Independence for Middle East Oil

[SirNitram]

Yes, I can. Corporations are individuals - groups of individuals. Therefore, corporations have individual rights.

Lookie there! No evidence at all; just a bald faced lie in an attempt to save face.

Under the law, corporations ARE considered individuals. It's a legal fiction that was basically created so that if the company goes under, the personal assets of the people in charge and the shareholders aren't at risk. A corporation doesn't have to be a huge thing--about 60% of the family farms my company (which IS a huge corporation) deals with are incorporated themselves.

Note that I am in no way supporting danielsben's claim that corporations are entitled to the same rights as actual human beings. Individual rights are unalienable; corporate rights exist, theoretically, so they can function in such a way that they're beneficial for society (by eliminating personal risk from investing) and are granted by the state.

So they are not Rights. They are Priveledges, as they can be revoked.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So they are not Rights. They are Priveledges, as they can be revoked.

Rights are not granted nor revoked, they are enumerated(as per our 9th amendment) if we have them, they nearly wait to be spelled out. A crporate right is basically their right within certain limits, to conduct business according to their wish(these limits are pretty much the same as individual rights, just under different circumstances. for example, our rights extend to the point where we harm or will probably harm someone else, same with a business, theoretically of course)

[SirNitram]

So they are not Rights. They are Priveledges, as they can be revoked.

Rights are not granted nor revoked, they are enumerated(as per our 9th amendment) if we have them, they nearly wait to be spelled out.

A little too metaphysical for me; it implies there's some meta-knowledge we merely uncover. But the point is conveyed: An individuals rights are inviolate under the law.

A crporate right is basically their right within certain limits, to conduct business according to their wish(these limits are pretty much the same as individual rights, just under different circumstances. for example, our rights extend to the point where we harm or will probably harm someone else, same with a business, theoretically of course)

However, a Corporations 'rights' are far easier to suspend than an individuals, without as much legal trouble. Ergo I find it more accurate to label them as Priveledges. As long as the central point gets across.

I should also note that it's fairly clear that individual rights, legally, always trump corporate ones.

[Alyrium Denryle]

However, a Corporations 'rights' are far easier to suspend than an individuals, without as much legal trouble. Ergo I find it more accurate to label them as Priveledges. As long as the central point gets across.

WHich is because I think, A corp can do harm to a great many individuals at once...

[SirNitram]

However, a Corporations 'rights' are far easier to suspend than an individuals, without as much legal trouble. Ergo I find it more accurate to label them as Priveledges. As long as the central point gets across.

WHich is because I think, A corp can do harm to a great many individuals at once...

Precisely. Here's me. I can write a really shitty peice of operating system code that anyone with five minutes of programming experience can open up, get in, and cause damage.

Here's Microsoft. They do the same thing and sell it to everyone via their near-stranglehold on the industry.

Anyone want to guess to guess how much damage can come from the two scenarios?

[admiral_danielsben]

Thanks. I'll be putting that in my sig as the fucking most moronic sugestion I've heard in months.

Thank you for putting that piece of wisdom into your sig. I am considering putting it in my sig, as well. That's how stubborn i am.

Yes, i'm such a 'block-head' that I think it's a good idea. And apparently, you are calling me a moron for it. If you really want to refute my ideas, respond to them! Duranadal at least had that much sense. If you don't like something, do something about it, for god's sakes! That's the whole point of my suggestion.

It's so fucking obvious describing its stupidity is difficult. Basically no one will buy enough CDs of your local band to even break even, never mind start threatening the record business. Even if you can get a good band (who would probably sell their songs to a real company not you) you'll never sell enough to start impacting their sales because you'll only have a handful of titles and nothing big and popular. Hell even if you did the recording company could just offer that band a better deal.

