Thomas Friedman: The World Is Backwards
“Second, Washington could impose a national requirement that every state move its utilities to a system of ''decoupling-plus.'' This is the technical term for changing the way utilities make money -- shifting them from getting paid for how much electricity or gas they get you to consume to getting paid for how much electricity or gas they get you to save. Several states have already moved down this path.”
This is a quote out a New York Times article on the economy and its impact on the green-revolution. The article addresses an important point. When the economy crashes, and oil and gas prices drop, green initiatives become very unprofitable and are threatened with extinction. What was not a good point is Thomas Friedman’s (famed author of The World Is Flat) quoted text.
Is it just me or did he say, utility companies should not be paid for what they sale, but instead for what they do not sell? The idiocy and the implications of this quote cannot be ignored, especially because it is a tenant of much of the ‘green revolution’.
Let’s take a normal commodity like food. Friedman’s philosophy would suggest that instead of getting paid for how many meals I sell, I should get paid for how many meals I keep people from eating. Preposterous to think food is in the same boat as energy. If such a terrible policy is applied to utility companies (ExxonMobil would not fall in to this category) then what’s to stop a similar theory to being applied to McDonalds. Because your food is unhealthy we are going to stop letting you make money from what you sell and instead pay you for how many people you can keep out of your stores. The end game is you are most profitable when you have no customers, hooray you have profited yourself into nothingness.
I always wanted to read Friedman’s new book, but if it is filled with drivel like this... how can I. What he is proposing is destroying the idea of a capitalist enterprise and replaces it with a government controlled socialist entity. Because if you are getting paid from what you do not sell, your salary will ultimately be from a source other than your customers, in this case the government.
Some of you may be nodding your head with agreement, but we walk the line on other issues. Forcing oil companies to invest certain percentages of their earnings in renewable energy or forcing American automakers to meet certain CAFÉ mandated fuel efficiency ratings are also steps in which government plays a role in business. I do not see these acts as necessarily bad but they must be watched carefully. Forcing a company to make money in different areas and forcing a company to become unnecessary are two different things, but looking from where we are now to where we are headed, these two are along the same path. Hopefully we can exercise balance in this issue and decide what is acceptable and what is not.
Jonathan would say you can’t walk the line, but I hope we can. Because I don’t think I can sit idly by if nonsense like that is being accepted as gospel.
Not done yet…
“Third, an idea offered by Andy Karsner, former assistant secretary of energy, would be to modify the tax code so that any company that invests in new domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology -- or procures any clean energy system or energy savings device that is made by an American manufacturer -- can write down the entire cost of the investment via a tax credit and/or accelerated depreciation in the first year.”
I had not made it to his third idea yet. No matter how unprofitable or exorbitantly expensive your design or process is, its cost-free to you as long as it is clean. People, I get the intention. We want to create incentives for technological development in clean technology. But offering to reimburse entire investment costs (regardless of effectiveness) is a terrible idea that will be wasteful at best and subject to manipulation at worse.
That’s it for now, I am going to go build myself an eco-mansion using an American construction company and write it off on my taxes as a energy saving device made by an American manufacturer. Come visit me anytime.
This is a quote out a New York Times article on the economy and its impact on the green-revolution. The article addresses an important point. When the economy crashes, and oil and gas prices drop, green initiatives become very unprofitable and are threatened with extinction. What was not a good point is Thomas Friedman’s (famed author of The World Is Flat) quoted text.
Is it just me or did he say, utility companies should not be paid for what they sale, but instead for what they do not sell? The idiocy and the implications of this quote cannot be ignored, especially because it is a tenant of much of the ‘green revolution’.
Let’s take a normal commodity like food. Friedman’s philosophy would suggest that instead of getting paid for how many meals I sell, I should get paid for how many meals I keep people from eating. Preposterous to think food is in the same boat as energy. If such a terrible policy is applied to utility companies (ExxonMobil would not fall in to this category) then what’s to stop a similar theory to being applied to McDonalds. Because your food is unhealthy we are going to stop letting you make money from what you sell and instead pay you for how many people you can keep out of your stores. The end game is you are most profitable when you have no customers, hooray you have profited yourself into nothingness.
I always wanted to read Friedman’s new book, but if it is filled with drivel like this... how can I. What he is proposing is destroying the idea of a capitalist enterprise and replaces it with a government controlled socialist entity. Because if you are getting paid from what you do not sell, your salary will ultimately be from a source other than your customers, in this case the government.
Some of you may be nodding your head with agreement, but we walk the line on other issues. Forcing oil companies to invest certain percentages of their earnings in renewable energy or forcing American automakers to meet certain CAFÉ mandated fuel efficiency ratings are also steps in which government plays a role in business. I do not see these acts as necessarily bad but they must be watched carefully. Forcing a company to make money in different areas and forcing a company to become unnecessary are two different things, but looking from where we are now to where we are headed, these two are along the same path. Hopefully we can exercise balance in this issue and decide what is acceptable and what is not.
Jonathan would say you can’t walk the line, but I hope we can. Because I don’t think I can sit idly by if nonsense like that is being accepted as gospel.
Not done yet…
“Third, an idea offered by Andy Karsner, former assistant secretary of energy, would be to modify the tax code so that any company that invests in new domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology -- or procures any clean energy system or energy savings device that is made by an American manufacturer -- can write down the entire cost of the investment via a tax credit and/or accelerated depreciation in the first year.”
I had not made it to his third idea yet. No matter how unprofitable or exorbitantly expensive your design or process is, its cost-free to you as long as it is clean. People, I get the intention. We want to create incentives for technological development in clean technology. But offering to reimburse entire investment costs (regardless of effectiveness) is a terrible idea that will be wasteful at best and subject to manipulation at worse.
That’s it for now, I am going to go build myself an eco-mansion using an American construction company and write it off on my taxes as a energy saving device made by an American manufacturer. Come visit me anytime.
posted by Anthony Jackson at 5:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home