Another attempt to help the right understand the change in wealth distribution

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that ideologues lamenting the loss of individual rights to collective rights push for more collectivization and hence the loss of even more individual rights? Are you really that blind? How many more times must history prove you wrong? How many millions more must die on the altars of your egos?

The entire moral claim of capitalism is that it protects the rights of the individual, each and every one of them. Otherwise, NO economic theory answers questions like people earning what they get, blah blah blah etc. You want to get into that, we certainly could go into the ugly cynical hypocrisy of communism and other such collective systems that pretend that make people economically equal while they are in actual practice used as means to control, murder, steal, imprison, and starve, all because they have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of the individual human life.

What does communism have to do with this?

The problem is corporatism, all I'm saying is the cure isn't anarchy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that ideologues lamenting the loss of individual rights to collective rights push for more collectivization and hence the loss of even more individual rights? Are you really that blind? How many more times must history prove you wrong? How many millions more must die on the altars of your egos?

The entire moral claim of capitalism is that it protects the rights of the individual, each and every one of them. Otherwise, NO economic theory answers questions like people earning what they get, blah blah blah etc. You want to get into that, we certainly could go into the ugly cynical hypocrisy of communism and other such collective systems that pretend that make people economically equal while they are in actual practice used as means to control, murder, steal, imprison, and starve, all because they have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of the individual human life.

What does communism have to do with this?

The problem is corporatism, all I'm saying is the cure isn't anarchy.

And corporatism is a collectivist system, a form of fascism, and not a form of capitalism. They actually still teach economics in schools, right? Or do they just teach that pseudo-Marxist Chomsky conspiracy crap?

And of course the cure isn't anarchy. But it's not a totalitarian oppression of creativity and individualism either. The cure is a system that fosters creativity and protects the rights of individuals. It's called liberalism.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that ideologues lamenting the loss of individual rights to collective rights push for more collectivization and hence the loss of even more individual rights? Are you really that blind? How many more times must history prove you wrong? How many millions more must die on the altars of your egos?

The entire moral claim of capitalism is that it protects the rights of the individual, each and every one of them. Otherwise, NO economic theory answers questions like people earning what they get, blah blah blah etc. You want to get into that, we certainly could go into the ugly cynical hypocrisy of communism and other such collective systems that pretend that make people economically equal while they are in actual practice used as means to control, murder, steal, imprison, and starve, all because they have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of the individual human life.

What does communism have to do with this?

The problem is corporatism, all I'm saying is the cure isn't anarchy.

And corporatism is a collectivist system, a form of fascism, and not a form of capitalism. They actually still teach economics in schools, right? Or do they just teach that pseudo-Marxist Chomsky conspiracy crap?

And of course the cure isn't anarchy. But it's not a totalitarian oppression of creativity and individualism either. The cure is a system that fosters creativity and protects the rights of individuals. It's called liberalism.

My economics is fine - if you have a strong disagreement with me, it's over the innate-ness of private property rights.

I don't have much marxist in me, unless you think karl marx owns any reference to class conflict, in which case we probably owe him a lot of money.😉

As for Chomsky, he's done some wonderful things with language development, and the 'how' of moral development, but that's about it; I would leave him in the psychology department and not let him out.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

Oh please, calling these people Einsteins is real insult to the real Einstein.

Right place and the right time and happens to be right people mainly by luck does not make an Einstein.

Luck is still the "key" element.

There is no such thing as luck. People make their own luck. If one never tries, one can never be in the right place at the right time with the right people.

 

[palehorse]

All I see here is one excuse after another for the obvious jealousy and hatred shared by many of the posters.

shame that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
All I see here is one excuse after another for the obvious jealousy and hatred shared by many of the posters.

shame that.

You are letting what you want to see cloud your senses.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

Oh please, calling these people Einsteins is real insult to the real Einstein.

Right place and the right time and happens to be right people mainly by luck does not make an Einstein.

Luck is still the "key" element.

There is no such thing as luck. People make their own luck. If one never tries, one can never be in the right place at the right time with the right people.

Obviously you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a lottery ticket, but whoever wins is still one lucky SOB.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Probably the only thing I have ever seen you post with some partial truth to it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

Oh please, calling these people Einsteins is real insult to the real Einstein.

Right place and the right time and happens to be right people mainly by luck does not make an Einstein.

Luck is still the "key" element.

There is no such thing as luck. People make their own luck. If one never tries, one can never be in the right place at the right time with the right people.

