Quote:
Leawood911 said:
I found you a mantra - 'past performance is no predictor of future gains'


Touché!

Quote:
Leawood911 said:
We just see things differently. I hope I am right and somehow I also believe that my viewpoint is more likely to be of use in solving the problem. Just my opinion.

Energy will be cheap and it will not pollute.


I sure hope you're right, but I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:
Leawood911 said:
Perhaps you would like to review the result of the recent American tax cut on the growth of the economy and the increase in revenue. It's been done time and time again.


It's not the Laffer curve, it's good old Keynesian deficit spending. The "growth" and "increase in revenue" you mention are only the result of the depreciation of the dollar.

You seem to consider President Bush's tax cuts as though they were a success, but they are a miserable failure. Devaluating the wealth of each American citizen by a third as a result of reckless budget policies is NOT what I call a success. You and I will be paying for them dearly in the next 30 years.

Quote:
Leawood911 said:
Anytime you think you will need to raise taxes as a result of such a tax incentive you have basically admitted that you expect your 'tax investment' to be a net failure.


Viewing tax cuts as investments is tantamount to deficit spending - which has been proven time and time again not to work in the long run. Incentives should not be viewed as a "tax investment", but rather as a redistribution scheme designed to educate individuals and corporations.

Since customers generally do not give a damn about the environment, the market will price the "green" product or process and the "not-so-green" competitor at exactly the same TCO at any given time (think of how hybrid cars cost exactly as much more as they make you save on fuel over 75,000 miles).
The goal of this redistribution program is to make the "green" approach more profitable to manufacturers so that more of them choose it.

Quote:
Leawood911 said:
I have noticed that the US commissions private companies to build the roads and they are built FAST. State road projects in Austria (where I grew up) took years to complete. That was in the 70's, maybe it's changed now.


Laziness and inefficiency do not have to be the lot of state companies. It's a risk with all large entities, regardless of owner. At the end of the day, everything depends on the quality of people that the government attracts.

It's a sad fact that the most talented people do not choose to work in a state company or office in the US. I mean, even your president was a mediocre student and a failed businessman.

Maybe you should start by offering them competitive compensation packages and by putting some emphasis on the concept of public duty instead of denigrating public officials all the time?

There are some countries where a career in public administration is the most prestigious and the best paying choice for a graduate. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find that states services work much better there than in the US!

Quote:
Leawood911 said:
Take care Groom - hope we are amusing the other members.


I never turn down a good flame war for the amusement the public.
(mods might want to move the thread to the Off-Topic board though )