Hurricane Katrina.

[Andy Bowden]

What do people think of the way the federal govt handled the Hurricane disaster?

Has is vindicated or killed the principle of "small govt" Libertarians support, with the state merely overseeing capitalist transaction?


Discuss.

[Montagia]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking -- forgive me, I am new (and probably more of a dissenter than communist due to my own lack of knowledge about it), but I think the federal government's handling of Hurricane Katrina was an atrocity. I mean, calling for a mandatory evacuation, and leaving the people with the fewest means behind to die! And then Bush's deliberating about whether or not to come back from vacation to handle it. Christ, if there was ever a reason to impeach this so-called president, I think we have it now. As the body count begins and the death toll becomes public, and as people have time to organize, I hope there will be large-scale protesting. I will lose all faith in the American people if we just stand by and allow this to happen.

[Andy Bowden]

Basically, im asking if under a libertarian society if there would be a FEMA to rescue people or would the poor be committing an "initiation of force" by having other peoples tax dollars rescue them from a flood.

[STABD]

this might be off topic,but.... they knew about this days in advanced, and it still took them three days to do any thing, and when they did do somthing it was crappy and week( this would never happen in cuba). but after 9/11 they were imidetly ready and off to war sooner then posible. that and the fact that 9/11 insured the united states became a facist nation. i am convinced that it was done by are goverment in order to gain complete power.

[Andy Bowden]

Definitely the way Cubans deal with Hurricanes shames the US - they've had 6 major hurricanes from '96 - '02 and only 16 people have died because of their investment into services and the way they have organised evacuations.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Definitely the way Cubans deal with Hurricanes shames the US - they've had 6 major hurricanes from '96 - '02 and only 16 people have died because of their investment into services and the way they have organised evacuations.

Its because they actually care about the people.

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.

Small state my arse. :angry:

[quincunx5]

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.


Wrong.



this might be off topic,but.... they knew about this days in advanced, and it still took them three days to do any thing, and when they did do somthing it was crappy and week( this would never happen in cuba). but after 9/11 they were imidetly ready and off to war sooner then posible. that and the fact that 9/11 insured the united states became a facist nation. i am convinced that it was done by are goverment in order to gain complete power.


Better.



Definitely the way Cubans deal with Hurricanes shames the US - they've had 6 major hurricanes from '96 - '02 and only 16 people have died because of their investment into services and the way they have organised evacuations.


If NYC government decided to tear down one of it's boroughs (staten island) to make a parking lot, and have monorail service to the lot, the parking problem would be solved! Is this desirable?

I would prefer economic/social/political freedom to poor protection. How would I solve the Hurricane problem? I'd get the fuck out of the Carribean during August and September. I would also get insurance for whatever property I have there.

--

Bad government caused damage, and Bad government was slow to respond to the damage they were responsible for.

If New Orleans was in charge of it's own levees, it would have great interest in making sure they were sufficient. That was not the case. The Army Corps of Engineers were responsible for poor design, and the Army Corp of Engineers took too long to respond.

http://www.mises.org/story/1903

[dopediana]

as you may be aware, levees were dynamited to protect the rich part of town and instead flood the poor black neighborhoods where there is much toxic waste under the ground. now that it is covered by water, the toxic material is seeping up and people are being told to leave before they die. what a disgusting atrocity. it is almost virtualy impossible to get relief if you live just outside the city. cuba and venezuela also offered their support before the hurricane actually hit. cuba specifically offered 1,100 medical experts and vast amounts of drugs to assist. the us govt ignored the offer, naturally. there is no control. people staying in the superdome are plagued with the smell of shit and dead bodies. not a happy situation to be in. the death toll is 10,000. ever since the theory of global warming developed and the more pollution put into the air, hurricane seasons have been increasingly brutal, especially over the past few years. i don't understand why people don't just own up to what is an extremely viable theory and stop being so pigheaded.

anyway, this is their idea of capitalist transaction, refusing outside aid, killing hungry looters, and letting the blacks take the hardest hit.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If New Orleans was in charge of it's own levees, it would have great interest in making sure they were sufficient.

Wrong. The well off areas would be able to afford to protect themselves and the poor would be left to drown. It would be even more of a two tier system than there is now in America.


Bad government caused damage, and Bad government was slow to respond to the damage they were responsible for.

America is closer to the type of Government you want, than to the type of Government I want. Yet you continualy complain about its incompetence. Don't you see this is the type of Government you want. The rich were free to leave by their own accord. The poor couldn't afford to leave. The Government didn't bother to help rich or poor. That is the small, unintrusive type of Government you hope for.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Hurricane Katrina and Capitalism:A Disaster in the Making (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fp14a.html)

That article breaks down how hurricanes are handled in a socialist country vs. a capitalist country.

[quincunx5]

Wrong. The well off areas would be able to afford to protect themselves and the poor would be left to drown. It would be even more of a two tier system than there is now in America.


This is retarded. The well off areas are well off because they had customers. Without customers there is no one to be well off. Without workers (which are capitalists, themselves), there is no riches, nothing to protect. This is a harmonious balance as long as there is no government intrusion.



America is closer to the type of Government you want, than to the type of Government I want. Yet you continualy complain about its incompetence. Don't you see this is the type of Government you want.


I don't want any government, your argument does not apply to me at all.

Why do people live in New Orleans to begin with? It must be because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So if you move there, don't expect others to subsidize your decision.



The rich were free to leave by their own accord. The poor couldn't afford to leave.


Why couldn't they afford to leave? They couldn't or they didn't are very different things.

[Amusing Scrotum]

This is retarded. The well off areas are well off because they had customers. Without customers there is no one to be well off. Without workers (which are capitalists, themselves), there is no riches, nothing to protect. This is a harmonious balance as long as there is no government intrusion.

Workers are not Capitalists. Capitalists have Capital and control the "means of production." And the only harmony is between the exploiter and the exploited.


I don't want any government, your argument does not apply to me at all.

Why do people live in New Orleans to begin with? It must be because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So if you move there, don't expect others to subsidize your decision.

You wish to have no form of democracy at all? No state to protect aginst aggression? No one to protect private property rights?

So 10,000 people should be left to die because you consider them unworthy of any help?


Why couldn't they afford to leave? They couldn't or they didn't are very different things.

They couldn't. Many of the people left there were below the poverty line. They had no transport and could not afford any anyway.

[quincunx5]

Definitely the way Cubans deal with Hurricanes shames the US - they've had 6 major hurricanes from '96 - '02 and only 16 people have died because of their investment into services and the way they have organised evacuations.




( this would never happen in cuba)




Hurricane Katrina and Capitalism:A Disaster in the Making
That article breaks down how hurricanes are handled in a socialist country vs. a capitalist country.


There is something obvious that I missed in all this Cuba comparison. All the cited statistics deal with just Hurricanes. The is no mention of Floods in Cuba at all. The Mississipi delta is a risk that is not taken into discussion at all. You can praise Cuba all you want, but you can not disregard geography.



Workers are not Capitalists. Capitalists have Capital and control the "means of production." And the only harmony is between the exploiter and the exploited.


This is socialist propaganda. The facts are quite different. "Means of production" is distribute. Any assets of any sort are capital goods (means of production). In the US, this is 80% of the population. The rest is too young, too old, or too retarded. True poverty exists for only 2% of the population.

The only exploiter/exploited relationship occurs between citizes and governments and between taxpayers and taxconsumers.



You wish to have no form of democracy at all?


Democracy should only be exersized as a last resort inside the smallest political unit possible.



No state to protect aginst aggression?


I don't know what imaginary benevolent state you speak of, from my point of view the state is the aggressor. Always.



No one to protect private property rights?


Private property can be defended privately.



So 10,000 people should be left to die because you consider them unworthy of any help?


Private charity and non-for-profit organizations can do a much better job.
Private organizations have keen interest in not having it happen in the first place.



They couldn't. Many of the people left there were below the poverty line. They had no transport and could not afford any anyway.


Let's see: 99+% of US population owns a TV. 99+% of population can afford to take a bus or train - if it was deemed important. 100% of population knows someone who has resources that will be kind enought to provide them (friends, family). You know you live in a high risk area and history tends to repeat itself.

You see the storm coming, and you get the fuck out of there!

[Amusing Scrotum]

There is something obvious that I missed in all this Cuba comparison. All the cited statistics deal with just Hurricanes. The is no mention of Floods in Cuba at all. The Mississipi delta is a risk that is not taken into discussion at all. You can praise Cuba all you want, but you can not disregard geography.

That is a good point, I didn't take that into account. Thanks for pointing it out.


This is socialist propaganda. The facts are quite different. "Means of production" is distribute. Any assets of any sort are capital goods (means of production). In the US, this is 80% of the population. The rest is too young, too old, or too retarded. True poverty exists for only 2% of the population.

The only exploiter/exploited relationship occurs between citizes and governments and between taxpayers and taxconsumers.

This is another debate and at the moment I cannot be bothered with it, as neither one of us will change the others opinion on the issues of exploitation etc.


