Green Jobs = Lost Jobs

So Professor Calzada did this study with the aid of the almighty "Heritage Foundation"!

Fellow collaborators:

1) Robert P. Murphy-a "free-market oriented author" (probably wants no changes because he's afraid that his lifestyle might change), fellow at Pacific Research Institute (conservative think tank), and townhall.com where he allows clowns and psychopaths such as Ann Coulter and Neal Boortz to contribute....that was all I needed to read about him, as I'm convinced that he stopped caring about the common man years ago.

2) Ben Lieberman-senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (those who want to privatize social security, want to teach abstinence which has been proven time and again to be unreliable, and oh I could go on and on as I've been reading these lovely contributions for years). I won't deny that they are clever individuals (Heritage) but some of their ideas are out of touch with reality.

3) Institute for Energy Research-where much of this was funded....major contributor to IER-Exxon Mobil.

3)William T. Bogart-One of the contributors to, "7 Myths About Green Jobs"...a quote from the article-

"We are equally confident that a market-based delivery process will do a far better job of developing those energy sources, industries, and jobs than could a series of mandates based on flawed data."

Yeah...DRILL BABY, DRILL!

It just seems to me that these gentlemen have some interest at stake here.

Now what to do with Clinton's statement?
 
jreeves, may I respectfully ask, do you ever read anything except for Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, or watch anything other than Sean Hannity, or listen to anything other than Rush Limbaugh? I'm asking this seriously, not as a perceived slam.

irrelevant
 
Bill Clinton has flip-flopped apparently, because I've found at least 10 articles with his being pro and con the subject. So, I prefer not to listen to him. I'm not sure why I asked you the above questions, because I can pretty much tell from your answers, and our dialogue so far, what the answer is.

I suppose we've reached a stalemate.
 
Bill Clinton has flip-flopped apparently, because I've found at least 10 articles with his being pro and con the subject. So, I prefer not to listen to him. I'm not sure why I asked you the above questions, because I can pretty much tell from your answers, and our dialogue so far, what the answer is.

I suppose we've reached a stalemate.

Some links would be nice.
 
"The sooner your brains are turned to goo ... the sooner we can scoop them out with a melon baller and slurp them up."
 
Phil Gramm's Deregulation = Jobs Lost

LOL
Can't deal with the report or Clinton's statement so you throw out a Republican name with an equals sign with jobs lost.....typical Chrissypants strategy
 
We were talking about solar here Chrissypants....Try to focus

How has money been "taken out of" the private sector? Boone Pickens decided to put HIS MONEY where the future lies, rather than oil (or in addition to anyway). Refineries are NOT being built because oil is NOT the energy of the future. If less affluent entrepreneurs need seed money to get going, why not? It wouldn't be the first time in history the U.S. government has jump-started innovative projects. How much technical and even pharmaceutical science has been gained from the multi-billion space programs?


When was the last time our government had a debt that encompassed 13% of its GDP and had future commitments that would cause bankruptcy?

Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of [Reagan's] administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
That's one of your smarter posts.....let private investors pay for R&d for alternative energy sources.:clap2:

Instead of government.

Happy to oblige. You'll note that I'm not biased on many subjects. I hope you will now realize that there is a wealth of information at your fingertips which need to be tapped just a little bit before making wild assumptions. Government DOES need to play a role, however, because as I've said, private investment isn't enough. It apparently wasn't even enough for the existing oil industry, since the U.S. taxpayer subsidized the Big Three for years to support their R&D into alternative energy.

Aren't these oxymoronic statements?

Not really. I'm simply pointing out that government has ALWAYS subsidized research and development, sometimes wisely sometimes not. Historically, however, subsidies have not caused the demise of private enterprise and it won't this time around either. The "bailouts" are intended as investments in organizations to insure that they REMAIN private enterprises.
 
So Professor Calzada did this study with the aid of the almighty "Heritage Foundation"!

Fellow collaborators:

1) Robert P. Murphy-a "free-market oriented author" (probably wants no changes because he's afraid that his lifestyle might change), fellow at Pacific Research Institute (conservative think tank), and townhall.com where he allows clowns and psychopaths such as Ann Coulter and Neal Boortz to contribute....that was all I needed to read about him, as I'm convinced that he stopped caring about the common man years ago.

2) Ben Lieberman-senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (those who want to privatize social security, want to teach abstinence which has been proven time and again to be unreliable, and oh I could go on and on as I've been reading these lovely contributions for years). I won't deny that they are clever individuals (Heritage) but some of their ideas are out of touch with reality.

3) Institute for Energy Research-where much of this was funded....major contributor to IER-Exxon Mobil.

3)William T. Bogart-One of the contributors to, "7 Myths About Green Jobs"...a quote from the article-

"We are equally confident that a market-based delivery process will do a far better job of developing those energy sources, industries, and jobs than could a series of mandates based on flawed data."

Yeah...DRILL BABY, DRILL!

It just seems to me that these gentlemen have some interest at stake here.

Who knew? :lol:
 
Bill Clinton has flip-flopped apparently, because I've found at least 10 articles with his being pro and con the subject. So, I prefer not to listen to him. I'm not sure why I asked you the above questions, because I can pretty much tell from your answers, and our dialogue so far, what the answer is.

I suppose we've reached a stalemate.

Some links would be nice.

Yeah, I can't seem to find any report that balances the job losses with job gains. If current jobs, like mining, are being retired in favor of new green energy jobs, is it fair to say that whatever comes along to replace mining in certain communities won't create a whole new sector of employment opportunities? In other words, I doubt all the job losses have just gone down the drain.
 
How has money been "taken out of" the private sector? Boone Pickens decided to put HIS MONEY where the future lies, rather than oil (or in addition to anyway). Refineries are NOT being built because oil is NOT the energy of the future. If less affluent entrepreneurs need seed money to get going, why not? It wouldn't be the first time in history the U.S. government has jump-started innovative projects. How much technical and even pharmaceutical science has been gained from the multi-billion space programs?


When was the last time our government had a debt that encompassed 13% of its GDP and had future commitments that would cause bankruptcy?

Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of [Reagan's] administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Is federal debt the same as federal spending?
 
So Professor Calzada did this study with the aid of the almighty "Heritage Foundation"!

________________

Please provide the link to Doctor Calzada's 53-page study and the Heritage Foundation. I have read the actual study and not found such a link.

If you could provide it, it would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the actual study itself - a very interesting look at the dollar-to-dollar impacts of government subsidized green jobs vs private industry. The picture painted appears quite clear - government funded job creation is inneficient and ultimately costly to the overall economy.

If green jobs can be done more fully via the private sector - that is the way to go.

Of course that would mean less governmental direction and control, and the current Obama administration does not appear willing to relinquish any potential means of increased authority....

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top