PDA

View Full Version : If we would of used the money on Energy Research instead of Iraq?


Mr. Laz
05-04-2006, 06:00 PM
The war in Iraq's financial cost are $278,225,822,544 (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) so far ... based on Congressional appropriations.


now if we had used that 300 billion to fund research for an alternate energy supply .... how would of results of been different in comparison?

would 300 billion be enough to develop a new energy solution?


new energy supply means oil is almost worthless on a worldwide level.

means the entire middle east is truly 3rd world again

means Iraq is almost worthless on a worldwide level

means Al qaeda is out of money

means they have to go back to throwing sticks at people

mean WMD from them is virtually non-existent



means U.S. soldiers never had to die in the first place

jAZ
05-04-2006, 06:03 PM
This is why Bush/Cheney/Rove was the worst possible administration to hold power at the time of 9/11. Narrow minded, short-sighted incompetence was the last thing we needed at that time.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 06:11 PM
Govt' money for research-------> More Gov't Money for research----->Black Hole anyway. Govt wastes money period...doesn't matter where.

I see all that money on Iraq going back into the people's pockets,
and having our children live without debt.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-04-2006, 06:20 PM
Govt' money for research-------> More Gov't Money for research----->Black Hole anyway. Govt wastes money period...doesn't matter where.

I see all that money on Iraq going back into the people's pockets,
and having our children live without debt.

This post is completely psychotic. The money from Iraq will go to a select few pockets, namely the largest interests of big oil multinationals. If you think that any venture in oil is going to wean down our national debt, then I suggest you up the thorazine.

jAZ
05-04-2006, 06:39 PM
I posted this in the other thread, but it seems worth repeating here.

This $300,000,000 are costs that we incur only because we are dependant upon oil as our primary source of energy. Unfortunately, these hard costs (along with many other soft costs) aren't properly reflected in the price of gas at the barrel/pump level. We pay for these costs through income taxes and not fuel taxes. Doing this artifically deflates the price of oil and prevents the market from appropriately reacting to demand.

If we reflected this $300,000,000 in the taxes on imported ME oil, we'd see a HUGE spike in oil costs as compared to other alternate fuel sources.

Right now our free market system is broken given that these war costs aren't carried by the products they are tied to.

jAZ
05-04-2006, 06:40 PM
This post is completely psychotic. The money from Iraq will go to a select few pockets, namely the largest interests of big oil multinationals. If you think that any venture in oil is going to wean down our national debt, then I suggest you up the thorazine.
Waoh. I think he was saying he'd rather see that money in the form of a tax cut if anything.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 08:20 PM
This post is completely psychotic. The money from Iraq will go to a select few pockets, namely the largest interests of big oil multinationals. If you think that any venture in oil is going to wean down our national debt, then I suggest you up the thorazine.

Who said that?
Where have I ever supported our invading Iraq?
Where have I stated I support an oil venture?

I'll answer for you....
Nowhere!

I think you need to check your personal projection on pychosis...but first I would:
1) learn to read first
2) familiarize oneself with someone's posts to see where they stand on issues.


Other than that we all know ad hominem is a form of intellectual bankruptcy!

LMAO!
ROFL

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 09:08 PM
Oh, btw I do agree that the cost of Iraq is astronomical...at least 300k per person I hear. There now that was a specific.

BucEyedPea
05-04-2006, 09:09 PM
Waoh. I think he was saying he'd rather see that money in the form of a tax cut if anything.

That's right!

BTW...it's "she."

jAZ
05-04-2006, 09:35 PM
That's right!

BTW...it's "she."
Cool. I never assume that. I guess I should never assume anything.

tiptap
05-05-2006, 06:36 AM
Govt' money for research-------> More Gov't Money for research----->Black Hole anyway. Govt wastes money period...doesn't matter where.

I see all that money on Iraq going back into the people's pockets,
and having our children live without debt.

I think your notion about gov't always leads to waste in pretty stupid. It is people that make up any organization whether it is gov't, industry or organization. The proficeincy of the the people that make up that institution governs whether the process is done well or not.

Governments can do well when good people are in control just like industries do poorly when they are mismanaged. All organizations can be characterized as wasteful at times. Managing lost is a big part of any finacial system.

But by stating government supported research is wasteful is truly blinded. For the last 400 years and even before that, governments have been instrumental in financing research in all forms of technologies and more recently basic science. The result is the modern life with all of its benefits.

Cave Johnson
05-05-2006, 08:48 AM
Govt' money for research-------> More Gov't Money for research----->Black Hole anyway. Govt wastes money period...doesn't matter where.

This completely ignores the actual way government-funded scientific research is conducted. They grant money to universities who actually perform the research. Having seen how hard my friends in PhD programs work, I highly doubt your inefficiency agrument applies.

I see all that money on Iraq going back into the people's pockets,
and having our children live without debt.

This may be the most delusional opinion I've seen in a while.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2006, 09:28 AM
I think your notion about gov't always leads to waste in pretty stupid.
Nice manners!
Now let me tell you, what I think of yours:
It is grossly ignorant and ill informed based on the modern mindset that if we didn’t have the govt handle a such, we’d be doomed still living in caves. When history shows it’s the opposite. It’s unexamined conventional wisdom that just happens to afflict the modern mind. I say it largely has to do with our educational system, including universities, and the media that constantly pummel us with the idea that markets do not work. Yet every major advance in science, never gets into the hands of the people without the entrepreneur or the businessman.

It is people that make up any organization whether it is gov't, industry or organization. The proficeincy of the the people that make up that institution governs whether the process is done well or not.

