Subsidies are only good at wasting money better spent for other things, or lining the pockets of a clever few.
Raising the price of one option doesn't make the alternatives "cheaper". That's a very broken argument string. You have to keep in mind that the options are not interchangeable either. To switch from one to the other will always require an investment.
If you want alternatives to become cheaper, demand for those alternatives needs to be encouraged to increase at a consumer level. Income tax incentives, tax incentives for real estate developers and businesses to offer designated charging stations/parking spots, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clev
Regardless of their official "friendliness" status, Saudi Arabia has a large, growing and.. ahem.. active minority animosity towards us, and their government tolerates, if not encourages, terrorist training camps (unlike, say, Iraq.) The Nigerian government certainly is doing no good to its people with the money we send it, and I think we already send enough money and jobs to Mexico.
|
I don't really see the connection. You can't selectively deny which countries your purchases filter money to.
If you want to enact change in foreign affairs, then you should be writing letters to ambassadors.
Actively working to deny specific countries of an extra two dollars each year won't really affect those people you disagree with. In all likelihood they don't get any money from oil anyways.
I certainly don't get any dividends from the US steel industry.