On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
<< snip >>
> One way is to increase tax rates. > > Another way is to increase the growth of the economy that is taxed. > > And yes, we can have both of the above since we can point to countless > examples in the world where both have occurred. >
Really, you need STEM-savvy engineers to do more of the talking as Economics, as a discipline, has consistently not valued solar power, as that gets them thinking of solar panels and the tiny pie slice of "the nation's" energy consumption that those represent. But of course I'm speaking scientifically, in the sense that the entire biosphere is solar driven, from wind to rain to just basic warmth and having any life at all to begin with.
One reason Economists ignore where energy comes from, and value, through the transformation of working circuitry (e.g. water wheels grinding grain) is they have a hard time accounting as wealth anything that money can't buy or hasn't been needed to buy. Now that fresh drinking water has finally become highly salable in plastic bottles, they understand the economic value of water, but when the lay folk say "the best things in life are free", the economists tend to scoff and get cynical, mainly because they do not understand science and are a superstitious lot (historically) who believe in "invisible hands" and "market forces" and other such occult players.
Most people who think and talk about money, opine incessantly about taxes and so on, are not really science savvy enough to marshall strong logic. They absorb the rhetoric from TV and radio and repeat it, but most of it is just schlock. 99% of the babble is just empty filling the airwaves, trying to sound knowledgeable. Not unlike math-teach in some ways eh?
Linking the dollar symbol and other currency symbols to kwh (energy units) is one of my curriculum goals. An arrow from the sun to the Earth, an energy stream, symbolized by a dollar sign, might be read "money from heaven". Those who tell you "money doesn't grow on trees" are among the most ignorant of the mammals. In fact we use money to buy life support and in fact what grows on trees is often life support ergo... you see what I mean? Economists are among the least logical of thinkers. Where "bread and butter" are concerned, they tend to yield to bullying, look for ways to incite fear. Economics becomes a kind of cattle herding. I'm not sure that's something we want to encourage now that we have all these powerful media and moguls looking to sell to the highest bidder. You'll get a Fear Monger in Chief going that route. I'm happy to help block any real access to the levers of power by such people. Give them fake levers to pull, so they feel important, but don't let their fear mongering dictate business planning. Does that make me a lefty, saying things like that? Hard to know.