Democracy should only be exersized as a last resort inside the smallest political unit possible.

Again we are polar opposites on this, however for once I seem not to be to extreme in my viewpoints. As most people wish for some form of Democratic establishment.
Also who would make and uphold laws?


I don't know what imaginary benevolent state you speak of, from my point of view the state is the aggressor. Always.

Was Poland the aggressor during the second world war. The Polish state did not wish to be invaded, however the German state wished to invade. Did Iraq wish for an invasion?
States are agressive, but, sometimes they are the victims of aggressors.


Private property can be defended privately.

With a shotgun and a pick-axe?


Private charity and non-for-profit organizations can do a much better job.
Private organizations have keen interest in not having it happen in the first place.

Only if it is profitable to do. Otherwise why sacrife money.


Let's see: 99+% of US population owns a TV. 99+% of population can afford to take a bus or train - if it was deemed important. 100% of population knows someone who has resources that will be kind enought to provide them (friends, family). You know you live in a high risk area and history tends to repeat itself.

You see the storm coming, and you get the fuck out of there!

If this was the case then why did so many people stay behind?

[quincunx5]

Also who would make and uphold laws?


Private individuals and private firms based on the contracts of non-agression. Have you ever seen two private firms competing by head-to-head violence?



Was Poland the aggressor during the second world war. The Polish state did not wish to be invaded, however the German state wished to invade. Did Iraq wish for an invasion?
States are agressive, but, sometimes they are the victims of aggressors.


My case was of internal aggresion, not external aggression. I apologize for not making that clear. But again you stumble onto my point: The German aggressors (both internally and externally) attacked Polish aggressors (mostly internal, but some external). The power of these states comes from internal aggression.



With a shotgun and a pick-axe?


Perhaps. You can also build an electric fence if you want. There are many ways to accomplish actual protection, not the illusion of protection that the state provides.



Only if it is profitable to do. Otherwise why sacrife money.


That's a silly argument. Who wants to invest money in the first place if there is a high risk of destruction? The amount of money sacrificed will be just enough to still realize a razor thin margin. The state on the other hand works differently: there is no incentive to do the job right. If it's not done right, well then clearly we need to steal more money to do it right. Wait, the same result occurs? Oh crap - we need more money.

A business that made a huge mistake would pay dearly in loss of customers. The state? no such thing would occur - it would just intrude more.



If this was the case then why did so many people stay behind?


Good question.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This guy is a fool.


workers (which are capitalists)

capitalist - An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.

worker - 1. One who works at a particular occupation or activity: an office worker.
2. One who does manual or industrial labor.
a. A member of the working class.


Why do people live in New Orleans to begin with? It must be because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So if you move there, don't expect others to subsidize your decision.

Most of them were born there. If you're born poor you have no choice.

Let me guess, they should "work hard" and everything will work out.. :lol:


Why couldn't they afford to leave? They couldn't or they didn't are very different things.

If you don't own a car, or know anyone that does, or own one but can't afford gas, and don't have enough money for you and your family to take a bus or a plane out, then you can't afford it. Not to mention the huge sums of money you'd need to put your family up in a hotel somewhere and feed them for a month or two with no job.

New Orleans is full of poor folks. 27.9% of the population and 23.7% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 40.3% of those under the age of 18 and 19.3% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line. I guess they didn't work hard enough..

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:05 PM


Private charity and non-for-profit organizations can do a much better job.
Private organizations have keen interest in not having it happen in the first place.

totally agree just look at what americans have given already to hurricane relief in . and I am not talking about celebrity assholes like Sean Penn or Celine Deion. But real americans, lending thier support, thier homes, apartments ect.

and if say if they knew about a big earthquake ahead of time hitting san francisco you can guarantee that those people would evacuate. To not heed warnings of a CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE when you do have a few days to leave is dumb. I feel sorry for those who did lose loved ones or died in the hurricane but use some common sense! most natural disasters dont give you 2 days warning!

[quincunx5]

This guy is a fool.

capitalist - An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.

worker - 1. One who works at a particular occupation or activity: an office worker.
2. One who does manual or industrial labor.
a. A member of the working class.


You pulled the definitions out of your ass. The worker and capitalist are not mutually exclusive. You insist they are only because it is the basis of socialist propaganda.

Here is a very simple example: Office worker owns a house. Many office workers own houses in a given community. This community attracts more people than live there now. The prices of the homes will shoot up (aside from new developments). Remember value is sujective - and laborers who actually built the house died 20 years ago. Well this worker sells his house for a PROFIT! You get the picture? Fool.

80% of the US population owns an asset of this sort or another. That is real wealth.

You think a CEO is not a worker? He sure is. Is he a capitalist? He sure is.
Office worker a worker? Yes. Office worker a capitalist? Yes.



Most of them were born there. If you're born poor you have no choice.


I was born in the USSR. You know that place where the majority of the population was below the US poverty line. Yet I am not there anymore. I lived in Austria and Italy, yet I am not there either. You get the picture? Only the state can stop you from moving, not financial situations. Loans are abudant in a capitalist society.



Let me guess, they should "work hard" and everything will work out.


The alternative is sitting on your ass and having others work everything out for you (much to your dissatisfaction).



If you don't own a car, or know anyone that does, or own one but can't afford gas, and don't have enough money for you and your family to take a bus or a plane out, then you can't afford it. Not to mention the huge sums of money you'd need to put your family up in a hotel somewhere and feed them for a month or two with no job.

New Orleans is full of poor folks. 27.9% of the population and 23.7% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 40.3% of those under the age of 18 and 19.3% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line. I guess they didn't work hard enough..


One can come up with all sorts of excuses for not doing jack. Given the fact that people had 2 days warning here is what 40 poor people could have done:

1) Pool whatever funds necessary to rent a U-Haul ($20).
2) They usually require gas: ~$20 (for 200 mi)
3) Pack every one in (obviously leave the back open for air)
4) Drive 200 miles away in it ($1 per mile = $200).
5) Wait for private charities to assist you.

Total cost per person = 240 / 40 = $6 (seems affordable to me)

Remember we are just talking about survival, nothing more.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're an idiot.


You pulled the definitions out of your ass.

Only if by "out of your ass" you mean Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


80% of the US population owns an asset of this sort or another.

Talk about stats out of your ass.

[quincunx5]

Only if by "out of your ass" you mean Dictionary.com


Hardly a reputable source for this kind of discussion.
And yes please ignore the rest.

Where is the part where you prove to me that they are mutually exclusive? Yeah that's what I thought.



Talk about stats out of your ass.


Federal Reserve, Census Bureau, etc... I have already provided this statistic in other threads. I would explain how it's deduced again, but then you will just ignore it like the rest.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well this worker sells his house for a PROFIT!

Well, you do realize that mortgage rates tend to be about 3 or 4%, meaning that the value of the house would have to increase by that much every year in order for buying homes and sitting on them to be profitable. Houses, though they are appreciative assets are rarely profitable.

I would say that a far more poignant demonstration would be the human being himself (or herself). A person who makes 7.50 or 8$ an hour (CDN) can take out a student loan and invest that money into themselves, after which time, they can make 2 or 3 times that amount and pay back the loan, and essentially, make a profit off of their education.

Plus, anyone can invest in something. It may not be incredibly profitable, but you can buy stocks for as cheap as a couple of bucks.

[quincunx5]

Well, you do realize that mortgage rates tend to be about 3 or 4%, meaning that the value of the house would have to increase by that much every year in order for buying homes and sitting on them to be profitable. Houses, though they are appreciative assets are rarely profitable.


Well yes. 3-4% is a typical average in a decent economy for other things as well. The point is that it is still profit. Mortgage rates are simply interest rates on housing, that is it is the cost of borrowing to finance a home. Once you buy a home, there is no determining factor to what the value of the home will be. The value of your home may go up for external reasons, such as a successful business moving in, a park being constructed, or an influx of good teachers, etc...



I would say that a far more poignant demonstration would be the human being himself (or herself). A person who makes 7.50 or 8$ an hour (CDN) can take out a student loan and invest that money into themselves, after which time, they can make 2 or 3 times that amount and pay back the loan, and essentially, make a profit off of their education.


Yes this is a good example too, but I feel mine is better simply because I show how one makes an honest profit by not doing anything at all.

[workersunity]

The government doesnt give a lick for the american people, They come out 5 days after the hurricane hits, bush finishes his vacation then they have a statement, wow a statement, they dont do a damn thing unless actions go along with them. Kanye West is right, George bush is a racist, Buses, vans etc.. are passing up people who are still in new orleans and elsewhere, fuck id be looting, these people need food,water, clothing etc.. and thats what they are primarily looting for. If your government doesnt give a damn about you, take things into your own hands, All they care about is profit, they like i said dont care about people or if they die or not, Ya i believe the statistic for cuba was 14 people.

[quincunx5]

If your government doesnt give a damn about you, take things into your own hands, All they care about is profit, they like i said dont care about people or if they die or not,


Funny how government profit is completely different from capitalist profit.



Ya i believe the statistic for cuba was 14 people.