If you can't offer it at the right price? You're working on the assumption that things will be fair. And no company starts out selling 'big and popular'; if you have sufficient money for investment and can get into the market, do so. May i point out that IBM controlled the server market in the 1960's (the eight other companies did not have combined revenues in computers matching IBM's) - which is not, today, the case. Most of IBM's modern competitors - like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Novell, and any of a dozen other compaies - weren't IBM's main competitors then. The market changed, and small businessmen were able to get into the market and become big businesses. And along the way, i'd bet 9 out of 10 of the small companies that worked for this failed. It's called 'business'.

Perhaps you don't have the time, resources, or ability to take such risks, or maybe you just don't want to establish a business. So I will suggest a less extreme solution: don't buy it! With very few exceptions, you can do without something. You don't really need that Brittney Spears CD, do you?

Your solution to bring down record companies is to not buy CDs. Brilliant. Except for the vast majority of people will just accept $20 CDs and buy them anyway.

If people are dumb enough to be willing to pay $20 for a CD, then that's what the CD is worth. If CD manufacturers raised the price to $50, and very few people want to pay that, then real change will come about.

For gasoline or other more essential goods, you can drive 10 miles to a cheaper gas station (or even bike to work, or walk, or take a bus, if possible).

Cheaper gas station? The point of this is price fixing! And SUPRISE! Many people cannot bike to work or take a bus, never mind walk.

If two gas stations made a price-fixing deal, a third gas station, if it were smart, would make its prices lower. Also, you can travel some distance to get cheaper gas. Even today, people do it all the time; folks in big cities drive out to suburbs, or even across state lines, to places where gasoline is cheaper due to lower taxes. And you can always move somewhere where you can bike to work or take a bus or walk, or take a job within said distance.

You can do the same for a grocery store (drive to another one), or you can buy from a wholesale warehouse and get the 60-packs, or you can buy everything from a gas station or Wal-Mart, or you could even grow your own veggies and hunt and fish (if that is what you choose). The point is, choice.

Oops, except for "choice" here means "buy over priced needs" or buy nothing but shit.

1. You still have that choice.
2. If companies really overcharge, then competitors can offer it for less.
3. Price-fixing is (usually) not in the best interests of businesses. Lowering prices means more business.
4. Reality TV shows prove that shit sells.

And as in 'price-fixing' i don't mean a guild that forces all businesses to charge the same price. I mean two individual stores who decide to do so. Of course, if their price is too expensive, either alternatives will come up or folks will stop buying it.

Too bad that never happens.

Never happens? Microsoft overcharges for Windows and makes it cruddy. What happens? A slew of UNIX products. Microsoft still dominates, but the UNIX systems (Linux, the various BSDs, etc.) are giving it a bit of a scare (they hold 5% of the market, a far greater percentage for servers). Microsoft is using the incentive and is improving their product. I must say, Windows XP is far more reliable, in my experience, than Windows 98 or even Windows NT.

And the businesses must be honest about it. If they try to say they aren't price-fixing but they are, that's a problem. If they announce it to everyone, everyone will know it - even those who will avoid the businesses or start their own in response.

Of course no one admits price fixing.

They don't have to come out and announce it, but if you ask one of them 'are you price-fixing?' and they say 'no', and they are price-fixing, it is illegal (obscuring a product's intent).

To address the gist of everyone's arguments:

Who said life was fair? FAIR is the creed taken by those who would rob those who earn money and give it to those who don't. CHOICE is more important. You can choose a product, or do without it, if it comes from a business. Anything from the government - you can't choose, it's pointing a gun at someone's head. Which is why government should be used chiefly to protect you from folks who'd point a gun at your head - which is why the police, the military, the justice system, and minimal health and safety standards are justified. Money must be collected to support this - a treasury department is needed, and taxes (sales tax, tariffs, fines for criminal violations, and fees) may be collected. Businesses and individuals who invent products should be able to protect them from being stolen - thus, a patent office and a bare-bones copyright standard are a good idea. Laws forbidding murder, thievery, fraud, and other actions obviously detrimental to individuals are also needed. A mechanism for passing laws in the most just way possible is also needed - preferably an elected one. Produce Congress. Laws must be executed by an elected leader - a President. This type of government is more-or-less what existed in the US from 1790 to 1900 - although there are many exceptions, most of which were detrimental to the concept: slavery, for instance, is a violation of rights. Forbidding women the right to vote in elections is drawing false distinctions - adult women are thinking individuals, just like adult men, and are equally capable of political decisions.

