Discussion on:

Case closed: U.S. sticks Chinese solar makers with tariffs

Thank god for Coal, it it was up to solar we would all freeze to death this winter.

the money should have been spent on up grading stacks and helping clean coals exhaust.

Solar is never going to be affordable or make enough electricity to power a major city.

Oh yes, the 'god' of money. Certainly not the 'god' of the environment. The 'god' of solar power is saying, "time to decentralize it, and don't criticize it." Unfortunately, your coal 'god' doesn't fit into this picture of empowering the family unit to make energy themselves, WITHOUT the 20%+ line loss from the power plant to the light switch. Just ask the people who live by the smoke stacks of a U.S. coal fired plant. What do they think of your 'god' of coal?

The current administration subsidized Solyndra (just not directly). Solyndra would have been selling their products at prices much lower than cost.

and, more than 50 companies in the "green energy" sector, which were subsidized by the Obama administration, are either going bankrupt or are already bankrupt.

Do you like watching TV sent by satellite relays, use a GPS device to navigate your trips, use a cell phone? Thank the space program (tax subsidized). How about the big improvements in cancer treatments courtesy of the National Cancer Institute? Or writing off your home mortgage interest against your income at tax time?

Subsidies that serve a good purpose such as helping a fledgling industry become competitive or helping people become home owners can be a good thing. The meme that government needs to get out of the way so business can create prosperity for everyone begs the question of who will perform all those functions a modern society wants that don't automatically generate a profit for someone. Would you rather pay a bit more for a car with clean exhaust, good safety and steadily improving fuel economy or live in a dirty air (China comes to mind) get lousy gas mileage and drive a death trap?

Solar subsidies are a useful way to give a boost to an emerging industry that will lead to a healthier planet and a sustainable future.

subsiding an industry, is something different, and something that I am against.

Subsidizing any company or any industry, is the same as government deciding who are going to be the winners and who is going to be the losers. That always distorts the markets, and the losers tend to continue needing the help from government, while the best run companies that produce what the people had preferred, end up in dire straits or out of business, Companies like Solyndra are losers, and subsidizing them is a waste of money, but, to many, it's more about supporting an agenda, than helping the industry or a company or advancing research.

The function of government is not to intrude into the free-market system; the free-market system does a lot better when the government gets out of the way. Socialism is about big government, but, the U.S. was set up to be small government at the top, and more government at the local and state levels. Let the local and state levels decide whether an industry or a company should get any help or subsidy. The federal government has oversight authority over interstate commerce, but not to become a partner in that commerce.

Most of what has been achieved via research, occurred without government intervention, and the free-market has a way ot doing a lot of things better when the government does get out of the way..

too long

What do you mean by this:

Or writing off your home mortgage interest against your income at tax time?

Mortgages should not be taxed, because, in reality, the bottom line, after all calculations are done, are either a reduction or an addition to the total you owed to government, and it all comes from your income. Mortgage taxes and the write-offs, are just a different way of masking the fact that, it's your total wealth that is being taxed, but mostly, your income and other earnings.

The basic fact is that, whatever one "gets back" from government, is something that should never have been taken away to being with. Government isn't subsidizing me through a mortgage deduction; government is just giving me back what they should never have taken from me in the first place.

Government would have a much harder time collecting taxes and fees, if they just lumped the whole thing into just one single amount payable at the end of the year. Then, there would be no more games with deductions and fees and taxes and taxes on taxes and so forth. Most people would be up-in-arms about how much the government takes from them, and government would be cut back down to size, and perhaps a size which most people could tolerate.

Now then, if we did the lump sum payment to the feds each year and didn't get all crazy with tax code, how would we all feel on the very next week after that, all the welfare recipients would get paid a one year's lump sum check?

Sufficed to say, things would be a lot different.

Maybe that's the game after all. Make us dizzy first, then take from our pockets.

I can hardly wait to see what the next 4 have in store..