Cuba didn't have floods.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're a fucking idiot.

Since the 60's the most people to ever die from a hurricane in Cuba was 14. They're hit by 3 - 7 hurricanes a year on average. There was no flooding in any of these right?

There is ALWAYS flooding after a cat 4 hurricane. Trust me, I live in the caribbean.

The entire island of Cuba is less than 100 miles across in most parts, the whole place gets bombarded, there is tons of rain, the sea rises, the rivers rise, etc. etc.

The flooding is never that bad in Cuba though because of things in place like proper draining.

Shit, here in my country a rain storm killed hundreds of people last year. Rain.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:39 PM
You're a fucking idiot.

Since the 60's the most people to ever die from a hurricane in Cuba was 14. They're hit by 3 - 7 hurricanes a year on average. There was no flooding in any of these right?

There is ALWAYS flooding after a cat 4 hurricane. Trust me, I live in the caribbean.

The entire island of Cuba is less than 100 miles across in most parts, the whole place gets bombarded, there is tons of rain, the sea rises, the rivers rise, etc. etc.

The flooding is never that bad in Cuba though because of things in place like proper draining.

Shit, here in my country a rain storm killed hundreds of people last year. Rain.
Oops! Guess who gets a warning for flaming! :lol:

But really quincunx, No floods in Cuba? You really are an idiot.

[quincunx5]

But really quincunx, No floods in Cuba? You really are an idiot.


Hmm... let's think really hard. Was New Orleans consumed by RAIN?

NO, I think not. Rain means shit when you have an entire region that is BELOW sea level. You got a lake on top and the world's longest river below. Talk about a FLOOD hot spot.



Since the 60's the most people to ever die from a hurricane in Cuba was 14. They're hit by 3 - 7 hurricanes a year on average.


Maybe Cuba is much better at handling hurricanes precisely because it gets struck so frequently.
Just like Japan is much better at handling earthquakes.

---

Having taken the time myself to look the ol' stats, the hurricane you speak of is Hurricane Dennis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dennis



Dennis caused at least 71 deaths in the United States and Caribbean.




In Cuba, Hurricane Dennis left 16 people dead


Hmm, 16 people died in cuba, 71 died altogether in carribean and US...
This doesn't exactly make a strong case for Cuba.

Also don't bother to remember Hurricane Flora that hit Cuba in 1963, killing 7-8 thousand. This was back when Cuba was getting nice fat subsidies from the soviet union.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Read the original article that I posted, half of these things were already mentioned.

Wikipedia isn't a realiable source. The UN says 14, Cuba says 10. I went with the UN so you wouldn't cry bias.

You act as if these hurricanes that hit Cuba are just weak and that's why their death toll is so low.

"Last September, a Category 5 hurricane battered the small island of Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. More than 1.5 million Cubans were evacuated to higher ground ahead of the storm. Although the hurricane destroyed 20,000 houses, no one died."

After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation. ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, "The Cuban way could easily be applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their population as well as Cuba does."

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/septiembr...5/marjorie.html (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/septiembre/lun5/marjorie.html)


Maybe Cuba is much better at handling hurricanes precisely because it gets struck so frequently.
Just like Japan is much better at handling earthquakes.

Yeah that's it! :lol:

[quincunx5]

Wikipedia isn't a realiable source. The UN says 14, Cuba says 10. I went with the UN so you wouldn't cry bias.


Hello? 10-20 is a low number of deaths, regardless of which it is closer to. Wikipedia is fine for things like this as they get their data from various sources.



You act as if these hurricanes that hit Cuba are just weak and that's why their death toll is so low.


Are you dim? The hurricane that hit Cuba killed proportionately the same amount of people in the US and the rest of the Carribean. Do you understand comparisons?



After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation. ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, "The Cuban way could easily be applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their population as well as Cuba does."


I could care less what this person says, most of it seems to be an opinion.

[Osman Ghazi]

I could care less what this person says, most of it seems to be an opinion.


Yeah, why would the head of the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction know anything about reducing disasters?

[NovelGentry]

The hurricane that hit Cuba killed proportionately the same amount of people in the US and the rest of the Carribean. Do you understand comparisons?

If he doesn't, I do, and this is horrible. To be accurate you'd have to look at the land area (and the population of that) which was affected in the US. It's common for hurricanes to pass over ALL of Cuba, while in the US, they may only hit a portion of Florida before going off to sea. You'd also have to look at population density over the area along with where it hit directly, etc. In short, there's a lot more than either of you are probably willing to put into understanding whether they are truly comparible. One thing that seems certain, however, is that in Cuba they ensure evacuation and make it possible, where in the US it would appear evacuation is not an option for many.

[quincunx5]

If he doesn't, I do, and this is horrible. To be accurate you'd have to look at the land area (and the population of that) which was affected in the US. It's common for hurricanes to pass over ALL of Cuba, while in the US, they may only hit a portion of Florida before going off to sea. You'd also have to look at population density over the area along with where it hit directly, etc.


I'm well aware of this. If you actually made the most correct comparison you would see that way more people should have died in the US. I used an expedient method to prove that Cuba is not at all better in this respect. That was the point.

I find it amusing that you still try to defend Cuba in the face of facts.



why would the head of the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction know anything about reducing disasters?


He doesn't! He wants to obtain power to do whatever he wants. Notice he doesn't show how it's done.
He only tell you that what works in Cuba, must work everywhere else.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What facts? Did I miss a source somewhere in your last post?

The real question is do you understand comparisons?

Hurricane Dennis, the one you are "compairing." Did the same amount of people die? Yes. Was the U.S. hit as hard as Cuba? Not nearly.

In Cuba:
"120,000 houses had been heavily damaged, with 15,000 totally destroyed. At least 1000 electrical poles and 36 high-tension towers were toppled, leaving 2.5 million people without electricity. Fierce winds flattened 12,000 hectares of banana trees and damaged a 360,000 tonne-crop of oranges and grapefruit. Many hospitals, schools and sports facilities were also damaged."

The damage was not even comparable in the U.S. because Dennis didn't hit it nearly as hard as it hit Cuba -- and yet still the same amount of people died.

"The official number of dead in Cuba is ten. This seems like a remarkably low number given the strength and duration of the storm over the island."
Link (http://www.disastercenter.com/Tropical%20Storm%20-%20Hurricane%20-%20Dennis.htm)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:32 PM
this might be off topic,but.... they knew about this days in advanced, and it still took them three days to do any thing, and when they did do somthing it was crappy and week( this would never happen in cuba). but after 9/11 they were imidetly ready and off to war sooner then posible. that and the fact that 9/11 insured the united states became a facist nation. i am convinced that it was done by are goverment in order to gain complete power.
of course it wouldn't happen in cuba, most of that population lives in the same squalor that Katrina victims were left in in the first place


this would never happen in cuba

LOL, get serious, the cubans would just start executing anyone even looking funny right away

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:11 PM

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.


LOL, what an idiot.

How easily the pro-big-government Euro-Scum forget the unprecedented European heat wave 2 years ago during which your fantastic, big-tax, big state government let 40,000+ people die? Where was your great infrastructure and state sponsored safety net there? That disaster's death toll will likely be 40x worse than that of the Katrina disaster. Not only that, but even through that tragedy, you didn't have a bunch of American pundits snub their nose at Europe as you so pretentiously do here (with not a leg of logic to stand on at that).

Of course, leftists never let THE FACTS get in the way of a quote such as this.

So, I guess you are right, something like this would never hapen in Europe. Europe is reserved for even greater tragedies with an even more inept response.

[Commie Girl]

of course it wouldn't happen in cuba, most of that population lives in the same squalor that Katrina victims were left in in the first place

Really? Is that what you saw the last time you were in Cuba? :lol: I dont remember seeing that at all!

This from a very credible source:Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists



Last September, a Category 5 hurricane battered the small island of Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. More than 1.5 million Cubans were evacuated to higher ground ahead of the storm. Although the hurricane destroyed 20,000 houses, no one died.

What is Cuban President Fidel Castro's secret? According to Dr. Nelson Valdes, a sociology professor at the University of New Mexico, and specialist in Latin America, "the whole civil defense is embedded in the community to begin with. People know ahead of time where they are to go."

"Cuba's leaders go on TV and take charge," said Valdes. Contrast this with George W. Bush's reaction to Hurricane Katrina. The day after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Bush was playing golf. He waited three days to make a TV appearance and five days before visiting the disaster site. In a scathing editorial on Thursday, the New York Times said, "nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis."

"Merely sticking people in a stadium is unthinkable" in Cuba, Valdes said. "Shelters all have medical personnel, from the neighborhood. They have family doctors in Cuba, who evacuate together with the neighborhood, and already know, for example, who needs insulin."

They also evacuate animals and veterinarians, TV sets and refrigerators, "so that people aren't reluctant to leave because people might steal their stuff," Valdes observed.

After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation. ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, "The Cuban way could easily be applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their population as well as Cuba does."