The four fundamental rights are: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Life: Your life - the government has no right to eliminate it or waste it without a damned good reason. The death penalty is only valid for the gravest of crimes, which violate the rights of individuals. A draft, forcing you to possibly give your life without your consent, is only acceptable given the gravest of wars - one where the liberties of everyone in the nation are in imminent risk.

Liberty: The right most people think of. The basic 'freedom of expression': speech, religion, the press, assembly, petition, etc.

Both 'life' and 'liberty' explicitly forbid slavery: taking a person's life and eliminating his liberties.

*Property: the right to own and trade what you own, and to work for more. What some call 'corporate rights', although they apply to every individual.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Government should only get in the way of what one wants to do if it violates the other rights of someone else: life, liberty, and property. This could also be 'the pursuit of unHappiness' - if one wants to do things the hard way and make oneself unhappy, you can do so as well, as long as it violates no-one else's rights.

*Thomas Jefferson mentioned all these rights in the Declaration of Independence except Property. This is due to the fallacy that slave-owning was okay by 'property' (since it violates both 'life' and liberty', it's not) - and Jefferson, despite owning slaves, had anti-slavery sentiments - he nearly added a passage into the DoI explicitly condemning slavery, in fact.

This is accompanied by the 'minimalist principle':
The government should be as small as possible, given its role, and as many decisions as possible should be on the lowest level (state or local) possible.

The 'money-making principle':
Government cannot MAKE money. It can steal, extort, borrow, be bribed, collect fees or taxes, or do a lot of other things, but it always takes money. Individuals and businesses can make money - especially individuals and businesses which have ideas which enrich society. They can actually produce value. Society today has much more overall wealth than it did in 1500, due almost entirely to new ideas and discoveries.

The 'monopoly principle':
Government is a MONOPOLY. Government is the only stable monopoly that can get away with overcharging for a commodity (or for no commodity at all). The exceptions are government-sanctioned monopolies such as power companies and, until recently, phone companies. The only other exception are cases where the market is too small for two companies to compete in.

Very few real monopolies exist otherwise: Standard Oil never controlled more than 80% of the market. Microsoft controls 90%. Yet it is very rare for a company to control 100% of a market - and rarely for long, as it usually means a new product, or it means a market is very small - for example, the small town of Joe may have only one grocery store, but the market isn't big enough to support two grocery stores.

The 'market principle':
Government cannot adequately control an economy. Attempts to do so will only succeed by force, and even then will work at best in a mediocre fashion. The best way for an economy to work is for the government to do as little as possible - and let the market rule.

It's true that the market can be harsh - livelihoods made and lost swiftly, and full of 'unfair' conditions - but controlled economies don't work. Russia from 1700 to 1990 had a controlled economy of one sort or another - and lagged miserably in comparison to the US. In 1700, Russia had a greater population, more natural resources, and more land than what were then a handful of colonies (their only real disadvantage over the colonies was the dreadful weather), and was much easier for most Europeans to immigrate to. All of Russia was under a system of serfs - medievelism practiced only in the American south with slaves. The system was more extensive, even - in the US, the majority of the population was free, while in Russia most were serfs. Russia also had a planned economy from the start - all industries (such as there were) were government-owned, and the economy was planned out by the Czar and his vassals. In the colonies and later the US, commerce was largely unregulated and taxed fairly lightly (the revolutionary war was about representation, not the minimal taxes the british charged). Russia also did not respect other rights: pogroms against Jews, Muslims, and any non-slavs, jailing critics of the czar, etc. The US was at least accepting of most white European immigrants and their faiths, respected free speech, etc. Also, even with the pointless racism all too prevalent in the US, most immigrants of all colors were much better off than in their home countries. By 1900, the US was a far more prosperous nation - while Russia was still a backwater. Even with the breakneck industrialization under Stalin (at the cost of 15 million lives) did not grant the USSR anywhere near the economic ability that the (relatively) free US could muster.

