We GREW this understanding when infrastructure became a focus with the states and their 'shovel ready jobs.'
Right?
Those projects are government projects. They do not produce any income, the costs are very large and there aren't really companies interested in building such capital investments, yet they are important.
Infrastructure connects things. Stuff like bridges provide a 'vehicle' for movement, hence commerce between people, cities, companies. Where would the USA Post Office be without bridges, roads (even country dirt roads)?
Where would the Tulip Festival in Hollard, Michigan be without access for tourism at least once a year?
The people of the USA don't CHARGE themselves for the use of that infrastructure. There is an understanding it is important, will bring jobs and it is basically a good thing. So, infrastructure projects are more or less a bonus to the people of a region. Right? Safe travel. Happy times. Togetherness. All good for commerce.
Where does capital investment in energy by the USA have a place in all this?
The consumer pays for energy. They get a bill in the mail. They pay at the pump, so how does this capital investment pay off for the people of the USA when it comes to alternative energy?
Fair question. Absolutely.
Let's begin with research.
The cost of research and development is an invisible cost to the consumer of any product. We always hear how the pharmaceutical companies complain about the cost of R&D. Recently, President Obama signed a bill extending patents so the original patent holder could make up their investment and even have more money to embark on new investment. For a longer period of time Big Pharma, or any researcher/inventor can now receive profits for their work and investment.
Why would an inventor go beyond reaping back the original investment and some profit? So, extending the patent allows growth in their own resources and incentive to continue the research and even improve on it. Right? Of course.
Then there is the investment in distribution. Once the discovery/research has met its goal the product has to be distributed. In the case of alternative energy sources, it is the GRID. Yes? It is the trucks that deliver the biodiesel, the algal plants that produce the energy source and so on and so forth. One might call that marketing, transportation and employment. Expenses.
Now, there is the COST TO CONSUMER. How many could afford to pay for the cost of a prescription without insurance? There are people that do, but, in all practicality, the goal in the USA is to have insurance to assist with the cost of prescriptions. I don't recall any energy insurance. I don't believe the consumer markets OR employers pay for energy insurance so the cost of gas at the pumps are covered to keep the cost affordable. Now, I might be missing something here, but, I don't think so.
The USA Federal Government makes capital investments in alternative sources of energy to compete with other sources. If I remember correctly any Republican, even Scott Brown, will state competition is the answer to everything. So, to carry out all that research, development of a distribution system, training for employees and infrastructure to support that distribution there is NO FLYIN' way the product would ever be developed by the private sector or be affordable to the consumer.
So. In order to move the country forward into the future, a happy future, a livable future, one we can be proud of to pass on to our children and their children and their children we have to make these investments.
I am deeply appreciative to President Obama for signing the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I am deeply appreciative to the Congress that passed it. I will receive no direct income from that bill, BUT, my children, my grandchildren and their futures will be better for it.
That reality is why we make such capital investments as a country. It isn't for us, it is for the future and the generations to follow us.
Right?
Those projects are government projects. They do not produce any income, the costs are very large and there aren't really companies interested in building such capital investments, yet they are important.
Infrastructure connects things. Stuff like bridges provide a 'vehicle' for movement, hence commerce between people, cities, companies. Where would the USA Post Office be without bridges, roads (even country dirt roads)?
Where would the Tulip Festival in Hollard, Michigan be without access for tourism at least once a year?
The people of the USA don't CHARGE themselves for the use of that infrastructure. There is an understanding it is important, will bring jobs and it is basically a good thing. So, infrastructure projects are more or less a bonus to the people of a region. Right? Safe travel. Happy times. Togetherness. All good for commerce.
Where does capital investment in energy by the USA have a place in all this?
The consumer pays for energy. They get a bill in the mail. They pay at the pump, so how does this capital investment pay off for the people of the USA when it comes to alternative energy?
Fair question. Absolutely.
Let's begin with research.
The cost of research and development is an invisible cost to the consumer of any product. We always hear how the pharmaceutical companies complain about the cost of R&D. Recently, President Obama signed a bill extending patents so the original patent holder could make up their investment and even have more money to embark on new investment. For a longer period of time Big Pharma, or any researcher/inventor can now receive profits for their work and investment.
Why would an inventor go beyond reaping back the original investment and some profit? So, extending the patent allows growth in their own resources and incentive to continue the research and even improve on it. Right? Of course.
Then there is the investment in distribution. Once the discovery/research has met its goal the product has to be distributed. In the case of alternative energy sources, it is the GRID. Yes? It is the trucks that deliver the biodiesel, the algal plants that produce the energy source and so on and so forth. One might call that marketing, transportation and employment. Expenses.
Now, there is the COST TO CONSUMER. How many could afford to pay for the cost of a prescription without insurance? There are people that do, but, in all practicality, the goal in the USA is to have insurance to assist with the cost of prescriptions. I don't recall any energy insurance. I don't believe the consumer markets OR employers pay for energy insurance so the cost of gas at the pumps are covered to keep the cost affordable. Now, I might be missing something here, but, I don't think so.
The USA Federal Government makes capital investments in alternative sources of energy to compete with other sources. If I remember correctly any Republican, even Scott Brown, will state competition is the answer to everything. So, to carry out all that research, development of a distribution system, training for employees and infrastructure to support that distribution there is NO FLYIN' way the product would ever be developed by the private sector or be affordable to the consumer.
So. In order to move the country forward into the future, a happy future, a livable future, one we can be proud of to pass on to our children and their children and their children we have to make these investments.
I am deeply appreciative to President Obama for signing the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I am deeply appreciative to the Congress that passed it. I will receive no direct income from that bill, BUT, my children, my grandchildren and their futures will be better for it.
That reality is why we make such capital investments as a country. It isn't for us, it is for the future and the generations to follow us.