It is also interesting to know that Cuban President Fidel Castro has offered to send 1100 fully equipped Cuban Doctors to the hurricane area to help in controlling disease. So far no response.


When Hurricane Ivan hit Cuba, no curfew was imposed; yet, no looting or violence took place. Everyone was in the same boat.


We await your response after you visit Cuba!!! :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

QUOTE (Armchair.Socialism. @ Sep 7 2005, 04:11 PM)


I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.



LOL, what an idiot.

How easily the pro-big-government Euro-Scum forget the unprecedented European heat wave 2 years ago during which your fantastic, big-tax, big state government let 40,000+ people die? Where was your great infrastructure and state sponsored safety net there? That disaster's death toll will likely be 40x worse than that of the Katrina disaster. Not only that, but even through that tragedy, you didn't have a bunch of American pundits snub their nose at Europe as you so pretentiously do here (with not a leg of logic to stand on at that).

Of course, leftists never let THE FACTS get in the way of a quote such as this.

So, I guess you are right, something like this would never hapen in Europe. Europe is reserved for even greater tragedies with an even more inept response.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

In Europe where the the state is considerably larger


How large? 150 square meters? :huh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How easily the pro-big-government Euro-Scum forget the unprecedented European heat wave 2 years ago during which your fantastic, big-tax, big state government let 40,000+ people die?

I'd like to know where you got that figure from.

[Amusing Scrotum]

How easily the pro-big-government Euro-Scum forget the unprecedented European heat wave 2 years ago during which your fantastic, big-tax, big state government let 40,000+ people die? Where was your great infrastructure and state sponsored safety net there? That disaster's death toll will likely be 40x worse than that of the Katrina disaster. Not only that, but even through that tragedy, you didn't have a bunch of American pundits snub their nose at Europe as you so pretentiously do here (with not a leg of logic to stand on at that).

A heat wave is slightly different from a hurricane. For a start, people can't be evacuated half as easily from a heat wave as they can a hurricane. Been as most of central Europe was affected, where were the people affected meant to go?
Plus the casualties from these heat waves had more to do with the heat, which cannot be escaped, than the type of Government incompetency, as was evident in New Orleans. If these heat waves had struck America, the death toll would have been about the same.
The deaths from these heatwaves were in the main, unavoidable. Unlike the majority of deaths in New Orleans.


Of course, leftists never let THE FACTS get in the way of a quote such as this.

You know the fact is, that Cuba has suffered many hurricanes just as bad as Katrina, and the human cost of these hurricanes was nowhere near as great as it was in New Orleans.
Think about that. Cuba, a country under embargo for 30 years, making it poor in comparison to other countries. Under a Socialist system of Governance, was able to avoid the kind of suffering evident in New Orleans.


So, I guess you are right, something like this would never hapen in Europe. Europe is reserved for even greater tragedies with an even more inept response.

Is that your attempt at humour?

[Capitalist Imperial]

If you think the argument that cuba is somehow a better nation because they have a better hurrican record, your argument was flawed at best. There are too many differences between the nations in both geography and population for there to be a comparison.

The hurricane was not the problem in New Orleans, the levy breaks were. And, the citizens there were in fact given ample warning to leave well before the Hurricane approched landfall.

It is so clear that leftists are obviously politicizing a natural disaster to fit their agenda.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:44 PM

A heat wave is slightly different from a hurricane. For a start, people can't be evacuated half as easily from a heat wave as they can a hurricane. Been as most of central Europe was affected, where were the people affected meant to go?
Plus the casualties from these heat waves had more to do with the heat, which cannot be escaped, than the type of Government incompetency, as was evident in New Orleans. If these heat waves had struck America, the death toll would have been about the same.
The deaths from these heatwaves were in the main, unavoidable. Unlike the majority of deaths in New Orleans.


Translation:

You have me there, CI, but I'm going to make all kind of excuses for Europe and circumvent the fact that the Europeans failed much more horribly, even with bigger government, but I'm still going to attack America.

Such obvious Bullshit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Sep 18 2005, 12:06 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Sep 18 2005, 12:06 AM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 11:44 PM

A heat wave is slightly different from a hurricane. For a start, people can't be evacuated half as easily from a heat wave as they can a hurricane. Been as most of central Europe was affected, where were the people affected meant to go?
Plus the casualties from these heat waves had more to do with the heat, which cannot be escaped, than the type of Government incompetency, as was evident in New Orleans. If these heat waves had struck America, the death toll would have been about the same.
The deaths from these heatwaves were in the main, unavoidable. Unlike the majority of deaths in New Orleans.


Translation:

You have me there, CI, but I'm going to make all kind of excuses for Europe and circumvent the fact that the Europeans failed much more horribly, even with bigger government, but I'm still going to attack America.

Such obvious Bullshit. [/b]
Good job completely ignoring a valid argument. Your behaviour is verging on that of a troll.

[Capitalist Imperial]

NoXion, it seems that you consider all arguments against me as viable, yet when I point out another's dodging, you simply accuse me of avoiding the argument. It should be self evident that the argument wasn't really valid at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2005, 01:04 AM
NoXion, it seems that you consider all arguments against me as viable, yet when I point out another's dodging, you simply accuse me of avoiding the argument. It should be self evident that the argument wasn't really valid at all.
Yes it was valid - you were making a comparison between hurricanes and heatwaves, two phenomena with very different effects, and when AS called you out on it, you simply accused him of avoiding the issue.

And I'd still like to know where you got the 40,000 figure from.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you think the argument that cuba is somehow a better nation because they have a better hurrican record, your argument was flawed at best. There are too many differences between the nations in both geography and population for there to be a comparison.

The hurricane was not the problem in New Orleans, the levy breaks were. And, the citizens there were in fact given ample warning to leave well before the Hurricane approched landfall.

I didn't say Cuba was a better nation because they have a better hurricane record. I was reffering to how different types of Government, respond differently to natural disasters. How with a Socialist Government, Cuba managed the effects of hurricanes pretty well. Compared to that of the Conservative American Government, whose management of Katrina and its effects, was disgraceful.

Also on a geographical note, Cuba being a small island, is at a greater disadvantage when dealing with natural disasters.

Plus the levys broke because they were underfunded and the people who couldn't leave, stayed, because they couldn't afford to leave.


It is so clear that leftists are obviously politicizing a natural disaster to fit their agenda.

Everything is a political issue.


Translation:

You have me there, CI, but I'm going to make all kind of excuses for Europe and circumvent the fact that the Europeans failed much more horribly, even with bigger government, but I'm still going to attack America.

Such obvious Bullshit.

You disregarded Cubas response to hurricanes because "There are too many differences between the nations in both geography and population for there to be a comparison."
Yet you seem to think a heatwave and a hurricane provide a better comparison regarding effective Government. It is your arguments that are "obvious Bullshit."

[Freedom Works]

Plus the levys broke because they were underfunded and the people who couldn't leave, stayed, because they couldn't afford to leave.

So you have a choice: steal more wealth to *maybe* make the levys function correctly, or not steal the wealth and let people live their own lives.

[Amusing Scrotum]

So you have a choice: steal more wealth to *maybe* make the levys function correctly, or not steal the wealth and let people live their own lives.

Thank you "Freedom Works" for that inciteful and intelligent response. You sliced through my whole argument, with an incredibly accurate two line response. The meticulaous way you have tore my political opinions apart, has left me stunned and despondent.

It also highly amusing, how someone with such a high standard of political intelligence, states in his Member Title "Collectivism has no logic". I suggest to you, your one line quips, which require no more thought than picking ones nose, show that it is your opinions, that have "no logic".

[Freedom Works]

You sliced through my whole argument, with an incredibly accurate two line response.
The truth hurts.


I suggest to you, your one line quips, which require no more thought than picking ones nose, show that it is your opinions, that have "no logic".
Well, I suggest, to you, to learn, that you, just commited, the burden of proof fallacy.

[quincunx5]

Plus the levys broke because they were underfunded and the people who couldn't leave, stayed, because they couldn't afford to leave.


They couldn't afford to leave because the government has been paying them to stay. Otherwise they would have moved elsewhere to more opportunity. The way people did in the past.

Let's also not forget this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp



But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at "the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands." The lawsuit stated, "Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley." In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations.

The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.
But it is just one illustration of a destructive river-management philosophy that took hold in the '90s, influenced the Clinton administration, and had serious policy consequences. Put simply, it's impossible to understand the delays in building levees without being aware of the opposition of the environmental groups to dams, levees, and anything that interfered with the "natural" river flow. The group American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy, has for years actually called its campaign, "Rivers Unplugged."

Over the past few years, levees came to occupy the same status for environmental groups as roads in forests - an artificial barrier to nature. They frequently campaigned against levees being built and shored up on the nation's rivers, including on the Mississippi.

In 2000, American Rivers' Mississippi River Regional Representative Jeffrey Stein complained in a congressional hearing that the river's "levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of its ability … to sustain itself." Similarly, the National Audubon Society, referring specifically to Louisiana, has this statement slamming levees on its website, "Levees have cut off freshwater flows, harming fishing and creating salt water intrusion." The left-leaning Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, in describing a grant it gave to Environmental Defense, blasted "the numerous levees and canals built on the lower Mississippi River" because "such structures disrupt the natural flows of the Mississippi River's sediments."