Perhaps I am a poor choice in vocalizng these sentiments. In fact, I most certainly am - i'm not an author, or a philosopher, or even a politician. I would suggest you read Atlas Shrugged. Although I disagree with Ayn Rand on specific issues, the gist of her argument - against a welfare state and a command economy - is one that i agree with. And it's also a damn fine piece of literature (i'm not saying that just because i agree with it. Gore Vidal is an excellent screenwriter, for instance, even if I find his ideology abhorrent. Plato was a good philosopher, even when he insisted the sun orbited the Earth. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote a fascinating and insightful economic treatise - even if Das Kapital effectively argues for a sort of feudalism without a feudal lord).

[Axis Kast]

I have to concur with Ossus.

The relationship between oil and industry in the United States is so close, one might say the two were joined at the hip. It's intimate to say the least, and the number of subsidiary corporations taking their livlihoods from the oil industry and other big-burners is equally large. Weaning ourselves from oil in the near future doesn't stike me as a possibility, if only for the sheer size and cost of the task.

Not to mention that we'd be the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over. Nobody else would fund hydrogen cars or move away from oil use. And the Middle East certainly wouldn't get any better; hell, things might get worse if we stop buying. If those dictatorships collapse, fatalistic and fanatical interpretations of Islam will only get worse.

[The Kernel]

I have to concur with Ossus.

The relationship between oil and industry in the United States is so close, one might say the two were joined at the hip. It's intimate to say the least, and the number of subsidiary corporations taking their livlihoods from the oil industry and other big-burners is equally large. Weaning ourselves from oil in the near future doesn't stike me as a possibility, if only for the sheer size and cost of the task.

True, but what is the alternative? We have to move away from oil as a primary resource at some point and the longer we wait, the more difficult the transition becomes. Besides, making a swift movement towards alternative fuels in cars wouldn't be tremendously difficult considering that most of the major car companies are already at it, even without major government subsidies.

The question is, why isn't the US government giving out large incentives to corporations that develop alternative fuel cars? Is it perhaps because they don't particularly want to lessen our dependence on oil?

Not to mention that we'd be the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over. Nobody else would fund hydrogen cars or move away from oil use.

Maybe not, but once the technology is in place and paid for, selling hydrogen cars worldwide isn't a question of getting other nations to pay for it.

And the Middle East certainly wouldn't get any better; hell, things might get worse if we stop buying. If those dictatorships collapse, fatalistic and fanatical interpretations of Islam will only get worse.

Yes, which is precicely why we should begin the shift now so that the transition is gradual rather than sudden.

[Axis Kast]

True, but what is the alternative? We have to move away from oil as a primary resource at some point and the longer we wait, the more difficult the transition becomes. Besides, making a swift movement towards alternative fuels in cars wouldn't be tremendously difficult considering that most of the major car companies are already at it, even without major government subsidies.

The question is, why isn't the US government giving out large incentives to corporations that develop alternative fuel cars? Is it perhaps because they don't particularly want to lessen our dependence on oil?

Because creating artificial demand for a product nobody is in any position to choose to purchase is financially prohibitive. Deferring the “switch” until pressures force companies and governments to act isn’t necessarily the poor decision one might think. The cost – not to mention potential for failure due to lack of active interest – would be rather unjustifiable at this point in time, when we are decades away from being obliged to do so by nature itself. Most companies simply won’t quit on the assumption hat they can make more now by sticking with the standard – oil – rather than moving to experimental forms of energy or lubricant still uncommon among their competitors and customers both.

Maybe not, but once the technology is in place and paid for, selling hydrogen cars worldwide isn't a question of getting other nations to pay for it.

