The number of starving North Koreans is not static, it's dynamic and growing rapidly. Here's a great summary by Carlos Montaner:
In 1953, by the end of the Korean War, provoked by Kim Il Sung’s expansionist madness with the complicity of Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the two Koreas were destroyed. At that time, both countries had a per capita income lower than that of Honduras, then the poorest country in Latin America.
Today, 60 years later, South Korea’s per-capita income is $32,400 (twice that of Chile, Latin America’s richest country), while North Korea’s barely rises to $1,800 (half of Nicaragua’s, the poorest country in Latin America.)
Every year, South Korea produces 18 times the goods and services, per capita, that its neighbor to the north produces, although they both share the same ethnicity and culture and have similar levels of education. They are twin brothers made different by two antagonistic systems of organizing society.
With an economy based on the market, competition, private property, multiparty politics, democracy, commercial openness and respect for individual rights, South Korea has integrated into the First World, eradicated poverty and is one of the engines of the planet, with more patents and scientific articles published annually in specialized magazines than any Latin American country.
North Korea, which does the opposite, is the world’s worst and poorest tyranny. (It would be useful if the cheerleaders of 21st-Century Socialism made note of those differences.)
A common mistake to think our current Government in any way wants to serve us, defend our rights
Yes -- in a humorous bout of wishful thinking, our Declaration of Independence says that the very reason "Governments are instituted" is to "secure" our rights.
Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism
Or perhaps something worse, like this: "[Operation] Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent. In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage." -- K. Pavlich
Just as I suspected... you're unable to name a Republican who proposes "to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks," because there are no Republicans proposing this.
Instead, you named an entire state. I assure you, most Texans don't want taxpayer dollars spent to create textbooks of any kind, because they know the private sector has been doing a fine job of meeting the demand for textbooks, without need for any subsidies.
Got a link? I've not heard of any politician, of any party, proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks. (There's no need to... such textbooks already exist, and are used by a small minority of home-schooling parents.)
But even if some politician had proposed this, it and similar follies wouldn't account for the enormous size of government. Try looking at a pie chart: the hugest slice of federal spending is entitlements. Try looking at an animated pie chart that shows how fast that slice is growing. It's terrifying.
In 2010, one of my friends thought defense cuts could bring about a balanced budget. Then I showed him a pie chart of the 2009 federal budget. The deficit was $1413 billion, and if the $600 billion defense budget had been cut by 100%, we still would have been left with a deficit of $813 billion! (By comparison, Dubya's largest deficit was $459 billion.)
they're pretty evenly divided between wanting slow upward wealth redistribution, or very rapid upward wealth redistribution
An even more accurate way to say this -- which is backed up by their actions and proposals -- is that some want wealth redistribution programs to continue to grow faster than GDP (with no regard to the unsustainability of this), and the rest want wealth redistribution programs to grow at a sustainable rate.
There are (in theory) actual budget cuts, and then there are Washington-style "cuts," which are actually budget increases that don't quite live up to the expectation of faster-than-GDP growth. I know of only one politician who proposed actual cuts -- and that politician was voted out in November.
One thing I've noticed is that there are two kinds of people with strong opinions. Type I is of below-average intelligence, and they hold strong opinions because they're closed-minded. Type II is highly intelligent and very openminded, and, after thinking deeply about issues, they reject ideas that are illogical or unworkable. Opinions that survive that rigorous test deserve to be strongly held.
And then there are people who think everyone with strong opinions is closed-minded -- essentially, they don't recognize the existence of Type II. They accuse people with strong opinions of having a "black-and-white" view of the world. Ironically, they themselves have a black-and-white view of their fellow humans: people with strong opinions = bad, people like themselves = good.
I simply avoid registering to vote because all that happens is I get calls from people telling me to vote for their guy and they can't really explain why. For example I got a call from somebody on Matt Salmon's team telling me that they would repeal Obama Care, and lower medical costs through deregulation. Being a libertarian, that is music to my ears because I know from experience that red tape does raise costs in the medical field significantly. However when I asked what he would deregulate and how that would help, he didn't even know. But he expects me to vote for his guy anyways.