Governments can do well when good people are in control just like industries do poorly when they are mismanaged. All organizations can be characterized as wasteful at times. Managing lost is a big part of any finacial system.

Except, it is the NATURE of govt in itself that leads to a gross miscalculation in resources because the money is given out on the basis of politics and connections. This is because it is based on compulsory tax payments as opposed to voluntary exchanges which are more likely, not less likely to serve the needs of the people—a mutually beneficial exchange.

Example:When a program fails in gov’t…it doesn’t just go out of business as a private enterprise would….the people still want to keep their jobs. Thus the gov’t can just keep taxing to keep wasteful programs. They also take longer, as those scientists don’t want to be out of a job. Such is human nature.

Why do you think they have to have $400 hammers. A private enterprise could never do such ridiculous stuff and stay profitable. Govt projects usually cost more because there is no market to discipline their actions…so it’s the nature of govt that leads to less responsibility.

My father worked for the govt for 30 years and complained about the waste, inefficienc,y poor quality of work and laziness of his subordinates, that he was not allowed to fire. I heard it every single night. I had another relative who was head of mad cow disease for the US, who complained about the same. The good workers are the exceptions—not the rule.

It has nothing to do whether people are intrinsically good or bad…it’s the nature of govt and what it does to people. If you have no market forces disciplining your actions you will not be efficient because you don’t have to be.

But by stating government supported research is wasteful is truly blinded.
No to say this is truly blinded. Where are your facts?

For the last 400 years and even before that, governments have been instrumental in financing research in all forms of technologies and more recently basic science. The result is the modern life with all of its benefits.
Wow! You must be a college kid.
This is a gross generality that I’m going to ask you to back up.
There is not one specific here. Not one.
1Did the gov’t invent mass production that produced goods in mass quantities to bring the cost of many daily items down so that the masses could afford them? So that the average to poor person could by soap and afford a change of clothes…something only kings could do before? Answer: No.

2Who was responsible for improvements in cleanliness, such as refrigeration, not having horse feces all over the streets that created illness and lockjaw because of the internal combustion engine lead to better health, longevity and improved living conditions for the masses. It was technology from the private sector.

3 Who gave us the light bulb, lit up a whole section of Manhattan, gave us the phonograph, movies etc. And who financed him? It was Edison…and Wall Street investors.

4 Isaac Newton discovery of gravity was not financed by a gov’t—it was the result of a private bet.

I think someone needs to check their facts and see who did what, how fast, how efficient and for the least amount of money. Most of the major, breakthroughs that improved living conditions were made before govts go heavily involved in financing research.


To Pittsie
Don’t forget that many altruistic individuals also fund universities.

BucEyedPea
05-05-2006, 09:36 AM
This completely ignores the actual way government-funded scientific research is conducted. They grant money to universities who actually perform the research. Having seen how hard my friends in PhD programs work, I highly doubt your inefficiency agrument applies.

This may be the most delusional opinion I've seen in a while.

Projection?

Earlier thread on gov't research results:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3161748#post3161748

State Science, State Truth (http://www.mises.org/story/362)


Who should pay for science? (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=229&sortorder=title)

(1)Much highly touted federally funded research is actually of dubious scientific value. For $25 billion the Apollo Program discovered that the Moon is made of rock, which everyone knew already. Incredibly, the Hubble Telescope, admittedly a remarkable instrument, has been placed in low Earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere in a few years. :hmmm: LOL!

(2) It is often said that basic research has become relatively expensive. So it has, for the simple but momentous reason that most of what can be learned by observing the world under normal conditions has been learned already. Galileo determined the laws of motion by rolling balls down a few home-made ramps. :hmmm:

(3) Everything done by the manned Space Shuttle could be done far more cheaply by robots. When the Shuttle ferried astronauts to repair the Hubble, a scientist associated with the former Soviet Union's own moribund shuttle program observed that the rescue mission cost more than a new Space Telescope would have.

….Bear in mind that, while some socialized science is worthwhile--weather satellites, for example--private industry, not the government, manufactures the satellites and the launch vehicles. Agencies like the National Bureau of Standards that run their own facilities buy their equipment from these contractors. (Dupont, not "the Manhattan Project," built the plant that made the plutonium for the atom bomb; had it had the will and the money, it could have built the plant on its own.)

The system of weather and communication satellites, if profitable, would certainly be self-supporting once privatized.

banyon
05-05-2006, 11:33 AM
[cheap shot]Depends, would we give it to Halliburton to spend on monogrammed embroidered towels or to actual scientists doing research?[/cheap shot]

BucEyedPea
05-05-2006, 11:52 AM
Depends, would we give it to Halliburton to spend on monogrammed embroidered towels or to actual scientists doing research?
Halliburton is a perfect example of govt connected and preferred industry...that results in overcharges. That type of thing is a return to what was called mercantilism of the 17th, 18th centuries and other times. Today it is called corporatism or cartel capitalism. I also disapprove of such connections as well, except when govt has to make defense related purchases.

The market IS adequate for most things. Where it appears to not be so, as in the idea that something is too expensive for the private sector to invest in...that is simply missing what as known as another market signal.

A lot of this type of thinking stems from the "labor theory of value" which Adam Smith erroneously believed in and allowed Marx to get his foot in the door of economics ( He wasn't really an economist though.He only used economics to forward social change.). It was the Austrian School of Economics, which is libertarian, that came up with the effective arguments that shot holes in the labor theory of value. Value and therefore prices are subjective ....they call it the "subjective theory of value"...and it's true.

If something cost $20,000 to produce and no one wants it or will not exchange for that price...then it's worth nothing. This is how business can go under and must come up with goods and services people really value and want at an affordable price.