That’s a big “but.” Not to mention that our military will almost certainly still rely on fuel oil.

Yes, which is precicely why we should begin the shift now so that the transition is gradual rather than sudden.

Right now, it isn’t a question between “gradual” and “sudden.” It’s a question between “too early” and “not too much later.”

[The Kernel]

Because creating artificial demand for a product nobody is in any position to choose to purchase is financially prohibitive. Deferring the “switch” until pressures force companies and governments to act isn’t necessarily the poor decision one might think. The cost – not to mention potential for failure due to lack of active interest – would be rather unjustifiable at this point in time, when we are decades away from being obliged to do so by nature itself. Most companies simply won’t quit on the assumption hat they can make more now by sticking with the standard – oil – rather than moving to experimental forms of energy or lubricant still uncommon among their competitors and customers both.

You're kidding yourself if you think consumers aren't interested in alternate fuel cars. The success of hybrid vehicles alone has given car manufacturers the drive to try some new things and both GM and Honda are spearheading Hydrogen powered cars for release in the next five years in consumer markets.

The problem with moving to a new fuel at this point isn't the technology itself anymore (early hydrogen cars are already running and are being used in pilot programs in Los Angeles) but getting the gas stations to go along with retooling their facilities to support the pumps and storage containers needed to stock the new fuels. This is exactly the sort of initiative the federal government should be working on by giving incentives to gas stations but of course that isn't happening. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, several executives of GM have gone on record saying that we could have hydrogen cars widespread in the next three years if the federal government would get behind them.

That’s a big “but.”

Ummm, no, it really isn't. Any R&D on alternate fuel cars can be seen as sunk costs and can either be amortized by early sales in the US or government subsidies.

Not to mention that our military will almost certainly still rely on fuel oil.

Let them. I never said the transition would be immediate.

Right now, it isn’t a question between “gradual” and “sudden.” It’s a question between “too early” and “not too much later.”

It isn't too soon to start selling alternate fuel cars, and how soon they reach widespread consumption is a question for consumers.

[Plekhanov]

Not to mention that we'd be the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over. Nobody else would fund hydrogen cars or move away from oil use.

Can’t you ever give the US wanking a rest, the US is by no means “the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over.” The Japanese definitely could as could many of the larger EU nations.

Sure the US is the worlds single largest economy but such a change over would have a considerable cost per capita and in terms of GNP per capita the US is not the wealthiest nation in the world. Countries such as Japan and Germany are not only wealthier than the US per capita (or atleast they were in the last table I saw) they also have the economies of scale necessary to make such a change over should they ever develop the political will to do so.

[Axis Kast]

You're kidding yourself if you think consumers aren't interested in alternate fuel cars. The success of hybrid vehicles alone has given car manufacturers the drive to try some new things and both GM and Honda are spearheading Hydrogen powered cars for release in the next five years in consumer markets.

Servicing the needs of interest groups and the occasional individual consumer isn’t enough to justify more than a pilot industry. Research into alternative fuels and related technologies is a secondary – or even tertiary – concern for most major car manufacturers at this point. Most people looking to buy a car – let alone most companies looking to sell fuel oil – aren’t interested in expensive, inconvenient technology.

The problem with moving to a new fuel at this point isn't the technology itself anymore (early hydrogen cars are already running and are being used in pilot programs in Los Angeles) but getting the gas stations to go along with retooling their facilities to support the pumps and storage containers needed to stock the new fuels. This is exactly the sort of initiative the federal government should be working on by giving incentives to gas stations but of course that isn't happening. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, several executives of GM have gone on record saying that we could have hydrogen cars widespread in the next three years if the federal government would get behind them.

And the federal government isn’t doing that because nobody wants to buy the vehicles yet. First of all, there’s not yet any compelling need. We’ve decades to go before a reimagining of the energy infrastructure needs to take place, let alone a physical reformation. Secondly, there aren’t a large number of willing consumers. That first bit takes away the impetus to fund pioneer programs; that second bit takes away any of the justification otherwise.