Oh man, it is also just luck that some people make their own luck too. That is the whole point. Some people are focused into a narrow channel of behavior people call business opportunity and others are focused on, well taking care of their kids. If you are young, well educated, financially stable, mentally quick and especially infected with the disease of competitive hate, you will make your luck as a money making business, etc. Hate focused on personal advancement creates opportunities to act out that hate. It's just the same with Saddam Husein. He made a success of his life by being the most ruthless. Sick wins all kinds of races that sick people like to play. Sick people eat the earth and turn it into money. Then they prance around flattering themselves, no?

There's a whole other collection of successful competitors who win by killing the most innocent civilians with a strap-on bomb. Just another manifestation of the same hate.

The reason people can't think is because it would destroy their world view.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Probably the only thing I have ever seen you post with some partial truth to it.

Most people have social responsibilities that tie them to other people. Some guy that supports his sick mother can't be gambling his life on some risky adventure because he would be gambling his Mother's life. If you are lucky enough to be a sociopath you may get rich.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that ideologues lamenting the loss of individual rights to collective rights push for more collectivization and hence the loss of even more individual rights? Are you really that blind? How many more times must history prove you wrong? How many millions more must die on the altars of your egos?

The entire moral claim of capitalism is that it protects the rights of the individual, each and every one of them. Otherwise, NO economic theory answers questions like people earning what they get, blah blah blah etc. You want to get into that, we certainly could go into the ugly cynical hypocrisy of communism and other such collective systems that pretend that make people economically equal while they are in actual practice used as means to control, murder, steal, imprison, and starve, all because they have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of the individual human life.

What does communism have to do with this?

The problem is corporatism, all I'm saying is the cure isn't anarchy.

And corporatism is a collectivist system, a form of fascism, and not a form of capitalism. They actually still teach economics in schools, right? Or do they just teach that pseudo-Marxist Chomsky conspiracy crap?

And of course the cure isn't anarchy. But it's not a totalitarian oppression of creativity and individualism either. The cure is a system that fosters creativity and protects the rights of individuals. It's called liberalism.

My economics is fine - if you have a strong disagreement with me, it's over the innate-ness of private property rights.

I don't have much marxist in me, unless you think karl marx owns any reference to class conflict, in which case we probably owe him a lot of money.😉

As for Chomsky, he's done some wonderful things with language development, and the 'how' of moral development, but that's about it; I would leave him in the psychology department and not let him out.

Well, we agree on that last part.

However, without private property rights, there is no individual right to life, which is the first and foremost of the inherent rights of liberalism. The individual could be arbitrarily denied by the collective any rights to the products of his own labor, including food, housing, clothing, etc., the loss of such rights could then make it impossible for the individual to protect his own life.
If you do not believe this, consider the example of Pol Pot's Camobodia. Practically the first thing that government did was abolish private property and currency. Within the next 3 years, 2 million people -- a quarter of the population -- starved to death.
The only protection the individual is given is the supposed good will of the collective, which we all know is non-existent.

I know a lot of the rosy socialist talk on ATPN sounds pretty, but it's mostly idealistic garbage, spread under the lie of being liberalism when it is actually the exact opposite of liberalism in every way, and uttered by brainwashed idiots who pretend to themselves that they're being selfless as they make demands that the world be changed into their own personal vision of how they think it should be, damn the consequences.

I expect you, Charlie, to be smarter than that. 🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Probably the only thing I have ever seen you post with some partial truth to it.

Most people have social responsibilities that tie them to other people. Some guy that supports his sick mother can't be gambling his life on some risky adventure because he would be gambling his Mother's life. If you are lucky enough to be a sociopath you may get rich.

Using your own logic (not mine), Moonie, I could ask you why you are so selfish as to be tending to a personal issue like your sick mother when society needs you be taking risks for its own betterment.

As to the luck issue, the only luck in this world is the genetic roll of the dice. That's it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

without private property rights, there is no individual right to life, which is the first and foremost of the inherent rights of liberalism.

So that's the reason the USSC stripped the U.S. of personal property rights?

To, in the words of Make Savage, stop the disease of Liberalism?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

without private property rights, there is no individual right to life, which is the first and foremost of the inherent rights of liberalism.

So that's the reason the USSC stripped the U.S. of personal property rights?

To, in the words of Make Savage, stop the disease of Liberalism?

I wouldn't know, Dave, I'm not a fan of Mike Savage and have never listened to his shows or read any of his books.

