Political stupidity, part one
Mar. 19th, 2008 06:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amanda_loddenWe're watching The Daily Show, and the guest is Jeffrey Sachs, who wrote a book about global economics. (Note: we have a PVR, and I do not know if this particular episode is last night's or an older one we hadn't watched yet, so if you go looking for it, be aware that your mileage may vary).
It should be noted that I fully support the idea of a global economy, in large part because of idealistic notions about how 5% of the world should not consume more than a quarter of the world's resources. But this guy takes idealism to a level that leaves a bad taste in even my mouth.
And what's worse is that his rational turns me off from some things that I AGREE with. He argues that if we'd spent a fraction of the money that we've spent on the Iraq war on tackling the energy crisis, we'd have had it solved by now.
Bullshit.
For all that I agree that we ought not to have gone into Iraq to begin with, it's nonsense to say that all of the economic outcomes from doing so have been negative. Like it or not, an actively-recruiting military offers a job option to people who might not otherwise have one, or whose only job options would be much shittier. It also offers those people a chance at college afterwards when they might not have that option otherwise (admittedly, this is a delayed result, but then again so are the military pensions that get tossed into the war costs when people start talking about "3 trillion" instead of "500 billion", which is the amount actually spent thus far). Defense contractors get a goodly sum of money, too, and they use some of it to hire new employees. If we want to bitch about the economics of the war, let's bitch about the CEOs of the companies getting rich who put their money into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it.
Solving the energy crisis takes more than just throwing money at the problem. If you can't get the general populace on board with the idea of conserving energy in real, measurable ways, then no amount of money is going to fix it. The only way to get the general populace on board with anything is to give them a noticeable positive result. For a few tree-huggers that's the satisfaction of saving a pound or two of carbon emissions, but most people require something a little heftier-- preferably in their wallet. My idealistic side says that it will happen with time, as the early-adopters bring the costs of new technology down to levels that make it possible for the next-lower income tier to take advantage of them. Fuel efficient cars are starting to nudge their way down on the price list and solar technology, while still bloody well expensive, is at least getting more efficient.
But there is a real economic danger for us: China and India are developing faaaaaast. They've got a motivated workforce with more cash than they know what to do with, and this generation is the first one to both want education en masse and be able to afford it. Where do you think the big scientific breakthroughs are going to occur 10 or 20 years from now? I think they're going to happen in the places that have money coming in faster than their way of life can change to soak it up, simply because they're going to have an attitude that they can afford to throw money at research and see what comes of it. Alternative energy is going to be one of their hot-buttons too, because the more energy they need, the more their demand will push global prices up.
So we do need our government to step in and help speed up the alternative energy process. Not by throwing money at it willy-nilly, but by small, well-targeted programs aimed at producing that noticeable positive effect on people's (and corporate) wallets. Government-funded research is likely to bomb, because if there's no patent, there's less profit. To get the consumers to buy an efficient product, there has to be a company willing to make that product. Few companies want to open up a new market (and spend all the marketing and public relations money that comes along with that) only to find the next company down the line has taken the same product and undercut the price. Plus, once there's a non-protected solution out on the market, research will tend to stop as everyone scrambles to adopt that solution. A better solution would be tax incentives for companies who research alternative energy solutions-- let them have the patent and the (not guaranteed) profits, and let the next company have tax breaks for trying to come up with an even more efficient method.
The other necessary program is to renew the tax break for consumers that happened in 2006 and 2007. You could get up to $500 off your taxes for making your home more energy efficient. That's great, but $500 is nothing if your biggest energy drain is a house full of old drafty windows. There was a 30% credit for installing solar electricity or water heating, but only to a maximum of $2000 for the credit (so about $6600 in cost, which is not usually enough to supply an entire house), and not if it was for pool or hot tub heating, which is dumb-- why should I get a credit for installing a system to heat my house water and letting my gas heater handle the pool or hot tub, but not if I take the pool/hot tub off the gas grid but leave my hot water tank on? That tax break ended on December 31, 2007, and it should be both extended and expanded.
While we're at it, let's teach some of those soldiers in Iraq how to set up and maintain solar grids, wind mills, and other alternative-energy solutions. Not only will we get the immediate economic benefit of energy-efficient military bases, but when those soldiers come home we won't have to worry about a dearth of qualified installers when the industry booms. Note that I used "when" rather than "if", because no matter how much we ignore it, at some point there WILL be a new technology that turns the energy world upside down. What country it starts in will depend largely on how long we continue to bury our head in the sand.