Ummm, no, it really isn't. Any R&D on alternate fuel cars can be seen as sunk costs and can either be amortized by early sales in the US or government subsidies.

R&D that companies will pay for on their own eventually. Right now, that money is wasted trying to force businesses to prepare for a revolution that isn’t coming for quite some time, and could ultimately prove a needless expenditure at this point in time.

Let them. I never said the transition would be immediate.

The ability for military units to “fill up” virtually anywhere is still a boon, you know. And that’s not just at home, but also abroad.

It isn't too soon to start selling alternate fuel cars, and how soon they reach widespread consumption is a question for consumers.

Consumers aren’t interested because there isn’t the necessary infrastructure. The businesses aren’t interested because there isn’t the necessary consumer base. It’s a Catch 22 that will only improve when something kick-starts interest.

Can’t you ever give the US wanking a rest, the US is by no means “the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over.” The Japanese definitely could as could many of the larger EU nations.

Can’t you ever stop assuming discussions of American power are nothing more than “wanking”?

The United States, Japan, Israel, and South Korea. Those are the only countries that might consider converting their infrastructure. Europe has accesses to increasingly cheaper oil from Russia, and the prices will only become better as Siberia is tapped. Everyone else still has good reason to use oil.

[Plekhanov]

Can’t you ever give the US wanking a rest, the US is by no means “the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over.” The Japanese definitely could as could many of the larger EU nations.

Can’t you ever stop assuming discussions of American power are nothing more than “wanking”?

It was wanking and you know it, here’s what you posted (my emphasis)

Not to mention that we'd be the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over.

That’s a bullshit US wanking even by your standards, if as you claim it wasn’t then why did you feel the need to backtrack so comprehensively in this following paragraph?

The United States, Japan, Israel, and South Korea. Those are the only countries that might consider converting their infrastructure. Europe has accesses to increasingly cheaper oil from Russia, and the prices will only become better as Siberia is tapped. Everyone else still has good reason to use oil.

That may well all be true but it’s far from what you initially claimed, reversing from “only nation wealthy enough” to listing other possible candidates for a switch and explaining why despite the fact that the EU could potentially afford to change it won’t really is quite a turnaround from you initial post.

[Axis Kast]

That may well all be true but it’s far from what you initially claimed, reversing from “only nation wealthy enough” to listing other possible candidates for a switch and explaining why despite the fact that the EU could potentially afford to change it won’t really is quite a turnaround from you initial post.

So what's the point you're trying to make? The United States, Japan, South Korea, and potentially Israel might switch to hydrogen to avoid paying for oil that comes from elsewhere. That's a mighty small number.

[Joe]

Ummm, no, it really isn't. Any R&D on alternate fuel cars can be seen as sunk costs and can either be amortized by early sales in the US or government subsidies.

Minor nitpick, R&D is not an amortizable cost in the U.S. except in the case of certain gov't contracts. It's expensed when incurred.

[Tzeentch]

You could say the same about Windows or practically anything. At the end of the day, you want it, and it's not fair that you should have to pay obscene amounts of money for it. People are entitled to a fair compensation for their goods and services; they are not entitled to form cartels which fix prices to maintain atmospherically-high prices on goods that cost far less to produce.

Purely out of interest, are consumer rights enumerated in our legal system?

[Joe]

Well, there's nothing like a Consumer's Bill of Rights or anything like that, but consumer rights are generally expressed in legislation and in the courtroom.

[Durandal]

You could say the same about Windows or practically anything. At the end of the day, you want it, and it's not fair that you should have to pay obscene amounts of money for it. People are entitled to a fair compensation for their goods and services; they are not entitled to form cartels which fix prices to maintain atmospherically-high prices on goods that cost far less to produce.

Purely out of interest, are consumer rights enumerated in our legal system?

There are fair use rights, and laws against certain monopolies, cartels, collusion and racketeering clearly exist to protect consumers. But as Joe said, there's no consumer version of the Bill of Rights. The issue is largely handled with legal precedence and legislation to limit what corporations can do in the name of profit.