The SCOTUS decision I believe you referring to, Kelo v. New London, was more a protection of local zoning and property tax laws than an assault on personal property rights. I strongly disagreed with it (and still do), but I think you need to put it in the right perspective. It wasn't about the developers, as there's plenty of land for developers to build on, and developers have a strong vested interest in property rights (duh). It was about government controlling development, when, where, who, and how much.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well, we agree on that last part.

However, without private property rights, there is no individual right to life, which is the first and foremost of the inherent rights of liberalism. The individual could be arbitrarily denied by the collective any rights to the products of his own labor, including food, housing, clothing, etc., the loss of such rights could then make it impossible for the individual to protect his own life.
If you do not believe this, consider the example of Pol Pot's Camobodia. Practically the first thing that government did was abolish private property and currency. Within the next 3 years, 2 million people -- a quarter of the population -- starved to death.
The only protection the individual is given is the supposed good will of the collective, which we all know is non-existent.

I know a lot of the rosy socialist talk on ATPN sounds pretty, but it's mostly idealistic garbage, spread under the lie of being liberalism when it is actually the exact opposite of liberalism in every way, and uttered by brainwashed idiots who pretend to themselves that they're being selfless as they make demands that the world be changed into their own personal vision of how they think it should be, damn the consequences.

I expect you, Charlie, to be smarter than that. 🙂

Don't get me wrong, any system that is going to work will need private property; collectivist societies have in common that they rarely exist much beyond subsistence and a few easily shared luxuries.

But there is no natural right to property, or life. You have the 'right' to whatever you can create, steal, and defend. So to create a society, we need to install artificial rights and responsibilities, and enforce them so that people live in a fair system. Note that I'm not saying we need to make 'life be fair' in the kindergarten sense, which I perceive to be the idealistic grounding point of communism. The problem of corporatism comes from managing to give money more rights than we give to people. Although advancement is possible, there is absolutely no doubt that the playing field is not level in an intergenerational sense, and even the artificial moral imperative of 'keeping what you earn' starts to break down.

I don't have a great solution for this, because I don't think there is one, at least not one I have encountered or am smart enough to devise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Probably the only thing I have ever seen you post with some partial truth to it.

Most people have social responsibilities that tie them to other people. Some guy that supports his sick mother can't be gambling his life on some risky adventure because he would be gambling his Mother's life. If you are lucky enough to be a sociopath you may get rich.

Using your own logic (not mine), Moonie, I could ask you why you are so selfish as to be tending to a personal issue like your sick mother when society needs you be taking risks for its own betterment.

As to the luck issue, the only luck in this world is the genetic roll of the dice. That's it.

Because the motto of the collective is to ask, not what you can do for the collective but what the collective can do for you.

If genetics were the only luck there is than identical twins separated at birth should both be rich if one of them is. You are simply wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Probably the only thing I have ever seen you post with some partial truth to it.

Most people have social responsibilities that tie them to other people. Some guy that supports his sick mother can't be gambling his life on some risky adventure because he would be gambling his Mother's life. If you are lucky enough to be a sociopath you may get rich.

Using your own logic (not mine), Moonie, I could ask you why you are so selfish as to be tending to a personal issue like your sick mother when society needs you be taking risks for its own betterment.

As to the luck issue, the only luck in this world is the genetic roll of the dice. That's it.

Because the motto of the collective is to ask, not what you can do for the collective but what the collective can do for you.

If genetics were the only luck there is than identical twins separated at birth should both be rich if one of them is. You are simply wrong.

That seems awfully selfish. I thought you've always said collectivism is the selfless system, yet here you are saying that its motto is demanding that it do for you instead of you doing for it.

I am not wrong. You failed to understand. Genetics is luck. The rest is not luck. And for someone who so frequently preaches Buddhist philosophies, what is it with your obsession with materialism? Maybe both twins won at the genetics roulette table, but one of them decided to apply his talents to other life pursuits beyond the materialistic, i.e. be a good father, etc.?? Why is it that your whole appreciation of humanity revolves around whether they are materialistically rich or poor?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Don't get me wrong, any system that is going to work will need private property; collectivist societies have in common that they rarely exist much beyond subsistence and a few easily shared luxuries.

But there is no natural right to property, or life. You have the 'right' to whatever you can create, steal, and defend. So to create a society, we need to install artificial rights and responsibilities, and enforce them so that people live in a fair system. Note that I'm not saying we need to make 'life be fair' in the kindergarten sense, which I perceive to be the idealistic grounding point of communism. The problem of corporatism comes from managing to give money more rights than we give to people. Although advancement is possible, there is absolutely no doubt that the playing field is not level in an intergenerational sense, and even the artificial moral imperative of 'keeping what you earn' starts to break down.