You can't expect a low-level campaign worker -- probably an unpaid volunteer -- to be able to articulate the specific nuances of his candidate's platform. At least this campaign worker knew enough to embrace the correct guiding principle. A worse aspect of political campaigns are bumper stickers or roadside signs that display only the candidate's name, and give you no clue about their positions. If some voters can actually be swayed by these information-less signs, that's pretty sad. If voters can't be swayed by them, I wish the candidates would learn to redirect their resources into media that actually conveys information.
The best you can do is hedge your assets (gold is a horrible idea
There is basically no scenario in which North Korea can start a war and "win".
Nobody is worried about a scenario in which NK wins. Everybody is worried about a scenario in which both sides lose (lots of lives). There are are plenty of plausible scenarios like that.
Bombing civilians and calling it cost of doing business?
Apparently you've never sat through a class on the Law of Armed Conflict. Intentionally targeting civilians is forbidden. When a military target is bombed and civilians casualties are accidentally incurred, military professionals call it "collateral damage" (your screed is the first place I've heard it called "cost of doing business"). Many resources are expended in order to minimize collateral damage: teams of lawyers have to approve every target, then very expensive smart bombs are dispatched.
The "Greatest Generation" didn't do any of that -- to the contrary, residential neighborhoods in Dresden and Tokyo were intentionally targeted with incendiary bombs, and civilian casualties were the goal. Does that make the current generation "Greater than the Greatest"?
US may not be quite as beligerant as NK
Are you saying that NK's teams of lawyers may not be quite as concerned about sparing civilians as the US teams; or that NK's smart bombs may not be quite as good as US smart bombs about using low yields to take out military targets while sparing nearby civilian structures?
Or maybe you and the folks who modded you up are just speaking out of the anti-American chips on your shoulders.
your preferred means of extracting money from others
You focus on how IV has extracted money from others. The fact is, all companies extract money from certain groups (their customers). And it's equally true that all companies disburse money to certain groups (their employees, their suppliers, their owners/shareholders, and entities who have levied taxes against the company).
As long as both parties enter into these transactions voluntarily, this is a good thing. (When two parties enter into a transaction voluntarily, by definition they both perceive a benefit from the transaction. And those perceptions are generally correct.)
science as trying to better understand God through empirical observation of the natural world.
Everyone who believes in God, believes that the laws of physics were authored by God. Religious leaders therefore ought to recommend studying physics as a surefire way to gain insight into the mind of God.
You've listed some languages that mediocre programmers use; now would you please share your opinion on what languages great and exceptional programmers use?
Do you believe that it would be detrimental to society, and if so, how?
It would be detrimental to society. Without the extra profit that temporarily gets generated by patent protection, many inventions would never get developed into actual products. They are just too marginal to justify the R&D, without patent protection.
A good example is pharmaceuticals. We're all better off because billions are poured into research and development of new drugs. Without patent protection, the profitability of new drugs would plummet, and so would the R&D efforts. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face: having to wait a few years for a generic equivalent to make your drug more affordable, is vastly preferable to your drug never having been developed in the first place.
A few years ago, I saw an Earth Hour flyer urging me to shut off an electric light, and light a candle instead.
I guess the organizers weren't aware that for any given number of lumens, producing that much light with candles releases a lot more greenhouse gases than producing it with electric lights.
From your link: "Back in the 1990s, the United States offered to help North Korea with its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons program. But the deal fell apart after the Bush administration accused the North Koreans of reneging on their promises."
More than an accusation is in play here: the North did completely renege on its promises. Too bad the writer chose to politicize things.
there's really no way to go forward and get what we want without either a lot of North or South Korean blood on our hands. We could stop sending food aid to increase pressure, but the innocent people in NK will starve.
When their leadership chooses to divert resources out of food production and into arms production, how is the resulting starvation our fault? That particular blood is not on our hands.
Any country capable of building nukes and sending stuff into orbit is also capable of meeting the basic caloric needs of its people -- if it chooses to.
If there is reunification with South Korea, expect the cost to be borne by South Korea, to a similar extent that in the reunification of Germany, the cost was borne by West Germany.
