Our financial system is crumbling this week.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The switch to computers eliminated some jobs, but not near to the extent that it created them. I think the conversion to alternative energy will be similar.

Computer technology allows the creation of new and useful products and services. Green energy just replaces dirty energy. Maybe there will be side-benefits due to increased investment in research, but it's not at all clear to me that there is some macro economic benefit. The point is to avoid the costs of continuing to use dirty energy.

Once these companies start making money off green energy, you will see tons of that profit rolled into research, imo. Ethanol is available now, but if it takes off, in 30 years the ethanol process we have to day will be seen as one of the most inefficient processes ever. It will be like comparing a Boeing 737 to the Wright brothers plane.

[Arthur Dent]

What they want now is someone (namely you and me at 7K a piece and every body else on the board for the same price)

You may want to check your figures.

or whatever it is. I heard it on TV, what is the actual number?

$700 billion/300 million people = ~$2333/person.

In any case, the money will be borrowed (most likely from many of the same people receiving it), and with a proper plan, much of the money should be returned.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

What they want now is someone (namely you and me at 7K a piece and every body else on the board for the same price)

You may want to check your figures.

or whatever it is. I heard it on TV, what is the actual number?

$700 billion/300 million people = ~$2333/person.

In any case, the money will be borrowed (most likely from many of the same people receiving it), and with a proper plan, much of the money should be returned.

not everyone is paying taxes though.

[TheoSqua]

The switch to computers eliminated some jobs, but not near to the extent that it created them. I think the conversion to alternative energy will be similar.

Computer technology allows the creation of new and useful products and services. Green energy just replaces dirty energy. Maybe there will be side-benefits due to increased investment in research, but it's not at all clear to me that there is some macro economic benefit. The point is to avoid the costs of continuing to use dirty energy.

Once these companies start making money off green energy, you will see tons of that profit rolled into research, imo. Ethanol is available now, but if it takes off, in 30 years the ethanol process we have to day will be seen as one of the most inefficient processes ever. It will be like comparing a Boeing 737 to the Wright brothers plane.

I don't think it's going to be near as big as the tech boom. But I think more jobs will be created. A lot of what computers and IT people do today was done in some fashion in the past. It's just now the tools are different and there is generally more people involved in the process.

[Arthur Dent]

I simply don't buy it. Period. They're not going to stop giving out loans to good investors because that is how they make money. That would be like McDonals saying they aren't going to sell fries anymore. If the potato company they got the fries from went out of business, they would find another place to get their potatoes. Similarly, if all these "larger banks" go outof business, that only opens the door for other banks to step in and provide the capital. Someone will do it because it's how they make money.... regardless of what is going on around them, they're not going to stop trying to do that.

They will lend the money if they have it, but several banks have already gone bust because they did not. Too much capital was expended on assets (housing) that were not worth as much as people thought. As prices fall, that money has disappeared and no amount of reshuffling bank ownership will change that.

Furthermore in a panic, people tend to make only the least risky investments (government bonds). If these people aren't going to make their own productive use of money, the least we ought to do is make good use of the money being offered us.

[obucard]

What they want now is someone (namely you and me at 7K a piece and every body else on the board for the same price)

You may want to check your figures.

or whatever it is. I heard it on TV, what is the actual number?

$700 billion/300 million people = ~$2333/person.

In any case, the money will be borrowed (most likely from many of the same people receiving it), and with a proper plan, much of the money should be returned.

not everyone is paying taxes though.

Exactly. For the household of 2 working parents and 2 kids, that number swells to $4667 per taxpayer. The 7K number was based on taking the non-taxpaying population out of the equation.

[Arthur Dent]

Once these companies start making money off green energy, you will see tons of that profit rolled into research, imo. Ethanol is available now, but if it takes off, in 30 years the ethanol process we have to day will be seen as one of the most inefficient processes ever. It will be like comparing a Boeing 737 to the Wright brothers plane.

I don't think it's going to be near as big as the tech boom. But I think more jobs will be created. A lot of what computers and IT people do today was done in some fashion in the past. It's just now the tools are different and there is generally more people involved in the process.

In many cases, computer technology has allowed people to more efficiently perform these old tasks. That doesn't apply to green technology. Does a kW-hr of solar power do more work than a kW-hr generated by burning oil? I think most people would agree that green technology is (at least currently) less efficient than fossil fuels. That's why people use fossil fuels. Maybe that will change, but it seems unlikely. Green energy is just energy with additional constraints. I'm all for it, but let's not kid ourselves either.

