|
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 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:05 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I wasn't previously under the impression that there was. But the state-owned nature of nuclear power in France and Japan hardly undermines my charge that the policies of the US govt clearly obstructed the development of nuclear power in the US and also accelerated the predominance of CO2-emitting fossil fuels in the US. |
Um, yeah, but the above hardly undermines the 20/20 hindsight nature of your argument. There was a great deal of mistrust regarding nuclear energy, and there still is. I believe the actions of the government in this case reflect that of the populace they are supposed to be representing. Again, as Fox points out, this isn't really a matter of public vs. private because the govt. could have built state-controlled reactors.
The argument goes that any energy resource needs subsidies when it's the backbone of industry. Whether specific subsidies have been appropriate is another matter, but subsidies are one aspect of maintaining stability.
In an event, did "the market" play a role in obstructing the development of nuclear power in the US or accelerating the predominance of CO2-emitting fossil fuels in the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:53 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, you mean Enron, waving the free market flag, could afford to pressure government into deregulation? And then, after this blew up, it was solely the fault of government and not a failure of free market capitalism? Yup, that's what your institute says, eh? |
A market is the aggregation and dissemination of information. That's all. That Enron changed regulatory rules by buying government has fully zero implications for markets.
| Quote: |
| That's selectively dwelling on all aspects except the free market argument that was a key element of Enron's demise, and the limp argument that an Enron-like entity couldn't exist in a truly free market is 20/20 hindsight. |
What's a "truly free market"? Provide examples. And you seem focused on the argument Enron was making, not their actions, which were opposed to one another. If you want to have an ideological shouting match with your wall, go ahead. In the case of Enron, the case you brought up, the problem was corruption and manipulation. If it was a market failure, I'd happily concede, as I do with health policy, where there is market failure in the current regulatory regime.
| Quote: |
| You can't just will a free market into existence any more than you can simply will the dollar back to a gold standard. |
Good lord. Your wall must hate you.
Then, in a fit of ignorance and no-nothingism you asked "what is the free market solution to Goldman's". To which I replied, "No Goldmans". Your reply:
| Quote: |
| OK. And this is where the reality of a bunch of talking points come to fail. The anti-bailout solution appears to be allowing a full-on freefall and then rebuilding after what would be a devastating depression. I guess that's good if you want to hit the reset button and start anew with the magic free market, but I'd love to see a political party get the White House and put this into practice. |
In other words: DODGE! + complete ignorance about the current crises. The bailouts were not passed to avert a depression. Like with Enron, that was the argument given but not the actual intention. I've provided probably 30 "cites" of this on this site. Look around.
| Quote: |
| By the way, what is that T in 40T? Trillion? Link? |
You don't have google?
| Quote: |
| There�s no way to look past this sort of concentration of risk � the notional amount of derivatives exposure is $296 trillion. |
http://seekingalpha.com/article/151628-where-s-the-derivatives-exposure
96% Concentrated in the 'TBTF' banks.
(at this point, Mrs. Gopher is busily googling "what is a derivative?".)
(figures in *millions*
1 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. $81,108,352
2 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION $77,874,726
3 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. $47,749,124
4 MORGAN STANLEY $39,125,255
5 CITIGROUP INC. $31,715,734
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2009-72a.pdf
| Quote: |
| Ooh, lovin' the market. |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| Especially framing it in terms of small and medium businesses. |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| What you're de facto suggesting is that those who survive tend to be ruthless, large, or more likely both. |
Those firms who survive, either big or small, serve their customers best. In the case of large firms, who become extremely inefficient, they tend to beg to "big government" to protect them from the market. I'm convinced you are fully ignorant of local, state/provincial and federal corporatism.
| Quote: |
| So, deregulating the market and keeping government from interfering will keep big business out of politics? That's belligerently naive. And all this business about being no friend of business, just the market is idealistically silly. |
Again, you're arguing with your wall.
| Quote: |
| And, at the end of the day, that's the problem. This less government notion sounds good, but a practical method to implement such change is more elusive. In fact, what it sounds like most is that the libertarians, no friends of business, would be creating power vacuums that no entity other than business would step in to fill. "What's to be done"sounds a lot more like "this is what should have been done". Fabulous ideas for 20-50 years ago, but lacking in the current. |
Wall, again.
| Quote: |
| Well, this is coming from a guy who quite obviously chose a political position on climate change first, then started looking for data to fit said position. |
Oh yes, obviously. Clearly.
| Quote: |
| And where does he find his data? In a report commissioned by the oil/tobacco lobby.... |
You keep coming back to this. Weak, weak, weak. I don't care if Satan or Al Gore commissions a report. I'm concerned with the content of it.
| Quote: |
| But hey, they're no friends of his. Unlike all the group thinking academics, politicians, and journalists, the businessmen are fiercely independent straight-shooters, and "the market" is oh so deft at handling environmental issues. |
Wall again. |
|
| 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