Oil companies aren't subsidized By BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN
The next time you hear President Obama beating up on oil companies and crusading to wipe out what he calls the industry’s “tax breaks,” don’t be fooled: He’s telling a lie.
Recently at the White House, Obama unleashed some of his most aggressive rhetoric yet on the subject, telling Congress that it can “stand with big oil companies or . . . the American people.”
“I think it’s time [oil companies] got by without more help from taxpayers,” the president added.
Only days before that, Senate Democrats had introduced a measure to raise the tax burden on oil companies dramatically, while creating credits for so-called renewables. The legislation narrowly missed the 60 votes needed to advance. But it’s crystal clear that the Democratic Party, from the top down, is committed to turning anti-oil rhetoric into policy.
But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.
But even these deductions aren’t unique to energy companies. Many provisions in the tax code seek to encourage certain kinds of behavior. Mortgage deductions reward home ownership. Special tax benefits promote savings in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s.
Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.
Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.
Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.
Initially, this vast government support was justified on the grounds that “clean tech” was an infant industry that needed help to start competing with traditional energy sources. But we’re now years into shelling out tens of billions in taxpayer dollars — in return for little in innovation or self-sustaining jobs.
Today, each solar-energy megawatt is produced with a stunning $776 in investment- and production-tax credits. For wind power, it’s $56 a megawatt. That’s a huge public expenditure for not much energy production. The tax incentives for fossil fuels amount to a mere 64 cents per megawatt.
Worse, despite the public largess, some clean-tech companies have such flawed business models that they’ve already gone under. Solyndra, the solar-p
Slashdot Mirror
The number of starving North Koreans is not static, it's dynamic and growing rapidly. Here's a great summary by Carlos Montaner:
In 1953, by the end of the Korean War, provoked by Kim Il Sung’s expansionist madness with the complicity of Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the two Koreas were destroyed. At that time, both countries had a per capita income lower than that of Honduras, then the poorest country in Latin America.
Today, 60 years later, South Korea’s per-capita income is $32,400 (twice that of Chile, Latin America’s richest country), while North Korea’s barely rises to $1,800 (half of Nicaragua’s, the poorest country in Latin America.)
Every year, South Korea produces 18 times the goods and services, per capita, that its neighbor to the north produces, although they both share the same ethnicity and culture and have similar levels of education. They are twin brothers made different by two antagonistic systems of organizing society.
With an economy based on the market, competition, private property, multiparty politics, democracy, commercial openness and respect for individual rights, South Korea has integrated into the First World, eradicated poverty and is one of the engines of the planet, with more patents and scientific articles published annually in specialized magazines than any Latin American country.
North Korea, which does the opposite, is the world’s worst and poorest tyranny. (It would be useful if the cheerleaders of 21st-Century Socialism made note of those differences.)
A common mistake to think our current Government in any way wants to serve us, defend our rights
Yes -- in a humorous bout of wishful thinking, our Declaration of Independence says that the very reason "Governments are instituted" is to "secure" our rights.
Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism
Or perhaps something worse, like this: "[Operation] Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent. In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage." -- K. Pavlich
Just as I suspected... you're unable to name a Republican who proposes "to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks," because there are no Republicans proposing this.
Instead, you named an entire state. I assure you, most Texans don't want taxpayer dollars spent to create textbooks of any kind, because they know the private sector has been doing a fine job of meeting the demand for textbooks, without need for any subsidies.
A party willing to prosecute those who intimidate voters, regardless of race, is truly more progressive in civil rights than a party that selectively prosecutes members of certain races, and drops charges against members of other races.
Got a link? I've not heard of any politician, of any party, proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks. (There's no need to... such textbooks already exist, and are used by a small minority of home-schooling parents.)
But even if some politician had proposed this, it and similar follies wouldn't account for the enormous size of government. Try looking at a pie chart: the hugest slice of federal spending is entitlements. Try looking at an animated pie chart that shows how fast that slice is growing. It's terrifying.