It's my engine that runs on water. Scientifically it's sound. Hydrogen and Oxygen make a big bang when ignited. Engines can run on it. Keanu Reeves almost had the right solution. But, I have the problem solved: Tax dollars. Lots of them. Now, I just need a few investment partners. I hear there are wealthy people in California that are gullible, I mean wealthy. When the company fails, the government may want their money back, so I need some extra cash to walk away with in a few years.

Any takers?

What if the government built a nuclear reactor to convert water into hydrogen for my new car? Oxygen would be let into the atmosphere, hydrogen would be stored in the "G"as stations for my new cars. What would a gallon of Hydrogen cost? Since we're on the topic of subsidies, how about it? How much would be a tax portion, how much would be for the actual cost of production, what is the market value component, etc, etc... Could we do it for $3 a gallon?

As a state you have the most cars, the worst pollution, and the highest cost for gasoline.

Let's have DC cut the red tape and make it a reality.

When I saw this buried in the mainstream media it had a FIGURE for tariffs and that figure was comically LOW! Why do you not report the numbers? The highest figure I saw earlier this year was WELL under 15%. Hardly going to have much effect.

Bunch of posturing and name calling. What changes? Who wins? The governments "chosen few". Who loses? Everybody else. It's all a shell game.

We wrote the playbook on subsidizing industry and anyone that takes a page from it can expect to become the villain. Real error was not taking time to read the whole book:) Seriously, it all about protecting our base (corp. bottom-line) without regard for the expense to the public or that we could see a 40% gain on efficiency at 20% of current cost. So you ask who is the loser? - It has been and always will be the citizens of the capitalist nations that value their Corporations bottom-line more than their citizens welfare.

Name one "non-capitalist" nation that has ever succeeded? Name one non-capitalist nation that, does better than any capitalist nation when it comes to getting all or most of its citizens out of poverty?

Capitalism, where you like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, is the only economic system which helps everybody in a country. Not everybody will get rich and not everybody will end up in the middle class, but, at least, everybody has an equal chance at succeeding; it all depends on the person and the opportunities are there.

The loser, in a socialist state, is always the citizens, because, they all get to share in the misery.

Those 40% and 20% figures you use, are bunk, and made up. Without corporations and a good bottom line, there would be no need for an economy, and we'd all be right back in the kind of economies that can be found in Somalia and Haity, which is virtually, none.

Without the incentives and the drive and the pursuit of wealth, no economy gets beyond the survival instincts that the cavemen used to live day to day.

So, the your silly umbrage and your selective idealism, and go where you might be a bit happier, and I'm sure that Chavez and Castro will be very welcoming to you.

2. Cuba verses all of Central and South America.

3. China verses Most of South East Asia.

4. These two Counties Verses all of Africa.

5. The Soviet Union verses present day Russia.

All developed western countries are socialist to different degrees. The closest to lassie fair capitalism would be Somalia. Has that worked out well?

and I see you had to use a non-example to support an agenda.

Capitalism is about allowing those with the know-how and the capital, to produce an economy which can support a community or a country.

Somalia lacks the know-how and the capital and the infrastructure to create a healthy economy. So, again, that's a case which can't support your argument.

Then, there is the relative "success" stories from countries such as Cuba and China and the old Soviet Union. Reality is that, all of those are failed economies, which depend on others to allow them to show relative success. China's socialism is dependent upon the rest of the world's economies as clients for their huge work-force. Without the U.S. and others, China would be no better off than North Korea. The Soviet Union was "successful" until socialism proved that, it just can't last and support a population long-term. That's the same for any socialist country, where the economy can never be productive enough for growth, and eventually, collapses upon itself from the demands of its population, which stops being productive after many years. That happened in the Soviet Union and it's happened in many countries in Europe and is happening now in the U.S. with it's creeping socialism overtaking the productive members of society and being overtaken by the less productive.

It's a year or two too late.