So it's the tactical proposals, not the strategic, that you disagree with.
You suggest passing an energy bill would alleviate the situation. What specifics would you recommend?
Did I write Krugman? I meant Friedman.....My apologies to both.
I don't think either Friedman or I suggested Bush is a bonehead for not considering Friedman's proposals.
Had you noticed the oxymoron in "force democracy on them so that they can control their own destiny"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
1 comment:
Yes, I agree in conservation and developing renewable resources as a strategy. The trick is finding a way to make the shift without hurting the economy.
Regarding an energy bill: I would include drilling in Anwar (and elswhere) and building nuclear plants. We haven't built a new one in 31 years...or something like that. As for cars, I'm not sure where I stand on ethanol, but that is probably worth looking into. Bush hydrogen fuel develope subsidy is a subsidy that I can live with, but I would prefer another sort of incentive - possibly a tax break. Ultimately, much of the conversion will have to be the result of natural market forces and we will likely be dependent on the middle east, etc. for some time.
The oxymoron was more or less intended. The idea was that currently people in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. don't control their destiny...their oppressive leaders do. A form of representative government, even if it is forced on them, is the only way they can control their future.
Finally, the bonehead remark: I couldn't retrieve the article when I wrote the response. I know Friedman said something to the effect that Bush's policy was crazy or some such. I agreed with everything that you said in the post.
Post a Comment