Some went beyond opposition to building or repairing levees. At an Army Corps of Engineers meeting concerning the Mississippi River in 2002, Audubon official Dan McGuiness even recommended "looking at opportunities to lower or remove levees [emphasis added]" from the river.

The groups argued that the "natural" way would lead to better river management, but it was clear they had other agendas in mind besides flood control. They were concerned because levees were allegedly threatening their beloved exotic animals and plants. In his testimony, American Rivers's Stein noted that the Mississippi River was home to "double-crested cormorant, rare orchids, and many other species," which he implied were put at risk by man-made levees.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 18 2005, 05:03 PM

Plus the levys broke because they were underfunded and the people who couldn't leave, stayed, because they couldn't afford to leave.

So you have a choice: steal more wealth to *maybe* make the levys function correctly, or not steal the wealth and let people live their own lives.
Are you completely fucking stupid? Those levies would not have broken had they been properly maintained, and maintanence costs money.

I'm curious as to how it would have been managed under your libertarian paradise.


They couldn't afford to leave because the government has been paying them to stay.

Really? Elaborate.


Otherwise they would have moved elsewhere to more opportunity.

It's quite hard to move and set up a business when you can barely afford to feed yourself and pay the bills.


The way people did in the past.

Oh you mean back when there was less government intervention and people worked 16 hour days for less pay? You mean those halcyon days when there was no welfare and a business owner could freely treat his workers like shit? Why do you think we have worker's rights in the first place dumbfuck?

[Freedom Works]

Those levies would not have broken had they been properly maintained, and maintanence costs money.
Sure, but they don't have to cost taxpayer money.
Anyway, they still would have broken, because they were designed to withstand a F3 hurricane, oh how great those Army Core of Engineer guys are!


It's quite hard to move and set up a business when you can barely afford to feed yourself and pay the bills.
Even harder when American Liberals are telling you you are an evil exploitative capitalist, and take more of your wealth as you become more prosperous.


Oh you mean back when there was less government intervention and people worked 16 hour days for less pay? You mean those halcyon days when there was no welfare and a business owner could freely treat his workers like shit? Why do you think we have worker's rights in the first place dumbfuck?
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topi...g48809#msg48809 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2844.msg48809#msg48809)
Brandon does a good job debunking such American Liberal myths.

[quincunx5]

I'm curious as to how it would have been managed under your libertarian paradise.


Assuming all libertarian principles applied, that is government ONLY served the functions of defence internal/external, insurance companies would be the ones responsible to build levees. Just like my car gets fixed every time some idiot fails to stop before rear-ending me.



Really? Elaborate.


When one is actually poor, they will take up the means to improve their station. When governments come along and hand out welfare (which is the majority of those that were 'too poor' to leave) they distort this natural tendency for one to improve their station.



It's quite hard to move and set up a business when you can barely afford to feed yourself and pay the bills.


You start a business with a loan. Loans are cheap in a capitalist society. If you didn't think your business had any chance of success you wouldn't start it.



Oh you mean back when there was less government intervention and people worked 16 hour days for less pay? You mean those halcyon days when there was no welfare and a business owner could freely treat his workers like shit? Why do you think we have worker's rights in the first place dumbfuck?


Increased labor productivty with wise capital investment is what reduced working hours.

You actually think that creating a legal framework based on 'worker's rights' is what caused working hours to drop?

We have worker's rights precisely because of government intervention. It's a great political tool to use on an unsuspecting public. The working day was reduced to 8 hours AFTER businesses already had 8 hour days. Creating 'worker's rights' had the effect of creating unemployment for those that could least afford to not work. Yes, I know facts are stubborn things, you dumbfuck.

In fact it's very typical of government to create a PROBLEM in the first place, and then get credit for the SOLUTION afterward. It can especially do so after the problem creation has been forgotten by the general public.

[Freedom Works]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:39 AM
In fact it's very typical of government to create a PROBLEM in the first place, and then get credit for the SOLUTION afterward.
i.e., the Great Depression.

[quincunx5]

i.e., the Great Depression.


Pretty much any time the Gov has had control of Money.

[Andy Bowden]

When Governments come along and hand out welfare they distort this natural tendency for one to improve their situation

Why is it then, in the UK after the Welfare state was introduced employment increased and when Maggie Thatcher systematically destroyed the welfare state the UK had unemployment levels in the millions, much higher than under Labour?

[Amusing Scrotum]

The truth hurts.

Once again, your wit and intellect astound me.

:blink:


Well, I suggest, to you, to learn, that you, just commited, the burden of proof fallacy.

Enough commas?

"The burden of proof fallacy." :lol:

[quincunx5]

Why is it then, in the UK after the Welfare state was introduced employment increased and when Maggie Thatcher systematically destroyed the welfare state the UK had unemployment levels in the millions, much higher than under Labour?


Thatcher did not practice what she preached. Duh. She alone can not control the economy (and you know it), That job is solely in the hands of the central bank.

There was inflation and an overall increase in government expenditures.

Inflation AND the welfare state PRIOR to Thatcher is what caused unemployment during her term.

Bad economic policies can take years to show. Keynesians policies have been shown numerous times to be disastrous in the long run.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Inflation AND the welfare state PRIOR to Thatcher is what caused unemployment during her term.

Not the decision to close down the mines and put thousands of men out of work. Surely when the Government of that time, closes down a major industry and lays of its workers. The unemployment caused is not the fault of the previous Government, which kept that industry running.

Or are my conclusions completely absurd and lacking of any Economic Logic? ;)

[Andy Bowden]

Mass unemployment in the UK was a result of the destruction of our industries, like manufacturing. Now we are a service based economy.

[quincunx5]

Not the decision to close down the mines and put thousands of men out of work. Surely when the Government of that time, closes down a major industry and lays of its workers. The unemployment caused is not the fault of the previous Government, which kept that industry running.

Or are my conclusions completely absurd and lacking of any Economic Logic?


Yes.

By the same logic the government should have enforced the typewriter industry all the way through today when demand for computers is high and demand for typewriters is practically non-existant. We should always delay natural progress in the name of some vagueness of justice.

Remember, government does not create wealth, it merely channels it arbitrarily.

The decision to close down the mines were made indirectly by the CONSUMERS.

Also, what about all the tree-hugging environmentalist fanatics that are so against burning fossil fuels? They played a role too. They too went under the collectivist banner, never realizing that their victories were also their failures.



Mass unemployment in the UK was a result of the destruction of our industries, like manufacturing. Now we are a service based economy.


Yeah, progress is a *****.

Let me rephrase your sentence to correspond with the 1700's:

Mass unemployment in the UK was a result of the destruction of our industries, like agriculture. Now we are a manufacturing based economy.

Again, consumers decide the direction of industries. It's a harmonious balance, that is constantly disrupted by government interference.

[Amusing Scrotum]

By the same logic the government should have enforced the typewriter industry all the way through today when demand for computers is high and demand for typewriters is practically non-existant. We should always delay natural progress in the name of some vagueness of justice.

That is a valid point, however, it is worth pointing out that the typewriter was made extinct by the modern PC. Coal is still used and there is no progression regarding its use. Alternatives are now used, which do not constitute progression, rather, simply a switch. You see the difference?


The decision to close down the mines were made indirectly by the CONSUMERS.

The decision to close the mines were, a purely a political decision. The consumer played little to no part in this decision.


Also, what about all the tree-hugging environmentalist fanatics that are so against burning fossil fuels? They played a role too. They too went under the collectivist banner, never realizing that their victories were also their failures.

I am not a tree hugging environmentalist, as I am not a primitivist. However in hindsight those same tree hugging environmentalists, will be kicking themselves. As clean coal, is now regarded as a reasonably good environmental option.

[Andy Bowden]

yeah progress is a *****

But it's not progress. The jobs which people now have are in the service sector, which are far more insecure and not as well paid as manufacturing jobs were. As for the mines, the British Govt was subsidising the Nuclear industry to the tune of millions - the real reason the mines were shut down was to get rid of a lefty union.

[quincunx5]

That is a valid point, however, it is worth pointing out that the typewriter was made extinct by the modern PC. Coal is still used and there is no progression regarding its use. Alternatives are now used, which do not constitute progression, rather, simply a switch. You see the difference?


The existence of alternatives is progress. Switching to lower operating costs and higher energy output is progress.

Your first sentence is sound, but your third discredits the first.



The decision to close the mines were, a purely a political decision. The consumer played little to no part in this decision.


Bollocks! The consumer was paying a lower price because the industry was heavily subsidized in the first place. When it became obvious to the government that the consumer demand for coal-based products was declining, the gov decreased the subsidies.

It was not purely a political decision. The political decision came after consumer action.

So here you have a simple illustration of what governments do: It artificially strengthens an industry, and then weakens it.



