Conservative columnist preaches some goodness.

[menewa]

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/04/05/friedman/

New York Times conservative columnist sheds light on why renewable fuel is the best way to go.

 

[Annie]

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/04/05/friedman/

New York Times conservative columnist sheds light on why renewable fuel is the best way to go.

You figure Thomas Friedman conservative by what?

 

[menewa]

You figure Thomas Friedman conservative by what?

His economic ideas such as explained in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree paint him as a conservative, at least economically. He supports hands-off economics and globalization.

But so what about the title I gave him, what about his ideas on this issue.

 

[nosarcasm]

I read the Lexus and the Olive tree and the problem is that
the industrilization of the developing world comes with
a decline in the developed world.

While he is happy for the people in India it burdens
the US.

The ecological approach only works if it would count for
developing countries too, but they are willing to invest
their nature for economic development.

So in the end the Us is supposed to loose more of
it advantage to save the planet.

It is not really a free market if you tax SUV's.

He is a socialist that that would like to redistribute western
wealth to the "deserving" developing nations in the hope
of democratizing them.

To offer your economic base to them to have their citizen
live in freedom still is not worth it to me.

Your own country first.

 

[Annie]

I agree with no sarcasm. I personally think that hydrogen powered cars are not 45 years in the future, more like 10-15, less if gas prices keep increasing over the long term. I think the $55 barrel was the threshold to make stepping up R & D feasible.

 

[menewa]

I read the Lexus and the Olive tree and the problem is that
the industrilization of the developing world comes with
a decline in the developed world.

The ecological approach only works if it would count for
developing countries too, but they are willing to invest
their nature for economic development.

So in the end the Us is supposed to loose more of
it advantage to save the planet.

It is not really a free market if you tax SUV's.

He is a socialist that that would like to redistribute western
wealth to the "deserving" developing nations in the hope
of democratizing them.

Before we can convince developing nations to use more renewable resources for energy, we must demonstrate our own faith in their use. One we've done that, the developing nations will follow. What's more if they don't switch, they might gain a short advantage in the short term, but in the long term we would win the ecomomic tug of war.

He's no more of a socialist though than James Madison. In Federalist 84 Madison said the clause "promote the general welfare" in our Constitution's preamble means the government must do things to nurture the economy. Funding renewable research and taxing wasteful people is one of those things, but it falls far short of socialism, which means the people in general own all production.

 

[nosarcasm]

socialist do not support a completly state run economy.

That is marxism. But apart from labels I respects Friedmanns
opinion but I disagree.

And when the general welfare is rolled out to everyone in the world
I d assume it is different then showing compassion for your fellow poor
American.

 

[nosarcasm]

and from his latest commentary

If your name is Muhammad and you are a 21-year-old single Arab man and you have not visited Disney World yet, well, you may want to consider Euro Disney, because your chances of getting a U.S. tourist visa are very low. Frankly, I wish this were not the case because we're keeping a lot of good, talented Arab men and women from getting educated in America, which is the best way of building friends.

Frankly I do not want them trained to build WMD by studying engineering
in the US. Same for anyone from China.