Davin News Server

pothead wrote:
> On 2025-07-30, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:29:17 -0400, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/25 14:14, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-28 10:51, pothead wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Again, let the market decide.
>>>>
>>>> But keep the subsidies for big oil, right?
>>
>> This is the kind of partisan thing I've been talking about, pothead.
> 
> Well maybe I am not presenting my points clearly.
> See below.
> 
> 
>> You're perfectly ok with government meddling in markets as long as it
>> only meddles in the markets YOU want meddled with.
> 
> Wrong.
> First off depending upon the market I have differing opinions.
> So for example, I was not against the auto industry bailout as it was implemented.
> It saved jobs however as a free trade person I'm mixed on the reasons for the
> bailouts in the first place which were mainly crappy cars nobody wanted and
> mismanagement.
> 
> In the end though the money was paid back AFAIK.
> 
> As for the current discussion of EV vs ICE and subsidies I have no problem
> either way as long as the other platform is not attacked and restricted by
> over regulation.
> Promoting American made cars or EV or both is not a problem for me as long
> as at the same time you don't tell me ICE cars will have major regulations
> put on them all for the purpose of destroying them and pushing the people to EV.
> 
> Same goes for say wind farms vs coal plants.
> Let the market decide but don't hamstring one or the other in order to
> push an agenda.
> 
> Again "free market" or more accurately a fair market.
> 
> 
>>> Ah, good catch:  I'd forgotten about how pothead has avoided answering
>>> why its okay for fossil fuels to receive huge government subsidies.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Still hasn't answered it despite answering Siri's post.
> 
> Answered already in different threads but you can see my answer above.
> 
> I am a free/fair market person.
> Sometimes subsidies are good and sometimes bad.
> I have opinions on both and I prefer to not make a blanket statement.
> 
> 
>> As an aside:
>> On the one hand, Republicans whine about losing manufacturing jobs.
>> Otoh, they're deliberately killing them.
> 
> 
> They are killing green energy jobs which have produced almost zero for
> the working class but lined the pockets of the elite with tons of money.
> 
> 
>> EVs and solar panels need manufacturing and are 21st century
>> technologies but cons want to end subsidies for them in favor of
>> subsidies for 19th and 20th century technologies that are already huge
>> and profitable.
> 
> Profitable for whom?
> Sure but companies are free to manufacture those products.
> Where is the problem?
> 
> Again, let the market decide.
> 
> Do consumers want to buy EV or solar panels?
> If so, the market will correct itself.
> 
> 
>> Now, China is the number one manufacturer of both solar panels and EVs
>> and Taiwan is the number one manufacturer of silicon chips.
> 
> Bingo.
> If EV, green energy is to be successful the raw materials and products
> need to be made here in USA.
> However if the consumers don't want to purchase the above then what?
> Continue to buy from China or move on?
> 
> However, I do agree we need to cut our dependence upon other countries for
> critical needs, drugs are a huge example.
> COVID should have taught the politicians something but I guess not.
> 
> 
>> What are we supposed to manufacture if Republicans keep cutting
>> subsidies for cutting edge technololgies and markets?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> <https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/president-trump-is-putting-american-workers-first-and-bringing-back-american-manufacturing/>
> 
> Biden's chip act was an abject failure, although a good idea.
> Do you know why?
> He demanded DEI, woke policies to which the Asian countries objected.
> His administration failed to understand that the rest of the world,
> especially Asian countries, are not idiots supporting DEI like the US is.
> 
> <https://thehill.com/opinion/4517470-dei-killed-the-chips-act/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
are you the real snit