[The Kernel]

Minor nitpick, R&D is not an amortizable cost in the U.S. except in the case of certain gov't contracts. It's expensed when incurred.

From the book "Wall Street Words":

Amortize
To write off gradually and systematically a given amount of money within a specific number of time periods. For example, an accountant amortizes the cost of a long-term asset by deducting a portion of that cost against income in each period. Likewise, an investor will usually amortize the premium each year on a bond purchased at a price above its principal.

In other words in my example, the initial R&D investment will be paid for with premium pricing on the first and perhaps second run of automobiles. This is not unusual in any business (new technology always start expensive) and I think my usage of the word amortize was correct.

[The Kernel]

Servicing the needs of interest groups and the occasional individual consumer isn’t enough to justify more than a pilot industry. Research into alternative fuels and related technologies is a secondary – or even tertiary – concern for most major car manufacturers at this point. Most people looking to buy a car – let alone most companies looking to sell fuel oil – aren’t interested in expensive, inconvenient technology.

True, which is why this hasn't happened a decade ago. But it's still happening due to a number of reasons (rising gas prices, consumer interest, forward thinking car manufacturers) and government subsidies would help quite a bit towards speeding up the process.

And the federal government isn’t doing that because nobody wants to buy the vehicles yet. First of all, there’s not yet any compelling need. We’ve decades to go before a reimagining of the energy infrastructure needs to take place, let alone a physical reformation. Secondly, there aren’t a large number of willing consumers. That first bit takes away the impetus to fund pioneer programs; that second bit takes away any of the justification otherwise.

Bull, there has been a lot of interest in hydrogen cars by consumers. Consumers don't want all-electric cars, but if you provide them with an automobile that is functionally the same as their old car but burns cheaper fuel and is eco-friendly, you have a market for the car. Need we forget that hybrid cars have been wildly successful as of late for the very same reasons? True, Hydrogen will be a pretty dramatic shift, but as long as the fueling infrastructure is in place, people will buy these cars.

And lest we forget that the Federal and State governments can give these cars a huge shot in the arm by offering incentives to move away from gasoline?

R&D that companies will pay for on their own eventually. Right now, that money is wasted trying to force businesses to prepare for a revolution that isn’t coming for quite some time, and could ultimately prove a needless expenditure at this point in time.

The CEO's of GM, Honda and dozens of other automotive manufacturers disagree with you; they are all spending money to develop hydrogen cars as we speak. Sure, they don't think hydrogen cars will be availibile in large numbers before 2012, but that is precicely why we should be concentrating on this now. It takes a lot to change an industry built on gasoline so we need the time and money to make the shift.

The ability for military units to “fill up” virtually anywhere is still a boon, you know. And that’s not just at home, but also abroad.

Please, Hydrogen and Gasoline cars are not mutually exclusive. As long as people are still driving gas cars, there will still be filling stations for them.

Consumers aren’t interested because there isn’t the necessary infrastructure. The businesses aren’t interested because there isn’t the necessary consumer base. It’s a Catch 22 that will only improve when something kick-starts interest.

Thank you for finally getting my point! Government subsidies to spur manufacturers and consumers are obviously called for here.

[admiral_danielsben]

Okay, I am here to admit it: I've conned you guys.

I looked around the N&P group and found lots of anti-'whacko' sentiment, especially about 'right-wing whackos'. Plus, I wanted to hone my debating skills (Which are admittedly rather poor). So, I took my positions... and made them a bit more extreme, so i could see how you folks reacted to a real 'right-wing wacko'. Since I'm already rather a fiscal conservative and mildly social libertarian (save about abortion), I just took my attitudes and made them... more extreme.

It wasn't too difficult - i've just read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", which BTW is a damn fine piece of literature, and used her arguments to make mine more radical. I also read some stuff by Alan Greenspan (a few articles: "Gold and Economic Freedom" and "Antitrust" were among them). The tidbit about malaria - i think that came from an Ann Coulter book (although even I think she's kinda scary), or maybe Tammy Bruce.