As far as a promising future for ethanol goes, it's doubtful. Photosynthesis is something like 6% efficient. Even if you somehow managed to recover 100% of that energy, it's pretty terrible. Currently, we recover only a tiny fraction and invest a ton of energy doing it. Even old-fashioned solar cells are something like 15% efficient.

[Arthur Dent]

For the household of 2 working parents and 2 kids, that number swells to $4667 per taxpayer. The 7K number was based on taking the non-taxpaying population out of the equation.

That's not correct either. Even if the money were all to come from a cash contribution from tax payers (and it won't), the median household would pay far less than this.

I'd like to know the source of the $7k number. Maybe they specified per household (rather than per individual), but that still only comes to ~$6200. Anyway, people pay tax proportionate to their income, so the median household will pay far less. Specifying costs per household or per individual is much more meaningful than just throwing around large numbers like $700 billion, but it's extremely dishonest to imply that the bailout would cost each person $7000. It won't.

[TheoSqua]

Once these companies start making money off green energy, you will see tons of that profit rolled into research, imo. Ethanol is available now, but if it takes off, in 30 years the ethanol process we have to day will be seen as one of the most inefficient processes ever. It will be like comparing a Boeing 737 to the Wright brothers plane.

I don't think it's going to be near as big as the tech boom. But I think more jobs will be created. A lot of what computers and IT people do today was done in some fashion in the past. It's just now the tools are different and there is generally more people involved in the process.

In many cases, computer technology has allowed people to more efficiently perform these old tasks. That doesn't apply to green technology. Does a kW-hr of solar power do more work than a kW-hr generated by burning oil? I think most people would agree that green technology is (at least currently) less efficient than fossil fuels. That's why people use fossil fuels. Maybe that will change, but it seems unlikely. Green energy is just energy with additional constraints. I'm all for it, but let's not kid ourselves either.

As far as a promising future for ethanol goes, it's doubtful. Photosynthesis is something like 6% efficient. Even if you somehow managed to recover 100% of that energy, it's pretty terrible. Currently, we recover only a tiny fraction and invest a ton of energy doing it. Even old-fashioned solar cells are something like 15% efficient.

I just think the maintenance will be higher for green energy. Let alone the cost of converting people. For example: right now one big giant coal plant on the Missouri river, Labadie, generates 2300megawatts of power. Ameren employs about 300 people to work in that plant. It's the biggest power plant in Missouri. Do you think it'll only take 300 people for Ameren to build and maintain an alternative power source to replace a plant that burns 8.5million tons of coal annually?

If you look at solar power on wiki, the big example power plants are bringing in 10-20 megawatts of power. Even if solar power, or some equivalent, manages to increase efficiency ten fold, you're still going to have to build more than one power plant to replace that much energy produced. If they have to build 5 solar plants to equal the production of that one coal plant, and it takes 300 people to maintain that plan, then 1,200 jobs were just created.

Obviously there's tons and tons more variable than what I mentioned that go into it, and i'm pretty ignorant on the subject as a whole, but it seems to me just due to the sheer efficiency of fossil fuels any sort of alternative that is used will require more man power to develop and maintain.

[BW23]

The 4 things this country needs to do, IMO:

1)Create regulations to eliminate the trade deficit, reduce spending (Iraq, oil, foreign goods, etc). The US has to tax countries that mainpulate the value of their currency by purchasing the dollar. China's Yuan is so undervalued right now as well as raising their GDP, which allows them to export job to China, raising unemployment and that deficit.

2)Innovation and dependence on oil. Oil is a huge reason why we have the trade deficit which has partially led to where we're at now. We need to reduce our consumption and we're unable to do so. We need the gov't to further impose restrictions as far as automakers and fuel eff. cars, we need to reward conpanies involved with greener solutions and we need to reward those consumers for greener cars with trade in allowances towards those green cars based on the life of their current car. Innovation is going to be led thru alternative mtethods of fuel, we need to create job and lead this revolution, we cannot afford to be importing alternative fuel like we have with oil.

3)Banks-they should have to allocate money towards the tax payers to receive any for of profit from the bailout. They need to reform their banking practices towards taking responsibility.

And number 4 is....

Monthly GOP/DNC tea parties to ease tensions.

Then I'm in.