Green Technology

Why does the conservative magazine The Economist contradict the Tea Party's 'cut spending' message entirely?
>> The immediate priority should be supporting demand?or at least not doing harm to it. The left is right on one thing: the main cause of the current high joblessness is the severity of the last recession and the weakness of the subsequent recovery. Yet the West?s economies have embarked on contractionary policies. In some cases the fault lies with monetary policy: the European Central Bank should reverse its recent rate rises. But the main culprit is a collective, premature shift to fiscal austerity by governments. As this newspaper has repeatedly argued, politicians need to strike a bargain with the bond markets: combine policies that cushion growth now with measures that will bring deficits under control in the medium term. Raise the retirement age, for instance, and that leaves more room to stimulate growth in the short term. A minimal test of Mr Obama?s jobs agenda will be whether it is big enough to counter the fiscal tightening, equivalent to 2% of GDP, that is slated for next year. Where should the short-term money go? Some forms of stimulus are better than others at supporting employment. Germany?s subsidies for shortened working hours helped dissuade firms from firing workers; Mr Obama?s subsidies for green technology fattened the bottom line of a few chosen firms but did very little to spur jobs. Governments should prioritise policies that do. Some infrastructure spending, such as building roads and repairing schools, falls into that category. So do tax incentives that cut the cost of hiring, particularly for extra new workers?which is why it makes sense for America to extend, and even expand, its payroll-tax cut. And so, in America?s case, does federal aid to the states, since the main way states cut their budgets is by firing workers. << Does that not contradict everything the Tea Party stands for? http://www.economist.com/node/21528630

Get the answers

Is the government allowed to drill for oil on its own land?
For example, say that the US was to open areas known for oil and shale deposits and allow the US government to take control of that area under imminent domain. Now, would it be constitutional for the US government drill in that area, take all the oil to sell, and sell primarily at the tax rate already expenditured on regular gas, and use it to fund research for alternative energy and increasing its efficiencies? (I believe 65% tax rate would come out to be 2.27 in accordance 3.50 priced gas) That means not only would gas prices go down, but we would also appease those who ask for drilling primarily in America ALONGSIDE those who are cheering for green technology and alternative energy. In the end, would it be legal for the US government to do this and implement this so we can compete with China's extreme capitalism?

Get the answers

Why doesn't the UK, USA and Australia join economies with a new currency named the empire?
We could get back to building quality again instead of using throw away garbage from Asia as it continues to weaken our economies. We could concentrate on quality produce again which built our economies in the first place, and pioneer green technologies. I don't think batteries and hydrogen cells are sustainable. Canada too, we could continue to bully the Euro zone and be more competitive with Asia. We could call the currency the Polar then.

Get the answers