So, to be clear, if Obama got on TV and announced that no taxes would need to be paid on corporate or personal income from renewable energy sales, you would NOT consider that a form of subsidy? And he would get no resistance from the right, because it would just be "taking less of someone's money"?
No, that would be a subsidy, if it wasn't applied to all businesses equally. My point was that some people claim a tax cut, usually in the form of a rate cut, is "the same thing as spending." E.g., if a tax cut is expected to reduce revenues by $100 million, they will say it's the same as the government spending $100 million. It's not, for various reasons too off-topic to go into.
Portrait of a Neocon
Voted for the Iraqi War and all subsequent war financing legislation while a senator.
Her major donors in her senate race were the Indian offshoring firm, the Tata Consultancy and Rupert Murdoch.
Helped open an American jobs offshoring office for the Tata Consultancy in Buffalo, NY, "to aid their economy"?!?!?!? (Also belonged to the Indian group within the senate which raised numeric levels for foreign visa scab workers in the USA.)
Chaired the Millennium Challenge Corporation which helped to finance the overthrow of democratically elected (and highly popular) Honduran President Zelaya.
Was endorsed in her presidential run in 2008 by the vile rightwinger plutocrat, Richard Mellon Scaife.
As secretary of state, appointed uber neocons Marc Grossman(former George W. Bush inner circle dood) and Victoria Nuland.
Recently gave a talk embracing her love for Monsanto's GMOs.
Believes Edward Snowden should return to the USA where, of course, he will receive a fair trial!
Was still secretary of state when US State Department was involved in the ouster of the democratically-elected president of the Ukraine.
Claims to really be Hillary Clinton Cratchit and suffering from bouts of extreme poverty!
You'd have a mod point if I had one right now. You could have added "spending," because I've seen people argue that tax cuts (i.e. taking less of someone's money) is the same thing as more government spending.
Only by increasing the forest footprint of the world, or causing massive algae blooms in the oceans can you really sequester CO2 in vegetation.
I imagine some sort of GMO supertree that grows as fast as bamboo, for carbon sequestration and a cheap building material.
I point to those examples to show that regulation doesn't necessarily make things better, and thus less regulation doesn't necessarily make things worse.
Yeah, because the private companies that benefit from this had nothing to do with it, right? It's all the government's fault and only the government's fault.
You are missing the point. When legislators decide to regulate buying and selling, the first things bought are legislators. Taxi cartels are prime examples of this.
I live in San Francisco and you won't be getting a ride from the cabbies who are hypothetically required to take you. Dispatch will accept the call, but no one will ever show up.
Very true. I once tried to get a cab from one part of downtown to another, in the middle of a workday. No cab ever showed up. I've heard they don't want to miss out on a more lucrative run to the airport.
Read it and weep!
Exactly. That's why a modular PCs were never created. There's no way you can get high performance when the user can pick their own RAM, CPU, motherboard, video card, hard drives, etc.
Size matters. Desktop PCs are easy to make modular (unless you want an iMac). Laptops are harder, and besides removable batteries, only a few had any modular components (like a DVD drive swappable for an extra battery). Phones are much more space-constrained. Every millimeter counts, and modularity takes up quite a bit of space at that scale, because each part needs to be enclosed, securely attach to the others, etc.
In short, a modular phone is possible, but the trade-offs will be severe, and you'll be able to pick one or two things (e.g. speed, battery life, extra features, small size, etc.) but not all at the same time. And the prices won't be good, because manufacturer(s) will lose economies of scale: it'll be hard to compete with Apple and Samsung making millions and tens of millions of identical units.