In 2010, one of my friends thought defense cuts could bring about a balanced budget. Then I showed him a pie chart of the 2009 federal budget. The deficit was $1413 billion, and if the $600 billion defense budget had been cut by 100%, we still would have been left with a deficit of $813 billion! (By comparison, Dubya's largest deficit was $459 billion.)
they're pretty evenly divided between wanting slow upward wealth redistribution, or very rapid upward wealth redistribution
An even more accurate way to say this -- which is backed up by their actions and proposals -- is that some want wealth redistribution programs to continue to grow faster than GDP (with no regard to the unsustainability of this), and the rest want wealth redistribution programs to grow at a sustainable rate.
There are (in theory) actual budget cuts, and then there are Washington-style "cuts," which are actually budget increases that don't quite live up to the expectation of faster-than-GDP growth. I know of only one politician who proposed actual cuts -- and that politician was voted out in November.
One thing I've noticed is that there are two kinds of people with strong opinions. Type I is of below-average intelligence, and they hold strong opinions because they're closed-minded. Type II is highly intelligent and very openminded, and, after thinking deeply about issues, they reject ideas that are illogical or unworkable. Opinions that survive that rigorous test deserve to be strongly held.
And then there are people who think everyone with strong opinions is closed-minded -- essentially, they don't recognize the existence of Type II. They accuse people with strong opinions of having a "black-and-white" view of the world. Ironically, they themselves have a black-and-white view of their fellow humans: people with strong opinions = bad, people like themselves = good.
I simply avoid registering to vote because all that happens is I get calls from people telling me to vote for their guy and they can't really explain why. For example I got a call from somebody on Matt Salmon's team telling me that they would repeal Obama Care, and lower medical costs through deregulation. Being a libertarian, that is music to my ears because I know from experience that red tape does raise costs in the medical field significantly. However when I asked what he would deregulate and how that would help, he didn't even know. But he expects me to vote for his guy anyways.
You can't expect a low-level campaign worker -- probably an unpaid volunteer -- to be able to articulate the specific nuances of his candidate's platform. At least this campaign worker knew enough to embrace the correct guiding principle. A worse aspect of political campaigns are bumper stickers or roadside signs that display only the candidate's name, and give you no clue about their positions. If some voters can actually be swayed by these information-less signs, that's pretty sad. If voters can't be swayed by them, I wish the candidates would learn to redirect their resources into media that actually conveys information.
The best you can do is hedge your assets (gold is a horrible idea
What is a good way to hedge, then?
There is basically no scenario in which North Korea can start a war and "win".
Nobody is worried about a scenario in which NK wins. Everybody is worried about a scenario in which both sides lose (lots of lives). There are are plenty of plausible scenarios like that.
Bombing civilians and calling it cost of doing business?
Apparently you've never sat through a class on the Law of Armed Conflict. Intentionally targeting civilians is forbidden. When a military target is bombed and civilians casualties are accidentally incurred, military professionals call it "collateral damage" (your screed is the first place I've heard it called "cost of doing business"). Many resources are expended in order to minimize collateral damage: teams of lawyers have to approve every target, then very expensive smart bombs are dispatched.
The "Greatest Generation" didn't do any of that -- to the contrary, residential neighborhoods in Dresden and Tokyo were intentionally targeted with incendiary bombs, and civilian casualties were the goal. Does that make the current generation "Greater than the Greatest"?
US may not be quite as beligerant as NK
Are you saying that NK's teams of lawyers may not be quite as concerned about sparing civilians as the US teams; or that NK's smart bombs may not be quite as good as US smart bombs about using low yields to take out military targets while sparing nearby civilian structures?
Or maybe you and the folks who modded you up are just speaking out of the anti-American chips on your shoulders.
For example, sending comrades to forced labor camps (where 40% die of malnutrition) if they participated in organized gatherings to mourn the death of Kim Jong Il, but "didn't cry and didn't seem genuine." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/north-korea-punish-mourners-insincere-kim-jong-il_n_1204377.html
My dentist happens to know 104% more about black holes than you, insensitive clod!
Companies rarely enter into these sorts of agreements in a truly voluntary manner. Rather, they choose with a gun to their head.
Really? Please enlighten me, what is the nature of the gun I held to my employer's head, that caused them to hire me?
Of all the types of transactions I listed, taxation is the only one that's not voluntary.
your preferred means of extracting money from others
You focus on how IV has extracted money from others. The fact is, all companies extract money from certain groups (their customers). And it's equally true that all companies disburse money to certain groups (their employees, their suppliers, their owners/shareholders, and entities who have levied taxes against the company).