But it's not progress. The jobs which people now have are in the service sector, which are far more insecure and not as well paid as manufacturing jobs were.


One reason people went into the service sector was because unions kept them out of the manufacturing jobs. Did you forget that unions only raise wages for some, at the cost of exluding others?



I am not a tree hugging environmentalist, as I am not a primitivist. However in hindsight those same tree hugging environmentalists, will be kicking themselves.


I never called you such. All I'm merely saying is that those who felt deep down inside that they were doing "good", created a problem of a different sort. They did this because real-world economics was out of their grasp, or they just consciously ignored it.



As clean coal, is now regarded as a reasonably good environmental option.


It may be so, but it still has a lower density of energy than Nuclear energy. We need to explore all sorts of alternatives. I think you will agree here.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The existence of alternatives is progress. Switching to lower operating costs and higher energy output is progress.

The removal of coal as a mainstream energy source in Britain, has not in any way lowered energy costs. Energy prices are incredibly expensive today.
Add to that the cost of the communites destroyed by the pits shutting, the resulting increases in crime and drug addiction. And it is quite easy to see moving away from coal, was not cost efficient to the country as a whole.


Your first sentence is sound, but your third discredits the first.

Tiffle.


Bollocks! The consumer was paying a lower price because the industry was heavily subsidized in the first place. When it became obvious to the government that the consumer demand for coal-based products was declining, the gov decreased the subsidies.

It was not purely a political decision. The political decision came after consumer action.

So here you have a simple illustration of what governments do: It artificially strengthens an industry, and then weakens it.

The mines were closed because, Thatcher wanted rid of a Union which had already destroyed her Party once. It was a direct attack on the working class movement of that time and typical of a right wing cow, who deemed that tampons could have V.A.T. on them because, women could use rags instead. Progress and consumer action, my arse.


I never called you such. All I'm merely saying is that those who felt deep down inside that they were doing "good", created a problem of a different sort. They did this because real-world economics was out of their grasp, or they just consciously ignored it.

Saying tree huggers have no grasp on real-world economics, may be a statement of substance. However the technology tree huggers promote, solar, tidal, wind etc. Are cheaper, more efficient and more environmentally friendly, renewable sources than Nuclear Power, big businesses new hard on, which is subsidised to the tune of millions and incredibly volatile.


It may be so, but it still has a lower density of energy than Nuclear energy. We need to explore all sorts of alternatives. I think you will agree here.

I agree that exploring all the alternatives should be done. However the alternatives that are chosen, should be chosen by the people who will have to live by them, not the people who will make money off them.

[quincunx5]

The removal of coal as a mainstream energy source in Britain, has not in any way lowered energy costs. Energy prices are incredibly expensive today.
Add to that the cost of the communites destroyed by the pits shutting, the resulting increases in crime and drug addiction. And it is quite easy to see moving away from coal, was not cost efficient to the country as a whole.


Again, government created an industry and then destroyed it.

You are telling me that the removal of the coal industry is what caused higher enery prices?

Where do you get your information? Please find a source that supports this. A source that actually takes INFLATION into account.

I would think that another reason for higher energy prices is due to the increasing demand in Asia.

Higher crime rate and drug addiction is a direct result of DRUG LAWS.



The mines were closed because, Thatcher wanted rid of a Union which had already destroyed her Party once. It was a direct attack on the working class movement of that time and typical of a right wing cow, who deemed that tampons could have V.A.T. on them because, women could use rags instead. Progress and consumer action, my arse.


You know the UK is fucked when one politican can destroy all the Unions. Perhaps there is more than this? Can you even pretend it's as simple as that?

How do you account for the fact that the economy itself was fucked before she even stepped into office?

Or how do you account for the fact all Union unemployment statistics were strictly collected from the Unions themselves not by worker questionaire?

Hmm, I'm sure the Unions had every incentive to pretend there was nearly full employment.



Are cheaper, more efficient and more environmentally friendly, renewable sources than Nuclear Power,


Rubbish, the complete opposite is true. All the alternate energy sources are extremely weak. Do you have any idea how much land/water we would need to cover with solar panels, wind turbines, and wave generators do get the same output as all the current nuclear power plants?

Do you know how many precious birds have been killed with wind power?
Do you have any idea what Whales and dolphins will think of wave generators?
The environmentalists are a fickle bunch.

Do you know that it's only cost effective to have solar panels in areas that get the most solar insolation? In the US, solar panels would only be feasible in the southwest. Do you have any idea what portion of energy cost goes into distributing the actual energy?

The best possible solution is a mixture of different energy sources.



However the alternatives that are chosen, should be chosen by the people who will have to live by them, not the people who will make money off them.


In an anarcho-capitalistic society the people living "by them" would be making money off it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Again, government created an industry and then destroyed it.

The toil of the miners created the industry, all the Government ever did was protect the mining communities from unscrupulous bosses. That is until Thatcher gained power.


You are telling me that the removal of the coal industry is what caused higher enery prices?

Where do you get your information? Please find a source that supports this. A source that actually takes INFLATION into account.

People pay more of their annual wage, percentage wise, for energy than they did before.
And why don't you show me a source that discredits it, from one of those lovely right wing think tanks.


I would think that another reason for higher energy prices is due to the increasing demand in Asia.

So wouldn't it be alot better if Britain had more energy sources? Been as demand is so high and prices too.


Higher crime rate and drug addiction is a direct result of DRUG LAWS.

Higher crime and drug addiction have been shown many times to be caused by unemployment and poverty. The argument that says "if there were no laws, there would be no crime," is absolutely idiotic.


You know the UK is fucked when one politican can destroy all the Unions. Perhaps there is more than this? Can you even pretend it's as simple as that?

How do you account for the fact that the economy itself was fucked before she even stepped into office?

Or how do you account for the fact all Union unemployment statistics were strictly collected from the Unions themselves not by worker questionaire?

Hmm, I'm sure the Unions had every incentive to pretend there was nearly full employment.

Its not that simple, obviously, but we are debating in a forum not writing a theses. Though the political beliefs, of a small Government favouring Government of that time, cannot be disregarded.

Plus the economy was "fucked" because, the Banks and company owners decided they didn't want a democratically elected Labour Government with a manifesto unfavourable to the rich. So they, the rich, decided to destroy that Government, and as a consequence they destroyed the economy.
Also even if the economy was in a bad shape before Thatcher took office, in the 18 years of Tory rule, where they depleted the public sector, the economy got worse. How do you explain that?


Rubbish, the complete opposite is true. All the alternate energy sources are extremely weak. Do you have any idea how much land/water we would need to cover with solar panels, wind turbines, and wave generators do get the same output as all the current nuclear power plants?

The space taken up would be offset by the fact the energy would be almost free. Add to that, that with nuclear power you have waste, which after years of use would take up huge amounts of space.


Do you know how many precious birds have been killed with wind power?
Do you have any idea what Whales and dolphins will think of wave generators?


And how many of these animals would be still alive when a Nuclear Reactor goes "Bang".


Do you know that it's only cost effective to have solar panels in areas that get the most solar insolation? In the US, solar panels would only be feasible in the southwest. Do you have any idea what portion of energy cost goes into distributing the actual energy?

As a plumber I can tell you that if everyone had one small solar panel on their roof and a heating system worked off it. You would end up having water that would be almost constantly warm enough to heat your radiators. And when it is not warm enough, it would still need only a little energy to bring it up to the temperature needed for a central heating system. This would work almost anywere in the world and one small solar panel on a roof of a house would be virtually hidden.
Little changes would save a load of energy.


The best possible solution is a mixture of different energy sources.

Yes, a mixture of tidal, solar and wind.


In an anarcho-capitalistic society the people living "by them" would be making money off it.

Yes, they would make money off a Nuclear Power Plant and as a bonus they could get cancer for free.

[quincunx5]

The toil of the miners created the industry, all the Government ever did was protect the mining communities from unscrupulous bosses. That is until Thatcher gained power.


Ha ha ha. Consumer demand and enterpeneurial talent created work for the miners. All government did was artificially 'protect' current miners at the cost of exluding new miners. It took credit for the natural wage raises brought about by an increase in labor productivity.



People pay more of their annual wage, percentage wise, for energy than they did before.


Yes, way back in 1870 it was practically zero. That was a joke.

I get an electric bill every month that states:
You pay - 0.197/KWH
Market price - 0.137/KWH

Interesting, no? Governments distort the market through regulation. I've always wondered why they would bother telling me the market price, when where I live, I can only buy from a government created monopolist.



And why don't you show me a source that discredits it, from one of those lovely right wing think tanks.


I always thought that raw economic data was unbiased.
Should I find such data (later) I will make my own conclusions.



Higher crime and drug addiction have been shown many times to be caused by unemployment and poverty. The argument that says "if there were no laws, there would be no crime," is absolutely idiotic.


I agree. I never said there would be no crime. I said their would be less crime. I am not familiar with current British crime policies, but I know that in the US roughly 60% of crime is drug-related.

