|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Senior wrote: |
Research in Nuclear energy has mostly been held back by govt favoring other form of energy in its regulatory framework. At the moment they are expensive, as more are built and technology increases they will become cheaper. This is the way markets work. When the market acts on a good, its price tends towards zero. This has been shown time and again.
They are also the one of the cleanest forms of energy.
| Quote: |
| Also, economies of scale are here right now. You just can't be convinced to be part of them. You want to throw your trash in the ground, drive your car to the corner store to pick up a newspaper that tells you everything you want to hear. |
Oh, you got me. Congratulations. You win. |
Thanks. I was itching to get that in. It doesn't mean it isn't true.
So, the billions that the government is pouring into nuclear research,is going to make plants affordable to Nairobi? No. They will become cheaper, but we aren't talking about making pencils.
Even enriching uranium is very costly.
But, the biggest cost will be political. New governmental hysterias over terrorism, and population control all over again.
Last edited by crescent on Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
It would be a small hit to my standard of living if it were implemented properly. That's all I can talk about; when you start assuming things will fail, you're just giving in to the corporatists. We as a people need to combine optimism with vigilance; focus on possibly achievable goals and then vigorously force our politicians to work towards them. This can be done, but it never will be so long as a huge portion of the nation is screaming idiotic anti-governmental propaganda. Any criticism of governemnt is a criticism of the fools that voted said government in. If you want a better government, vote in a better government. |
This is a bit like your "no Libertarian nation has ever been successful, or even existed, so Libertarianism is wrong" canard. Where have a democratic nation ever forced there govt to do the right thing? It is basically the same thing. What you propose has never actually happened, and if it has (I would cite the New Deal), it was a massive disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CapnSamwise
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, *beep* the New Deal! It didn't do anything that private corporations in a free market environment wouldn't have done, provided massive government subsidies helped ameliorate the cost! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CapnSamwise wrote: |
| Yeah, *beep* the New Deal! It didn't do anything that private corporations in a free market environment wouldn't have done, provided massive government subsidies helped ameliorate the cost! |
The New Deal prolonged the great depression indefinitely. If WW2 (though this didn't really end the depression either) hadn't of come along who knows how long it would have lasted. Sloshing money around an economy does nothing. It is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul.
At least the TARP and stimulus were unpopular with every day people. Even if they were still passed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| This is a bit like your "no Libertarian nation has ever been successful, or even existed, so Libertarianism is wrong" canard. |
If you're going to start strawmanning me this conversation's going to get a lot less amicable very quickly. I never made such an argument; my claim was that no Libertarian nation has ever been successful, and thus we have insufficient proof of Libertarian's claims regarding their social model. That's a very different claim.
| Senior wrote: |
| Where have a democratic nation ever forced there govt to do the right thing? |
Where has it happened habitually? No where, and I openly admit it might be impossible. But guess what? If it is impossible, your Libertarian dream land is even more unworkable than my proposed energy system (after all, the only way a Libertarian system could possibly remain in place is if the citizenry showed forebearance with regards to the very natural urge to shift towards socialism), so you'd better hope it's possible if you ever want to see your free-market utopia in action. So attack this idea if you like; you're only attacking your own philosophy in doing so. Funny how that works, eh?
My proposal only requires a generation of intelligent, rational voters. Your Libertarian proposals -- assuming Libertarianism does create the results you suspect it does -- would require an eternity of intelligent, rational voters to remain in place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crescent wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
Research in Nuclear energy has mostly been held back by govt favoring other form of energy in its regulatory framework. At the moment they are expensive, as more are built and technology increases they will become cheaper. This is the way markets work. When the market acts on a good, its price tends towards zero. This has been shown time and again.
They are also the one of the cleanest forms of energy.
| Quote: |
| Also, economies of scale are here right now. You just can't be convinced to be part of them. You want to throw your trash in the ground, drive your car to the corner store to pick up a newspaper that tells you everything you want to hear. |
Oh, you got me. Congratulations. You win. |
Thanks. I was itching to get that in. It doesn't mean it isn't true.
So, the billions that the government is pouring into nuclear research,is going to make plants affordable to Nairobi? No. They will become cheaper, but we aren't talking about making pencils.
Even enriching uranium is very costly.
But, the biggest cost will be political. New governmental hysterias over terrorism, and population control all over again. |
The govt shouldn't be pouring money into energy in the first place. Govt bureaucrats have no way of knowing which form of energy will be the most useful and economic in the future. Maybe it won't be nuclear. It could be something else. The market will ultimately decide, in spite of govt actions. Not because of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CapnSamwise
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, but scientists tend to have pretty good ideas. But of course anyone in Washington is either a lobbyist or a paid shill, right I forgot.
| Senior wrote: |
| CapnSamwise wrote: |
| Yeah, *beep* the New Deal! It didn't do anything that private corporations in a free market environment wouldn't have done, provided massive government subsidies helped ameliorate the cost! |
The New Deal prolonged the great depression indefinitely. If WW2 (though this didn't really end the depression either) hadn't of come along who knows how long it would have lasted. Sloshing money around an economy does nothing. It is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul.