I don't have a great solution for this, because I don't think there is one, at least not one I have encountered or am smart enough to devise.

Every game needs rules in order to ensure fair play. You may call them "artificial" all you want, you still can't have the game without them.

As for corporatism, it's problem IMO is that it pretends to put a human face on that (and give human rights to that) which is inhuman. Think calling to complain about a problem with your bill. Good luck getting someone who cares. And why should they? No one has a genuine vested interest in caring. The result of our secure, insulated, safe society is a collectivist system that is psychopathic to the core.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Don't get me wrong, any system that is going to work will need private property; collectivist societies have in common that they rarely exist much beyond subsistence and a few easily shared luxuries.

But there is no natural right to property, or life. You have the 'right' to whatever you can create, steal, and defend. So to create a society, we need to install artificial rights and responsibilities, and enforce them so that people live in a fair system. Note that I'm not saying we need to make 'life be fair' in the kindergarten sense, which I perceive to be the idealistic grounding point of communism. The problem of corporatism comes from managing to give money more rights than we give to people. Although advancement is possible, there is absolutely no doubt that the playing field is not level in an intergenerational sense, and even the artificial moral imperative of 'keeping what you earn' starts to break down.

I don't have a great solution for this, because I don't think there is one, at least not one I have encountered or am smart enough to devise.

Every game needs rules in order to ensure fair play. You may call them "artificial" all you want, you still can't have the game without them.

As for corporatism, it's problem IMO is that it pretends to put a human face on that (and give human rights to that) which is inhuman. Think calling to complain about a problem with your bill. Good luck getting someone who cares. And why should they? No one has a genuine vested interest in caring. The result of our secure, insulated, safe society is a collectivist system that is psychopathic to the core.

The first solution is to remove the ability of a corporation to function as a legal entity. What you need to envision is a system where the owners and controllers of a company are responsible for what that company does, because they are the company.

But how do you do this, and still benefit from the massive economies of scale that can be provided? Whatever evils they perpetrate, it's hard to imagine a phone network being more efficient than a single national-scale system can be. Of course you're right, not one single person at that large phone company actually cares about you as a customer.

I hate to be a nay-sayer, but like I said, I don't have the solution, and private property rights on their own aren't it (they probably would be, in a one-generation, finite time-line model).

Edit - what I mean by artificial, is that there is no one, obvious set of rules that should be used. Yes you need a framework to play a game, but it is absolutely non-obvious what that framework should be. For example, true collectivist societies function very smoothly, but tend to have little or no technical progress.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Don't get me wrong, any system that is going to work will need private property; collectivist societies have in common that they rarely exist much beyond subsistence and a few easily shared luxuries.

But there is no natural right to property, or life. You have the 'right' to whatever you can create, steal, and defend. So to create a society, we need to install artificial rights and responsibilities, and enforce them so that people live in a fair system. Note that I'm not saying we need to make 'life be fair' in the kindergarten sense, which I perceive to be the idealistic grounding point of communism. The problem of corporatism comes from managing to give money more rights than we give to people. Although advancement is possible, there is absolutely no doubt that the playing field is not level in an intergenerational sense, and even the artificial moral imperative of 'keeping what you earn' starts to break down.

I don't have a great solution for this, because I don't think there is one, at least not one I have encountered or am smart enough to devise.

Every game needs rules in order to ensure fair play. You may call them "artificial" all you want, you still can't have the game without them.

As for corporatism, it's problem IMO is that it pretends to put a human face on that (and give human rights to that) which is inhuman. Think calling to complain about a problem with your bill. Good luck getting someone who cares. And why should they? No one has a genuine vested interest in caring. The result of our secure, insulated, safe society is a collectivist system that is psychopathic to the core.

The first solution is to remove the ability of a corporation to function as a legal entity. What you need to envision is a system where the owners and controllers of a company are responsible for what that company does, because they are the company.

But how do you do this, and still benefit from the massive economies of scale that can be provided? Whatever evils they perpetrate, it's hard to imagine a phone network being more efficient than a single national-scale system can be. Of course you're right, not one single person at that large phone company actually cares about you as a customer.

I hate to be a nay-sayer, but like I said, I don't have the solution, and private property rights on their own aren't it (they probably would be, in a one-generation, finite time-line model).

Edit - what I mean by artificial, is that there is no one, obvious set of rules that should be used. Yes you need a framework to play a game, but it is absolutely non-obvious what that framework should be. For example, true collectivist societies function very smoothly, but tend to have little or no technical progress.