When there were no drug laws, there was less crime per capita. It shouldn't suprise you that drug dealers LOVE it when drug laws are introduced. Just like the bootleggers were against the end of prohibition. Drug laws allow people who give two shits about the law to sell their drugs at high black market prices. They have to cover the risk of getting caught. Those who get addicted to the drugs have to support an expensive habit - hence they will resort to crime.

Without drug laws there would be no "mafias" because drugs are actually dirt cheap.

Without government there would be no "unemployment", "poverty", or "drug laws".



Plus the economy was "fucked" because, the Banks and company owners decided they didn't want a democratically elected Labour Government with a manifesto unfavourable to the rich. So they, the rich, decided to destroy that Government, and as a consequence they destroyed the economy.


That's quite an interesting Business Cycle Theory. Yet the problem occured in 1976 I believe. Thatcher didn't take office till '79. The 70's were a bad economic decade for every industrial nation. It was not an isolated British thing.



The space taken up would be offset by the fact the energy would be almost free. Add to that, that with nuclear power you have waste, which after years of use would take up huge amounts of space.


The market, not the government will come up with the most efficient use of resources. Just like it always has.

There is plenty of outer space to pollute.



And how many of these animals would be still alive when a Nuclear Reactor goes "Bang".


Very little. But we can spawn interesting new breeds of animals.



As a plumber I can tell you that if everyone had one small solar panel on their roof and a heating system worked off it. You would end up having water that would be almost constantly warm enough to heat your radiators. And when it is not warm enough, it would still need only a little energy to bring it up to the temperature needed for a central heating system. This would work almost anywere in the world and one small solar panel on a roof of a house would be virtually hidden.


I don't see how the plumber to solar panel connection makes sense.

One solar panel will not provide enough for a whole house (today, anyway).

Britain has terrible solar insolation.

You've greatly simplified by not account for energy use while solar energy is not present. You will need energy storage. That is actually the biggest cost of the whole system.



Little changes would save a load of energy.


Yes. The free market is the best way to go.



Yes, they would make money off a Nuclear Power Plant and as a bonus they could get cancer for free.


They take the money and go elsewhere.
or
A Nuclear Power Plant would not be built in a location with high liabilities.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Ha ha ha. Consumer demand and enterpeneurial talent created work for the miners. All government did was artificially 'protect' current miners at the cost of exluding new miners. It took credit for the natural wage raises brought about by an increase in labor productivity.

Yes and if the no one mined, that consumer demand and enterpeneurial talent would have been wasted. Face it, the miners made the industry great, not the lazy asshole who sat in his office all day and creamed off all the profits.


Yes, way back in 1870 it was practically zero. That was a joke.

You know full well my statement was refering to energy prices in the 1980's compared to prices today. I answer all your points, do me a favour and at least be decent enough to answer mine. If not, don't bother debating at all.


I get an electric bill every month that states:
You pay - 0.197/KWH
Market price - 0.137/KWH

Interesting, no? Governments distort the market through regulation. I've always wondered why they would bother telling me the market price, when where I live, I can only buy from a government created monopolist.

Its taxation to pay for the environmental costs of you using that energy. The polluter pays.


I agree. I never said there would be no crime. I said their would be less crime. I am not familiar with current British crime policies, but I know that in the US roughly 60% of crime is drug-related.

When there were no drug laws, there was less crime per capita. It shouldn't suprise you that drug dealers LOVE it when drug laws are introduced. Just like the bootleggers were against the end of prohibition. Drug laws allow people who give two shits about the law to sell their drugs at high black market prices. They have to cover the risk of getting caught. Those who get addicted to the drugs have to support an expensive habit - hence they will resort to crime.

Without drug laws there would be no "mafias" because drugs are actually dirt cheap.

Without government there would be no "unemployment", "poverty", or "drug laws".


You mention that without Government there would be no unemployment. Yet you support the Governments actions with regards closing the mines and causing the unemployment.
You can't support the action that caused the unemployment, crime and drug use. And then blame the Government for it, from a ideological standpoint. You are contradicting yourself.


That's quite an interesting Business Cycle Theory. Yet the problem occured in 1976 I believe. Thatcher didn't take office till '79. The 70's were a bad economic decade for every industrial nation. It was not an isolated British thing.


Its what happened. Read the accounts given by people in office at that time, Wilsons Government were bullied by the "Capitalist Class" into dishonouring their manifesto. Which naturally caused unease with the electorate and Unions and then the economical problems followed. You blame the Government, when really it was the fault of the "Capitalist Class".


The market, not the government will come up with the most efficient use of resources. Just like it always has.

There is plenty of outer space to pollute.

Yes and by the market you mean the rich 1% with almost total authority over the other 99%. They will impose their will, poor areas will get Nuclear power stations, and the rich men will get richer. Isn't the market great.


Very little. But we can spawn interesting new breeds of animals.

You point out the risks to animals with wind and tidal power, and then when I point out the even greater risk with regards Nuclear power you make a quirky remark. You didn't even grace us with some bullshit about Nuclear power stations having improved. Answer my points please. That goes as well for the issue of the Nuclear waste, which you said can go into "outer space". Provide a decent response or knob off.


I don't see how the plumber to solar panel connection makes sense.

One solar panel will not provide enough for a whole house (today, anyway).

Britain has terrible solar insolation.

You've greatly simplified by not account for energy use while solar energy is not present. You will need energy storage. That is actually the biggest cost of the whole system.

The plumber will fit the solar panel and the heating system. That is the connection.
Also the solar panel will bring the water up to a warm enough temperature nearly all of the time. Even if the water is under temperature, less energy is required than would be needed to heat up cold water. Also you don't need any energy storage, as the water is constantly being heated and circulated. Yes energy is wasted, but this energy is going to be wasted anyway as it is solar energy.

Though why isn't this simple heating system installed more often. Easy, market forces. No one can charge you for sunlight, so therefore companys lobby the Government to advocate other methods. Its companys that corrupt Governments, not the other way round.


Yes. The free market is the best way to go.

Complete folly.


They take the money and go elsewhere.
or
A Nuclear Power Plant would not be built in a location with high liabilities.

What money? Who would want to buy a house next to a Nuclear Power Station. If a Nuclear Power Station was built, the residents of the area would be stuck there.

And as far as Nuclear power is concerned, everywhere is a high liability.

[quincunx5]

Yes and if the no one mined, that consumer demand and enterpeneurial talent would have been wasted. Face it, the miners made the industry great, not the lazy asshole who sat in his office all day and creamed off all the profits.


You are getting into a circular problem. The entrepeneurs were there first, before the miners.

The lazy asshole sat in his office and did nothing? Why not just stay home?
It's as if the miners themselves actually get the coal to where it's needed, right?
They know just the right amount to mine, right?



You know full well my statement was refering to energy prices in the 1980's compared to prices today. I answer all your points, do me a favour and at least be decent enough to answer mine. If not, don't bother debating at all.


Again, you have no proof. You have to account for government subsidies, inflation, median income (or per capita). Once you had done that then you can tell me that this is so.



Its taxation to pay for the environmental costs of you using that energy. The polluter pays.


You think I pollute in my apartment? A third of my energy cost should be for pollution?
I think it's the cost of government regulated monopoly. Which by the way, are always the biggest polluters.



You mention that without Government there would be no unemployment. Yet you support the Governments actions with regards closing the mines and causing the unemployment.
You can't support the action that caused the unemployment, crime and drug use. And then blame the Government for it, from a ideological standpoint. You are contradicting yourself.


There is no contradiction. A government mistake should be corrected.
Unemployment does not last long, people find other things to do.

The unions had every incentive to pretend there was less unemployment.

Do note that it's impossible to have total empoyment, something like 2-3% is desirable. These are people who are in job transition.



You blame the Government, when really it was the fault of the "Capitalist Class".


That's because the government doesn't create goods and services (or any substatntial amount), it needs to go the market to get it's stuff. The "Capitalist Class" will jump all over the opportunity to be the one that provides the stuff.

Without government, the "Capitalist Class" will have to earn their profits from willing customers, not unwilling taxpayers.





The market, not the government will come up with the most efficient use of resources. Just like it always has.

Yes and by the market you mean the rich 1% with almost total authority over the other 99%. They will impose their will, poor areas will get Nuclear power stations, and the rich men will get richer. Isn't the market great.


So, now you do indeed think the Nuclear Power Plants are the most efficient.



You point out the risks to animals with wind and tidal power, and then when I point out the even greater risk with regards Nuclear power you make a quirky remark. You didn't even grace us with some bullshit about Nuclear power stations having improved. Answer my points please. That goes as well for the issue of the Nuclear waste, which you said can go into "outer space". Provide a decent response or knob off.


Nuclear power stations are not improved because in the US, they have been banned from building new ones since 1978.

There will always be tradeoffs. The environmentalists are a crazy bunch, they will be the ones to complain about anything and everything, and they will be the ones that will hamper all production of pretty much any type of energy source.