At least the TARP and stimulus were unpopular with every day people. Even if they were still passed. |
The awesome thing about historical revisionism is that you get to make asinine claims without offering anything in the way of supporting evidence.
Funny how that works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| The govt shouldn't be pouring money into energy in the first place. Govt bureaucrats have no way of knowing which form of energy will be the most useful and economic in the future. Maybe it won't be nuclear. It could be something else. The market will ultimately decide, in spite of govt actions. Not because of. |
You do realize that we are in the situation we are in because of market forces, don't you? Why are you intent on chasing your tail?
Your argument is also weak in asserting that we don't know what forms of energy will be most useful. It's quite obvious that any renewable form will ultimately be more useful than what is used at present. Most useful...? You can't see the lack of merit in that precondition?
As you ignored in the other thread, there are countries that rely mostly on it to efficiently fuel their societies.
You are so concerned with economies of scale, and it's ultimately going to prove your argument completely invalid because there won't be an economy to fund anything if things continued to be guided by market forces.
Last edited by crescent on Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:24 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="crescent"]
| Senior wrote: |
| The govt shouldn't be pouring money into energy in the first place. Govt bureaucrats have no way of knowing which form of energy will be the most useful and economic in the future. Maybe it won't be nuclear. It could be something else. The market will ultimately decide, in spite of govt actions. Not because of. |
You do realize that we are in the situation we are in because of market forces, don't you? Why are you intent on chasing your tail?
Your argument is also weak in asserting that we don't know what forms of energy will be most useful. It's quite obvious that any renewable form will ultimately be more useful than what is used at present. As you ignored in the other thread, there are countries that rely mostly on it to efficiently fuel there societies. |
We are most certainly not in this situation because of market forces. This is a pretty popular and satisfying explanation for some, but it simply is not true. The reasons are far more complex than that. Federal Reserve tinkering with the money supply and bone headed govt regs are the main culprit.
If the govt stayed "hands off" we would be out of this recession by now. This happened in 1921 and in a few other recessions. The biggest recessions are the ones that the govt tries to "fix".
| Quote: |
You are so concerned with economies of scale, and it's ultimately going to prove your argument completely invalid because there won't be an economy to fund anything if things continued to be guided by market forces. |
I don't think you know what an economy of scale is. It's only one small part of the picture. No one can home to fully understand the entire picture. And that extends to the folk in Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CapnSamwise
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior, if things are so bad here, why not move to Somalia? No government corruption there, a bootstrappy independent self-starter like yourself could go far! Come on man, Galt up a bit! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senior:
Much like your views on the environment, i don't at all subscribe to your view that government tampering is the main reason for the present economic situation.
I do agree the issue is is more complex than what both you and I are using in this discussion, and that is part of the reason I think your summation is quite wrong. The recession of 21 was an entirely different monster, biting far less people with far duller fangs.
I do understand economies of scale. I paid attention through first year elective classes in uni micro/maco-economics, which really is all it takes. I just don't think you applying it correctly to the scope of your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crescent wrote: |
Senior:
I do agree the issue is is more complex than what both you and I are using in this discussion, and that is part of the reason I think your summation is quite wrong. The recession of 21 was an entirely different monster, biting far less people with far duller fangs.
|
Why do you think this is the case? The simple answer -Govt did nothing and the market cleared out mal-investment. This would have happened in '31 and '07 as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CapnSamwise wrote: |
| Senior, if things are so bad here, why not move to Somalia? No government corruption there, a bootstrappy independent self-starter like yourself could go far! Come on man, Galt up a bit! |
Despite all their talk about personal responsibility, I very rarely see Libertarians taking the initiative in such regards. Even if they want to disqualify Somalia as Libertarian (a case I still feel has been totally unconvincingly presented, which is why all the people attempting to make it quickly faded into abstract discussion about Libertarianism in general), there are certainly nations that are more economically free than the United States according to the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index which Sergio presented here. No one's stopping them from moving to a place more in line with their beliefs, but they don't seem to want to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| CapnSamwise wrote: |
| Senior, if things are so bad here, why not move to Somalia? No government corruption there, a bootstrappy independent self-starter like yourself could go far! Come on man, Galt up a bit! |
Despite all their talk about personal responsibility, I very rarely see Libertarians taking the initiative in such regards. Even if they want to disqualify Somalia as Libertarian (a case I still feel has been totally unconvincingly presented, which is why all the people attempting to make it quickly faded into abstract discussion about Libertarianism in general), there are certainly nations that are more economically free than the United States according to the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index which Sergio presented here. No one's stopping them from moving to a place more in line with their beliefs, but they don't seem to want to. |
It looks like Libertarians are just going do what you advocate, and try to influence the political discourse with their vote. People like Ron Paul are gaining support and money pretty quick, and the Tea Party movement is a thing. Though the Tea Party cause is pretty much dead in the water right now as they have been co-opted by the GOP.
Many people are pretty pissed off about how the US has turned out. All those things that Libertarians have been predicting for decades are coming to pass, and people are turning to them for answers.
Libertarians built the US. Why should they have to leave?
EDIT: Oh yea, one more thing. What do you call moving to Korea? Korea is quite Libertarian in a lot of ways. Lower taxes, less social services, less regulation at the personal level. How is Korea surviving the down turn? Not too bad it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
