Which was money better spent, trillions on an unneeded war, or billions for electric cars?

Hm well, the thing is, from what I understand is a compilation of businessmen in the oil industry all came together and came out with a number of how much crude oil is obtainable from the Earth still. They calculated there was still billions upon billions of U.S. dollars to be made. And of course to continue occupancy in the middle east would ultimately result in oil companies (based in the U.S. and other western countries) to continue to drill and profit. I think the intake of the oil surpasses the amount it costs for the actually occupancy of U.S. troops in the middle east. For me though, to answer your question, to normalize electric cars would be the better step. For Earth, for nature and for over all health. Of course electric companies will ultimately make electricity fairly expensive when 90% of America is running on electric cars. Oil companies are already thinking of ways to market out electricity charge stations. Technology is still being found so that electricity charges can be much more quicker yet efficient to the normal electric car consumer. As of now, I’ve heard that its about a 24 hour period for a complete car charge. Its a strange thing, we are living right now, in an era of complete transition. Once everyone has an iPad/iPhone and can connect to the internet and sees what the rest of the world is consuming, war will be irrelevant. It’ll be just about getting the newest and latest. I envision a world like Japan in the future due to technological. advancements. So my stance on your question is I guess, money was better spent on neither, because they balance themselves out. But I’m not for war.

The billions spent on the Iraq and Afghanistans war was money badly spent, even without doing the math, on the war vs. investing in electric cars, in my opinion.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

Harry Truman

And before anyone jumps on me, don’t, I’m not in the mood. Don’t take this post or the Truman quote as some kind of manifesto on my part. I just think these wars were a waste of money, of blood, of life. And I felt like posting this particular quote of Truman’s. Nothing more to it than that.

@lillycoyote See? We do agree at times ;-Q

I’d imagine the money spent on electric cars lead to many less deaths, so I’d go with that. . . besides, while it didn’t directly lead to an electric cars that has mass appeal yet, it has allowed for strides in that direction.

Once we get the gas lobbyists to stop acting like dinosaurs, it will be even faster in the positive direction.

Costs less, we get more out of it (or should if the politicians let it), I’m going with electric cars.

Though I do give a point to the war for the advancements, funding, and combat testing of cutting edge drone technology which I expect will be a significant boon in future conflicts. However it’s still not worth the cost paid and it could be argued that since the military was finally beginning a serious move in that direction it would’ve happened anyway and could’ve been tested under “better” circumstances.

Wars are bad news for humanity. Any money spent on war is a waste.

Actually, it would probably be better to ask, “Which was less BADLY spent?”

I vote for the cars, at least we don’t have to kill brown people to produce them. I would also insist that all research, development, and production be done only in the U.S. The last time we had a stimulus, it created more jobs in China than in the U.S. We need to target the problem, not exacerbate it.

The electric cars bring us closer to independence from foreign oil, and doesn’t add lives on top of dollars when calculating actual costs. Besides, I’d rather get >100MPGe in something that is low maintenance and does 0–60 in four seconds than get <30MPG in a finicky thing that is slower, especially if people die to keep the latter running.

@jerv you’re righ,t of course, but we don’t get to make those decisions. It is all in the hands of our corporate masters. They don’t seem to think that we breath the same air, live on the same land, and don’t mind if people die as long as profits are good.

@Hypocrisy_Central It is definitely better to invest in research and development for the future. Not every attempt will pan out, and it is easy to find a Solandra to use as an example of a government boondoggle. But the Internet, GPS, and a great deal of what makes our culture work today came from government funded research, as did a number of medical breakthroughs that routinely save and improve quality of lives today. We should never let the fear of one failure stop us from investing in the future..

@Hypocrisy_Central one of the things that is holding our country back is our lack of funding for research and development (other than military applications). Add that to the lack of manufacturing facilities and you have a regression, not just a depression.

Business will not invest in long term and possibly expensive research. That is where the government steps in. Unfortunately all the research we did on solar cells went to China because American businessmen are no longer interested in the dirty business of manufacturing. They’re rather gamble on and manipulate the stock market while CEO’s of big companies are looting their own company.

@Hypocrisy_Central Yes, we do agree sometimes. Agreeing with you is almost as much fun as disagreeing with you. ;-)

Unfortunately all the research we did on solar cells went to China because American businessmen are no longer interested in the dirty business of manufacturing. I think part of that lies at the feet of John Q citizen. Being a union man, I sometimes believe unions are part of the problem of driving manufacturers off shore. Some things that can be manufactured here with out having to jump through tons of hoops environmentally aren’t because the combination of insurance, health cost, retirement, and wages, it is just not cost effective. Not enough that Larry Lunchmeat wants to pay at the department store. If people want to have the Made in the USA label, maybe they need to be willing to spend a little more to have that.

If I had a company building something, I would be leery of investing all on it if I could not make a market for it, or there were no market in place already. I think few companies can do what Apple did, create something and get everyone excited to own and use it.

I think executive compensation should be performance built, and not nearly so lax. A CEO who is fired should not leave the company with 8 times or more what a dozen underlings could not earn in a whole year on the job.

Maybe a collaboration with Japan on their solar cars.

Funny, I work in manufacturing at a place where over half our output is exported. The pay isn’t enough for me and my wife to live on my income alone, yet it is also far more than most foreign nations would pay someone who does what I do. Them again, if the cost of living were lower then I wouldn’t need a household income in the $30k range just to live without government assistance. So, in that, we kind of make our own pain as the vicious circle of costs and pay price us out of the market.

@jerv I feel you but no matter how low your paycheck is you need to remember where other receive less than 100 dollars per month. The cost of living is about the same yes they receive a lot less than others.

@Hibernate How many of those places where people only earn $100/month have median rents of >$900/month though? No wonder we are exporting jobs; look at the cost of living in India and you will see that I could have a lifestyle comparable to what I have now for half of my current income with no income from my wife. Why not hire two Indians for the price of one American?

Yeah I understand but you see people who don’t ahve a high income move to place where they can afford.

@jerv Them again, if the cost “Them again?” You better clear that up before the Shiite Grammarians show up to pummel you down with stale loafs of French bread. You too @ Hibernate with “….don’t ahve a high…”. LOL LOL

@jerv $1.37 for a liter of petro!?! They had better not be purchasing it from Exxon/Mobil! How is it they can have gas so cheap and we here in the US can’t? I know shipping it here doesn’t mark it up THAT MUCH. It is not like we have super fuel here. I suspect what runs in their cars to be almost as good, if not as good or better, than what he have here in the states.

@Hibernate Moving isn’t free though, especially not if you have to have a deposit down on a place to live at the other end before you move out of your old place. It’s a little more expensive if you don’t already have a job lined up; you’ll need something to live on while you look for a job… and that might take months!
The alternative is to either move in with friends/family until you can fend for yourself, or to be homeless for a while, but those are not always good options.

@Hypocrisy_Central Such are the dangers of posting from a smartphone. I’m not as young as I used to be and these screens are tiny and hard to proofread when your vision starts to go :p

@Hypocrisy_Central @jerv Sorry I’m late….they were all out of baguettes. I did get a splendid deal on two day old Italian bread though. Let the pummeling begin…