A vision for a world-class economy in NM


  1. stever says:

    Okay. Please explain how

    I’m neither agreeing or not agreeing with him, merely pointing out that you had turned “better judge” into “good judge”   

  2. Michael H Schneider says:

    Not what he said
    Okay. Please explain how The free market is a much better judge of “worth” than the do-gooder liberals who would define for us the “common good”
    If you don’t like explaining how the free market is better than liberal do-gooders with respect to externalities such as pollution, explain it for:
    Ireland in about 1847
    Bengal about 1943
    In each case, explain how the free market result which we actually saw was MUCH better result of judging worth than do-gooder liberals would have defined for us. I’m particularly interested in how you conclude that letting millions of people starve to death is a good judgement of the worth of things and people.

  3. stever says:

    Please explain how the market is a good judge of “worth” when there are externalities such as pollution or depletion of a resource.

    Not what he said

    The free market is a much better judge of “worth” than the do-gooder liberals who would define for us the “common good”

  4. IcarusPhoenix says:

    As usual, you just chose to believe what fit your preconceived narrative and not anything that even remotely resembles reality.  I know that parroting talking points is easier than logical thought, but the fact that your automatic reaction was to assume that all green energy companies are government subsidized shows that you would rather repeat what you’ve been told by people who literally don’t know what they’re talking about than take five seconds to realize that your entire statement is built upon a strawman argument that burned to ashes long ago.

  5. Michael H Schneider says:

    The free market is a much better judge of “worth” than the do-gooder liberals who would define for us the “common good”
    Please explain how the market is a good judge of “worth” when there are externalities such as pollution or depletion of a resource. Go on. Please. Explain something that no other economist in the history of the universe has been able to explain.
    (see, e.g., are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP101/Detail%20Notes%20PDF/Cha03%2C%20Externalitites.pdf )

  6. gm says:

    The Greek is wrong on all counts Skeptic. There are NOT 6 successful green businesses operating for every one of those failures you list. Not even the current administration could subsidize that many.
    The free market is a much better judge of “worth” than the do-gooder liberals who would define for us the “common good”
    Startup renewable energy companies do NOT result in 4 additional jobs indirectly or directly. Possibly some government jobs which we taxpayers pay for.
    And your knowledge of history is fine and you are not myopic. Liberals have this problem with superciliousness.

  7. qofdisks says:

    I wonder what a list of oil, gas and coal related business bankruptcies and failures would look like especially for start-ups.  Cherry picking entropic loss is just an Orwellian mind trick.  All processes have losses, even those that are marking the contrived metric of “making money”. 
    The Other Arab Spring by Thomas Friedman at the NY Times.

    “All these tensions over land, water and food are telling us something: The Arab awakening was driven not only by political and economic stresses, but, less visibly, by environmental, population and climate stresses as well”

    And a lot more mouths to feed with less water than ever. As Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of “World on the Edge,” notes, 20 years ago, using oil-drilling technology, the Saudis tapped into an aquifer far below the desert to produce irrigated wheat, making themselves self-sufficient. But now almost all that water is gone, and Saudi wheat production is, too. So the Saudis are investing in farm land in Ethiopia and Sudan, but that means they will draw more Nile water for irrigation away from Egypt, whose agriculture-rich Nile Delta is already vulnerable to any sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.
    “If you ask “what are the real threats to our security today,” said Brown, “at the top of the list would be climate change, population growth, water shortages, rising food prices and the number of failing states in the world. As that list grows, how many failed states before we have a failing global civilization, and everything begins to unravel?” ”


  8. erikhawkes says:

    Public-Private Partnerships – when private industry provids public services for profit. The original taxes for the services remain in place, but a duplicative “service for FEE” structure is added. It is FASCISM, and it should NOT be considered as a solution to the State’s budget woes. It promotes monopolies and destroyes small business. If the stakeholder is not a shareholder, he has no voice.

  9. IcarusPhoenix says:

    For every one of those companies, there are half-a-dozen that are still operating with sustainable business models; this is to say nothing of the parts-supply companies like Johnson Controls and Ameron International that are making ludicrous amounts of profit off of making equipment for this new sector.  Shall we list the failed oil-companies of a century ago?  Or perhaps the failed steel companies of a century-and-a-half ago?  Or, better still, the coal mines that have closed in the past two centuries?  Because your vision is so limited and your understanding of history so myopic, it is unsurprising that you appear to be incapable of understanding that new technologies do not magically become financially successful overnight simply because people who don’t understand them care more about profit than they do about the net benefits for society, nor is it surprising that you thus equate artificial financial success with actual worth.  It is also worth noting that the average renewable energy startup indirectly creates four times as many long-term living-wage jobs as its archaic counter-parts.

  10. Michael H Schneider says:

    Q, why do we have to waste our money on ANY energy?
    Because it’s a good idea for the government to invest in things where
    a) the risk of failure is high; and
    b) the payoff for success will make everyone – not just investors – far better off
    That’s the situation with a lot of alternative energy sources these days. It’s risky. Yet, if we can get away from fossil fuels, everyone who breathes air or eats food that’s grown or uses things like plastic and fertilizer made from oil will be far, far better off.
    Think of the transcontinental railroads. It’s was very risky – bazillions of railroad companies went belly up – yet it was also one of the things that helped make this country so much richer. That’s why the government subsidized it.
    Think of mining on federal land. The government gets very, very small royalties because it was thought that producing the raw materials would make everyone richer, while setting royalties as high as the market would bear would hold back industrialization and make everyone poorer.
    The key point is externalities. When any economic activity has effects on those other than buyers and sellers, the only rational approach is to either tax or subsidize in order to allocate the costs and benefits properly. Markets just can’t deal efficiently with externalities.
    That’s why we need to waste money on energy.

  11. Skeptic says:

    Q, why do we have to waste our money on ANY energy?

    This record is not so good:

    List Of Failed Green Energy 

    Solar Trust of America: FAIL
    Bright Source: FAIL
    Solyndra: FAIL
    LSP Energy: FAIL
    Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL
    Abound Solar: FAIL
    SunPower: FAIL
    Beacon Power: FAIL
    Ecotality: FAIL
    A123 Solar: FAIL
    UniSolar: FAIL
    Azure Dynamics: FAIL
    Evergreen Solar: FAIL
    Ener1: FAIL


  12. qofdisks says:

    Skeptic, only deniers of empirical science use the second law of thermodynamics only at their convenient whim to argue against those causes that they are brainwashed to believe are less efficient than the more inefficient entrenched outdated energy interests.  Loss is inherent in any case, the question is do we direct the flow of energy and resources towards a long term sustainable goal or do we continue to waste our children’s future on maintaining a way of life that will undermine the ecology of the nation and become more intolerably costly?

  13. Skeptic says:

    “Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on …

    companies that go bankrupt, Have your newspaper subscriptions all run out? Do you not read of all the wasted money that went down the sewer to now bankrupt solar companies? Here’s a novel idea – let’s not subsidize ANY energy!!!   I’m tired of my income going to oil cos AND I’m tired of my tax dollars going into the toilet via incompetent government. Stop wasting my income!!!