It should be noted that I fully support the idea of a global economy, in large part because of idealistic notions about how 5% of the world should not consume more than a quarter of the world's resources. But this guy takes idealism to a level that leaves a bad taste in even my mouth.
And what's worse is that his rational turns me off from some things that I AGREE with. He argues that if we'd spent a fraction of the money that we've spent on the Iraq war on tackling the energy crisis, we'd have had it solved by now.
Bullshit.
For all that I agree that we ought not to have gone into Iraq to begin with, it's nonsense to say that all of the economic outcomes from doing so have been negative. Like it or not, an actively-recruiting military offers a job option to people who might not otherwise have one, or whose only job options would be much shittier. It also offers those people a chance at college afterwards when they might not have that option otherwise (admittedly, this is a delayed result, but then again so are the military pensions that get tossed into the war costs when people start talking about "3 trillion" instead of "500 billion", which is the amount actually spent thus far). Defense contractors get a goodly sum of money, too, and they use some of it to hire new employees. If we want to bitch about the economics of the war, let's bitch about the CEOs of the companies getting rich who put their money into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it.
Solving the energy crisis takes more than just throwing money at the problem. If you can't get the general populace on board with the idea of conserving energy in real, measurable ways, then no amount of money is going to fix it. The only way to get the general populace on board with anything is to give them a noticeable positive result. For a few tree-huggers that's the satisfaction of saving a pound or two of carbon emissions, but most people require something a little heftier-- preferably in their wallet. My idealistic side says that it will happen with time, as the early-adopters bring the costs of new technology down to levels that make it possible for the next-lower income tier to take advantage of them. Fuel efficient cars are starting to nudge their way down on the price list and solar technology, while still bloody well expensive, is at least getting more efficient.
But there is a real economic danger for us: China and India are developing faaaaaast. They've got a motivated workforce with more cash than they know what to do with, and this generation is the first one to both want education en masse and be able to afford it. Where do you think the big scientific breakthroughs are going to occur 10 or 20 years from now? I think they're going to happen in the places that have money coming in faster than their way of life can change to soak it up, simply because they're going to have an attitude that they can afford to throw money at research and see what comes of it. Alternative energy is going to be one of their hot-buttons too, because the more energy they need, the more their demand will push global prices up.
So we do need our government to step in and help speed up the alternative energy process. Not by throwing money at it willy-nilly, but by small, well-targeted programs aimed at producing that noticeable positive effect on people's (and corporate) wallets. Government-funded research is likely to bomb, because if there's no patent, there's less profit. To get the consumers to buy an efficient product, there has to be a company willing to make that product. Few companies want to open up a new market (and spend all the marketing and public relations money that comes along with that) only to find the next company down the line has taken the same product and undercut the price. Plus, once there's a non-protected solution out on the market, research will tend to stop as everyone scrambles to adopt that solution. A better solution would be tax incentives for companies who research alternative energy solutions-- let them have the patent and the (not guaranteed) profits, and let the next company have tax breaks for trying to come up with an even more efficient method.
The other necessary program is to renew the tax break for consumers that happened in 2006 and 2007. You could get up to $500 off your taxes for making your home more energy efficient. That's great, but $500 is nothing if your biggest energy drain is a house full of old drafty windows. There was a 30% credit for installing solar electricity or water heating, but only to a maximum of $2000 for the credit (so about $6600 in cost, which is not usually enough to supply an entire house), and not if it was for pool or hot tub heating, which is dumb-- why should I get a credit for installing a system to heat my house water and letting my gas heater handle the pool or hot tub, but not if I take the pool/hot tub off the gas grid but leave my hot water tank on? That tax break ended on December 31, 2007, and it should be both extended and expanded.
While we're at it, let's teach some of those soldiers in Iraq how to set up and maintain solar grids, wind mills, and other alternative-energy solutions. Not only will we get the immediate economic benefit of energy-efficient military bases, but when those soldiers come home we won't have to worry about a dearth of qualified installers when the industry booms. Note that I used "when" rather than "if", because no matter how much we ignore it, at some point there WILL be a new technology that turns the energy world upside down. What country it starts in will depend largely on how long we continue to bury our head in the sand.
