dagblog - Comments for "Hofmeister-Patzek Debate" http://dagblog.com/politics/hofmeister-patzek-debate-13091 Comments for "Hofmeister-Patzek Debate" en Central planning worked so http://dagblog.com/comment/149994#comment-149994 <a id="comment-149994"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/149992#comment-149992">Thanks for posting this,</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Central planning worked so well for the Soviet Union's energy production and environmental protection.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:31:31 +0000 Donal comment 149994 at http://dagblog.com Thanks for posting this, http://dagblog.com/comment/149992#comment-149992 <a id="comment-149992"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/hofmeister-patzek-debate-13091">Hofmeister-Patzek Debate</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Thanks for posting this, Donal.</p> <p>It is funny to hear Hofmeister cite defense professionals in the same paragraph where he assures us that environmental costs are "manageable" if we try to become "energy independent." Patzek does a great job of countering this rhetoric with simply bringing the whole matter back to asking what is the complete cost of production.</p> <p>Hofmeister's idea that we form something like a Federal Reserve to arbitrate between environmental and production concerns sounds like just the thing to make sure all the players will be good, really good risk managers. If that is what political will looks like, I would prefer to stumble forward without a plan.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:23:17 +0000 moat comment 149992 at http://dagblog.com