My real positions? No, businesses shouldn't be doing price-fixing. Yes, there's a 'right to make money', a 'right to spend money', and a 'right to work for money', but within limits. My ideas of government were exaggerated - in reality, I don't disapprove of income taxes so much as progressive income taxes (i'm a flat-taxer). Many of my musings on the stucture of government are how i feel, although a bit over-stated (except the idea that government should do everything lowest-level possible - the feds should primarily serve a supervisory role to state and local governments in most programs). I oppose subsidies for agriculture and such ($50 billion a year? Better served with tax breaks for farmers), and view foreign aid to non-allies (like Egypt) as Danegeld, but I'm not so loony as to suggest eliminating all the spending. If nothing else, it'll never happen due to political opposition.

I sincerely apologize for any pain and suffering caused. If you wish to falsely blame Straha for it, do so. If not, you can blame anyone but you or me. Hell, even Dick Cheney, although I really think it's John Edwards fault.

[Axis Kast]

First of all, hybrid cars are not so popular that they are driving a significant niche into the market. They are clearly specialty cars, of which only a few models are available. They cater also to a type of driver who makes only short trips.

The United States government is not interested in providing start-up capital that businesses will provide on their own at the appropriate time. According to policy-makers and analysts in the White House and its associated think-tanks, government “kick-starting” would be a waste of federal money to acquire technology long before it becomes mandatory. That's really what it boils down to. The government figures that businesses will pay for the costs of hydrogen cars on their own, eventually. Why push it now for limited returns?

As for the military, no filling stations will service the Armed Forces only save those at military bases. We're not talking about civilian consumers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're kidding yourself if you think consumers aren't interested in alternate fuel cars. The success of hybrid vehicles alone has given car manufacturers the drive to try some new things and both GM and Honda are spearheading Hydrogen powered cars for release in the next five years in consumer markets.

The problem with moving to a new fuel at this point isn't the technology itself anymore (early hydrogen cars are already running and are being used in pilot programs in Los Angeles) but getting the gas stations to go along with retooling their facilities to support the pumps and storage containers needed to stock the new fuels. This is exactly the sort of initiative the federal government should be working on by giving incentives to gas stations but of course that isn't happening. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, several executives of GM have gone on record saying that we could have hydrogen cars widespread in the next three years if the federal government would get behind them.

Don't be a moron. Hydrogen is a net-loss energy source. You'll need just as much oil--and then some--to power the power plants which will feed the hydrolytic reactors.

The infrastructure and energy source simply does not exist. And you heavily exaggerate the enthusiasm for alternative fuel and hybrids among Joe Sixpack.

It isn't too soon to start selling alternate fuel cars, and how soon they reach widespread consumption is a question for consumers.

No, it really isn't.

[Joe]

In other words in my example, the initial R&D investment will be paid for with premium pricing on the first and perhaps second run of automobiles. This is not unusual in any business (new technology always start expensive) and I think my usage of the word amortize was correct.

The thing that makes it unamortizable, though, is the fact that you can't match the R&D expense with the revenues associated with it like you can with depreciable assets and certain intangibles. There is no yearly write-off of R&D costs incurred in the past to match them with revenues generated in the current period like there is with other amortizable assets. You just expense it all in the period you make the expenditure.

In a manner of speaking you're correct; managers and accountants do sort of associate R&D expenditures that are successful with future revenue streams in their minds, but that's not how it shows up on the financial statements and not always the way external interested parties see it.

[Plekhanov]

So what's the point you're trying to make? The United States, Japan, South Korea, and potentially Israel might switch to hydrogen to avoid paying for oil that comes from elsewhere. That's a mighty small number.

The point I’ve made is that your claim:

that we'd be the only nation wealthy enough to afford the cost of a switch-over

Is bullshit. You seem to have conceded that point now so why are you still trying to argue?