gas in addition to oil!

In 25 years we could be in the same boat with nat gas as we are with oil....pretty scary considering the amount of nat gas available in the US and canada as well as off the continental shelf that we can't drill for.

We need to hammer out a good energy-borrowing agreement with Canada. Those fools up in Alberta are swimming in oil and natural gas money.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah! We got to the moon bitches! The fucking moon!

Seriously though, the moon got us nothing except international recognition as being the first to do it... and what did THAT get us? We were an industrial powerhouse before that and continued to be. We got velcro and certain types of plastics earlier than we otherwise would have, but allowing children and the elderly to dispense with the excessive daily activity of tying their shoes does not make up for the billions upon billions of dollars we have funneled into NASA.

I think NASA has done some really neat stuff. But unless we are running a REAL tight ship as far as government expenditures goes, I can't see how spending all that money for such little monetary recourse can be acceptable. And if all the stuff NASA brought us had REALLY helped our economy along, they wouldn't NEED billions and billions of more dollars... they could support themselves.

That's my opinion of the past.

But the reality of the situation is that we DID fund NASA and we DID get the various things it gave us such as the moon landing and advanced rocketry, but what about now? What about the many billions of dollars STILL being given to them to check out Mars? We are hurling money into the nothingness of space.

And that's my opinion of the now.

It's not an economic return. NASA doesn't make you money or put food on your table. NASA advances human kind. It's not all about the mortgage.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

The same can be said of a great many programs though

How many people have to benefit before it's okay for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on it?

Sec. 2. General Requirements. In promulgating new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, and developing legislative proposals concerning regulation, all agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall adhere to the following requirements:
(a) Administrative decisions shall be based on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of proposed government action;
(b) Regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society;
(c) Regulatory objectives shall be chosen to maximize the net benefits to society;
(d) Among alternative approaches to any given regulatory objective, the alternative involving the least net cost to society shall be chosen; and
(e) Agencies shall set regulatory priorities with the aim of maximizing the aggregate net benefits to society, taking into account the condition of the particular industries affected by regulations, the condition of the national economy, and other regulatory actions contemplated for the future.

Executive Orders

That is the general idea, a cost benefit analysis has to show that the people who benefit outweighs the cost, and the net benefits are maximized.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

It's not an economic return. NASA doesn't make you money or put food on your table. NASA advances human kind. It's not all about the mortgage.

Ok, then I'll use your terminology.

If NASA really was advancing human kind so well, then it could afford to fund itself.

NPO's sure as shit do.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Ok, then I'll use your terminology.

If NASA really was advancing human kind so well, then it could afford to fund itself.

NPO's sure as shit do.

Who is going to pay for it? Donors?

[AmericanDrugWar]

We need to have a dual focus here. It's not just that oil's going up... it's that our currency value's going down, too.