As long as both parties enter into these transactions voluntarily, this is a good thing. (When two parties enter into a transaction voluntarily, by definition they both perceive a benefit from the transaction. And those perceptions are generally correct.)
It caused me to learn what a quine is.
science as trying to better understand God through empirical observation of the natural world.
Everyone who believes in God, believes that the laws of physics were authored by God. Religious leaders therefore ought to recommend studying physics as a surefire way to gain insight into the mind of God.
Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct
How quickly I found a counterexample: me. I'm a Protestant who doesn't believe Genesis is factual (a talking snake? give me a break).
You've listed some languages that mediocre programmers use; now would you please share your opinion on what languages great and exceptional programmers use?
Do you believe that it would be detrimental to society, and if so, how?
It would be detrimental to society. Without the extra profit that temporarily gets generated by patent protection, many inventions would never get developed into actual products. They are just too marginal to justify the R&D, without patent protection.
A good example is pharmaceuticals. We're all better off because billions are poured into research and development of new drugs. Without patent protection, the profitability of new drugs would plummet, and so would the R&D efforts. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face: having to wait a few years for a generic equivalent to make your drug more affordable, is vastly preferable to your drug never having been developed in the first place.
new revenue streams themselves defined to have little effect on employment
How, exactly, do you take money out of the private sector without having a negative effect on employment?
If you have a good answer, you'll be the first person ever to do so.
A few years ago, I saw an Earth Hour flyer urging me to shut off an electric light, and light a candle instead.
I guess the organizers weren't aware that for any given number of lumens, producing that much light with candles releases a lot more greenhouse gases than producing it with electric lights.
From your link: "Back in the 1990s, the United States offered to help North Korea with its energy needs if it gave up its nuclear weapons program. But the deal fell apart after the Bush administration accused the North Koreans of reneging on their promises."
More than an accusation is in play here: the North did completely renege on its promises. Too bad the writer chose to politicize things.
there's really no way to go forward and get what we want without either a lot of North or South Korean blood on our hands. We could stop sending food aid to increase pressure, but the innocent people in NK will starve.
When their leadership chooses to divert resources out of food production and into arms production, how is the resulting starvation our fault? That particular blood is not on our hands.
Any country capable of building nukes and sending stuff into orbit is also capable of meeting the basic caloric needs of its people -- if it chooses to.
If there is reunification with South Korea, expect the cost to be borne by South Korea, to a similar extent that in the reunification of Germany, the cost was borne by West Germany.
Oil companies aren't subsidized
By BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN
The next time you hear President Obama beating up on oil companies and crusading to wipe out what he calls the industry’s “tax breaks,” don’t be fooled: He’s telling a lie.
Recently at the White House, Obama unleashed some of his most aggressive rhetoric yet on the subject, telling Congress that it can “stand with big oil companies or . . . the American people.”
“I think it’s time [oil companies] got by without more help from taxpayers,” the president added.
Only days before that, Senate Democrats had introduced a measure to raise the tax burden on oil companies dramatically, while creating credits for so-called renewables. The legislation narrowly missed the 60 votes needed to advance. But it’s crystal clear that the Democratic Party, from the top down, is committed to turning anti-oil rhetoric into policy.
But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.
But even these deductions aren’t unique to energy companies. Many provisions in the tax code seek to encourage certain kinds of behavior. Mortgage deductions reward home ownership. Special tax benefits promote savings in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s.
Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.
Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.
Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.
Initially, this vast government support was justified on the grounds that “clean tech” was an infant industry that needed help to start competing with traditional energy sources. But we’re now years into shelling out tens of billions in taxpayer dollars — in return for little in innovation or self-sustaining jobs.
Today, each solar-energy megawatt is produced with a stunning $776 in investment- and production-tax credits. For wind power, it’s $56 a megawatt. That’s a huge public expenditure for not much energy production. The tax incentives for fossil fuels amount to a mere 64 cents per megawatt.
Worse, despite the public largess, some clean-tech companies have such flawed business models that they’ve already gone under. Solyndra, the solar-p