This is already in place for publically traded companies. Ever been to a shareholder meeting? If things suck for the company, the CEO's seat is mighty hot.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This is already in place for publically traded companies. Ever been to a shareholder meeting? If things suck for the company, the CEO's seat is mighty hot.

You need to get past the idea that a corporation is accountable only to shareholders. You're accountable to more than your bank.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This is already in place for publically traded companies. Ever been to a shareholder meeting? If things suck for the company, the CEO's seat is mighty hot.

You need to get past the idea that a corporation is accountable only to shareholders. You're accountable to more than your bank.

eh...my bad if I hinted thats what I thought. I know better 😉

 

[tcsenter]

That's a *huge* change. It's concentrating wealth and power in the hands of very few like not since the height of the robber baron era and is on track to get much worse.

Except the robber baron era has been over by at least 100 years.

If 90% of the population freely and voluntarily chose mediocrity for themselves, 'just want to have fun', or 'put my 40 hours in and go home to my real passions that aren't productive or beneficial to anyone except me', while the other 10% have ambitions that lead to productive enterprise or valuable livelihoods, that's their choice.

Everyone wants the responsibility of a unionized illiterate screw turner in an auto factory, but expects to get paid like an MBA, MD, JD, or EE. Sorry, that's their problem.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a *huge* change. It's concentrating wealth and power in the hands of very few like not since the height of the robber baron era and is on track to get much worse.

Except the robber baron era has been over by at least 100 years.

If 90% of the population freely and voluntarily chose mediocrity for themselves, 'just want to have fun', or 'put my 40 hours in and go home to my real passions that aren't productive or beneficial to anyone except me', while the other 10% have ambitions that lead to productive enterprise or valuable livelihoods, that's their choice.

Everyone wants the responsibility of a unionized illiterate screw turner in an auto factory, but expects to get paid like an MBA, MD, JD, or EE. Sorry, that's their problem.

Good argument. I'm glad you're here to explain to everyone that laziness is the source of economic inequity.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Getting back to the topic at hand.....

If the rich have to much and the poor have to little...
How do we solve this problem??

Can anyone give me a solution that would actually work?

BTW you can raise taxes on the rich all you want, that won't help the poor make more money. Unless you plan is to take money from the rich and 'give' it to the poor. But that won't solve the problem either, because the poor will go out and spend the money and end up poor again.

Here's a start: reduce taxes targeting the poor, and tax things that hurt the poor
1. Exempt the first 40k in income from all income and payroll taxes.
2. Eliminate all sales taxes on food, insulation, and renewable fuels (including biodiesel and ethanol).
3. Put a federal sales tax on new cars based on mileage, say 1% for every mpg below 40, half that if it's capable of running on more than 50% biodiesel or ethanol. Since the poor are stuck with buying used cars, this would improve the availability of more efficient vehicles for the poor.
4. Make birth control over the counter. This would save consumers roughly 2 billion dollars per year. There is currently no medical justification for requiring a prescription for birth control pills. They are safer than aspirin or tylenol. It's akin to forcing you to visit a mechanic and have your alignment checked and a state inspection every time you want to put gas in your car.
5. Restrict the practice of increasing interest rates on debt already incurred. Require that notification of a change in interest rates take place at least six months prior to the change taking effect. Limit the maximum increase in interest rates to no more than 15% more than the rate agreed upon when the debt was incurred. This would limit the damage done by predatory lending practices while still allowing the subprime debt market to continue to exist. Limit the frequency of application of over the limit fees and late fees to no more than once per two month period, and don't allow the application of late fees to incur an over the limit fee in any case.
6. Exempt fuels that are more than 5% renewable from the federal gas tax. Place a large ($15+/barrel) tariff on imported oil to stabilize fuel prices and place pressure on car makers to improve efficiency and support renewable fuels. In the long run this will lower fuel costs and eliminate oil dependency.
7. Place a carbon tax on coal burning power plants based on emissions, and natural gas used other than to heat homes (also based on emissions). Make a renewable energy production tax credit permanent. This will stabilize energy prices for future fuel price fluctuations.

If all of the above recommendations were followed it would go a long way towards assisting the poor with their living expenses, which are hugely inflated compared to the rich because they lack the capital to make capital intensive cost saving improvements.

To preempt any arguments about the best renewable fuel technology, ideally there should be a mix. It is currently possible to take flue gas from coal power plants and divert it through pipes to produce algea. This process reclaims 40% of the carbon dioxide with a product that can be divided into an oil portion for biodiesel, a carbohydrate portion to be used for ethanol, and a protein portion for animal feed. http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm