The ecomomy and fiscal policy dance around each other each affecting the other, each influencing the other. It's much too complex with so many varibles to describe or to totally grasp... much like a person. It's easier to descibe that way so I'm gonna.
The "economy as a person" is a false analogy but sure, we can run with that.
Saying it's too complex with too many variables to grasp is patently false though. There are certain things that are sure fire ways to kill a person, such as shooting them in the face with a rocket or poisoning them with cyanide.
In the same way, passing retarded laws and taxation policies is a sure fire way to obliterate industries or entire economies.
If you want to run with the "economy is a person" analogy, fiscal policy is the nutrition, or environment of the economy.
2. It's not just Canada that has lower prices, it's everywhere else in the world. Our drug prices do mot make sense and as things stand now it borders on price fixing / monopolisitic behavior. We are forced to pay more because we can, and because the drug companies can get away with it.
There is not some magic wand that other countries use to make drug prices lower. They instead use subsidation, and it means that the tax burden in those countries is sickening. Or they can pick the even stupider system Canada uses, which is price caps.
The US pays higher prices for drugs because we actually are interested in seeing new drugs get developed. Drug companies "get away" with "monopolistic" prices because they own the patents on drugs.
There is no consitutional amendment that says you or I have the God-given right to free or even low cost, or even -any- drugs. If the person or firm that spends literally billions of dollars figuring out how to make your penis erect or your liver not shut down decides they want to actually *gasp* -recoup- that investment for a *gasp!* profit, cheers for them.
Because for every drug they "monopolisitcally scalp" on the market, they pay for the failed R&D for 8-10 others. But by all means, please call these people monopolists. I mean, after all, -patents- are by definition monopolies, but I guess that makes Intel a fucking monopolist because they dare charge money for pentiums.
3. Funding research to make hybrid / fuel cell technology more efficient and cheaper allows the governement to show the auto industry that it supports these technologies.
Why, exactly, does the Auto industry give one flying flip about the interests of government? They care about one thing only: the interests of people who buy cars. Not people who debate cars. People who buy them.
Why would a car manufacturer throw their weight into fuel cell research if they think the government has no intrest?
Because the -market- suddenly drinks from the LSD-treated water one day and says "Holy shit, I want fuel-cells for my car!" That is what it will take for auto makers to want to make fuel-cell cars. Demand. Not Government research.
Government research can help make it possible, but it cannot make the market profitable. And until the market is profitable (or has the potential) you won't see real movement on this issue by the auto makers.
Cars are not where fuel-cells will be used. It's a stupid idea. They don't cut pollution at all, and are less efficient for cars than gasoline (and will remain that way for at least decades if not generations). They are, however, not bad as portable power sources.
And I don't see you you can argue that the federal tax break for buying a Hybrid hasn't made a difference.
Tax breaks are not research. Tax breaks also affect -the market-.