The plumber will fit the solar panel and the heating system. That is the connection.
Also the solar panel will bring the water up to a warm enough temperature nearly all of the time. Even if the water is under temperature, less energy is required than would be needed to heat up cold water. Also you don't need any energy storage, as the water is constantly being heated and circulated. Yes energy is wasted, but this energy is going to be wasted anyway as it is solar energy.


Ok, fool, I don't know where you live, but on this side of reality we have DAY & NIGHT, we have CLOUDS, and we occasionally have eclipses.

We need special BATTERIES to store energy when there is no SUN. This is the most expensive part.

All BATTERIES have toxic components. So now if you advocate for solar panels on every roof, then you advocate for toxic materials under everyone's house.

So tell me, were is the advantage? Should we have toxins at a Nuclear Power plants, or should we have them at everyone's house?

The people will decide what they want - and they will buy it in the market.



Though why isn't this simple heating system installed more often. Easy, market forces. No one can charge you for sunlight, so therefore companys lobby the Government to advocate other methods. Its companys that corrupt Governments, not the other way round.


Don't be an idiot. There are plenty of companies who lobby the other way as well. They would love to sell you the whole solar panel/battery storage solution.

That's why without governments, both firms would just sell, and let the consumer decide.





Yes. The free market is the best way to go.

Complete folly.


Ok, well then let's tax everyone to death and put solar panels on everyone's roofs because you have done your research and concluded that it's better.

Cost is not important, just your opinion.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are getting into a circular problem. The entrepeneurs were there first, before the miners.

The lazy asshole sat in his office and did nothing? Why not just stay home?
It's as if the miners themselves actually get the coal to where it's needed, right?
They know just the right amount to mine, right?

Yes the entrepeneurs did find the coal first. Though this gives them no exclusive right to own the coal. You see, just because an Imperial Country found a country first, and colonised it, does not mean it is their country and its resources are theirs. Finders keepers, is not something that can possibly be condoned. Morally, ethically or logically. What you promote is exploitation of one group over another, pure and simple. Though to be honest, there is nothing pure about it.

The lazy asshole did just sit in his office. You see he employed other workers to transport the coal and to work out how much was needed. Or are you saying that the owner transported the coal by himself. If so. Did he do this before or after he worked out how much coal was needed?


Again, you have no proof. You have to account for government subsidies, inflation, median income (or per capita). Once you had done that then you can tell me that this is so.

Are you saying that in 1980 there were no "Government subsidies, inflation, median income (or per capita)", and now there are?
Energy prices have risen more than wages. Making it a logical solution to find more energy resources. Therefore making the closing of an energy producing industry, wildly illogical. Surely a Capitalist will see the lost business opportunities that have occured, by the closure of the mines.


You think I pollute in my apartment? A third of my energy cost should be for pollution?
I think it's the cost of government regulated monopoly. Which by the way, are always the biggest polluters.

You are using energy? Yes.
This energy creates pollution? Yes.
This pollution harms the environment? Yes.
Should you contribute to the efforts to reduce this pollution? Yes.

Simple logic, yes, but very sensible.


There is no contradiction. A government mistake should be corrected.
Unemployment does not last long, people find other things to do.

The unions had every incentive to pretend there was less unemployment.

Do note that it's impossible to have total empoyment, something like 2-3% is desirable. These are people who are in job transition.

There is a contradiction. You supported the act, but not the obvious consequences. How is that not a contradiction?


That's because the government doesn't create goods and services (or any substatntial amount), it needs to go the market to get it's stuff. The "Capitalist Class" will jump all over the opportunity to be the one that provides the stuff.

Without government, the "Capitalist Class" will have to earn their profits from willing customers, not unwilling taxpayers.

What are you blithering on about. I was refering to the fall of the Wilson Government, yet, you decide to chant some mantra from your ideological closet. This is evasion, not debate.


So, now you do indeed think the Nuclear Power Plants are the most efficient.

Huh? Are you smoking something particually potent today?

Lets look at your first statement -


The market, not the government will come up with the most efficient use of resources. Just like it always has.

Now my response -


Yes and by the market you mean the rich 1% with almost total authority over the other 99%. They will impose their will, poor areas will get Nuclear power stations, and the rich men will get richer. Isn't the market great.

How does this show that I believe "Nuclear Power Plants are the most efficient". It conveys my feeling that Nuclear Power is the most efficient method for the rich. As, renewable energy, solar, tidal and wind, is far less profitable. And profit is what drives the market, not efficiency. You seem to have a romantic notion that the market is always acting in the interests of progress and efficiency. Its not, and the numerous patents bought by big companies on progressive technologies, which have still not seen the light of day, proves that the market and more specifically the rich who control the market, favour self preservation over progress.


Nuclear power stations are not improved because in the US, they have been banned from building new ones since 1978.

There will always be tradeoffs. The environmentalists are a crazy bunch, they will be the ones to complain about anything and everything, and they will be the ones that will hamper all production of pretty much any type of energy source.

The tradeoff in this case being a few dead birds with wind turbines. Compared with the possibility of thousands of radiation related deaths with Nuclear Power and nuclear waste, to which no credible answer has been given, as to how it will be dealt with.
The evironmentalists may be "a crazy bunch", but, they raise some serious questions, to which answers are never really given.


Ok, fool, I don't know where you live, but on this side of reality we have DAY & NIGHT, we have CLOUDS, and we occasionally have eclipses.

We need special BATTERIES to store energy when there is no SUN. This is the most expensive part.

All BATTERIES have toxic components. So now if you advocate for solar panels on every roof, then you advocate for toxic materials under everyone's house.

So tell me, were is the advantage? Should we have toxins at a Nuclear Power plants, or should we have them at everyone's house?

The people will decide what they want - and they will buy it in the market.

You seem not to understand, in the slightest, the concept I am proposing. Did I say anywere batteries would be used. No. Don't call me a "fool", when you know fuck all about the concept I am proposing. Just because you know nothing about this, doesn't make it a bad idea by default.

Plus if people had a choice. The overwhelming majority would choose solar panels over Nuclear Plants. It is companies that are subverting the peoples will. Under your ideology, where money is power and democracy is rejected completely. The majority will be trampled on, more than they are now.


Don't be an idiot. There are plenty of companies who lobby the other way as well. They would love to sell you the whole solar panel/battery storage solution.

That's why without governments, both firms would just sell, and let the consumer decide.

Yes, both sides do lobby. Its just one side has more money to lobby with.

Under your system, the more profitable solution would dominate. If the Nuclear promoters, with their superior profit capability, wanted, they could easily pay the required experts to subvert the customers opinion. The less profitable solutions, would not be able to exercise the same clout over the customer and would inevitabely lose. Your views on this seem daftly romantic.


Ok, well then let's tax everyone to death and put solar panels on everyone's roofs because you have done your research and concluded that it's better.

Cost is not important, just your opinion.

Where did I say that we should tax everyone to death? You seem to have no concept of the society I propose. In this society the will of the people would outweigh that of the few. And it is clear that people wish to have solar power not nuclear.
And "cost is not impotant". What cost is this, the millions that are used to sustain the nuclear power industry, or the extremely low cost that it entails to run an eco-friendly energy system?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Allow me to dispel some myths about nuclear power:

Quotes from here. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/economics.html)


Originally posted by Freedom For Fission
Nuclear opponents bear a share of the blame. Getting licenses and permits to build nuclear power stations is a very difficult task due to all the opposition put forth by nuclear opponents. They repeatedly file lawsuits and delay the process by years. Time is money and this racks up capital costs. Sizewell B required a full public inquiry. That is not cheap. It is somewhat disingenuous for opponents to then complain about high capital costs.

Further complicating matters is the repeated insistence by over-zealous regulating beyond on modifying designs of reactor already under construction in the name of improving safety. Not only is this expensive, but ad hoc revision to a design for a reactor already under construction actually jeopardises its reliability. In one case in America, power plants originally intended to be nuclear fuelled, were changed to coal fuelled in mid-construction. No doubt all the asthmatic children in the area appreciated that.

Similarly, opposition to the establishment of proper waste disposal facilities, which are not a technical problem but a political one, as well as proper large scale reprocessing facilities, means that the nuclear industry must continue to bear the burden of its heavily regulated waste, which could, in absence of political factors, be easily handled. Even now, the state of Vermont is trying to pass a bill that would force nuclear operator Entergy to pay $4 million per year for storing HLW on their own site (source). This tax is totally abitrary and unnecessary and is only the latest example of attempts to artificially inflate the cost of nuclear power by imposing levies that have more to do with ideology than anything else.

Please read the rest of the site before any of you go off half-cocked.

[quincunx5]

The lazy asshole did just sit in his office. You see he employed other workers to transport the coal and to work out how much was needed. Or are you saying that the owner transported the coal by himself. If so. Did he do this before or after he worked out how much coal was needed?


Coordinating things is a job.



Are you saying that in 1980 there were no "Government subsidies, inflation, median income (or per capita)", and now there are?


No, you fool, there were different levels of each. Find proof.



You are using energy? Yes.
This energy creates pollution? Yes.
This pollution harms the environment? Yes.
Should you contribute to the efforts to reduce this pollution? Yes.

Simple logic, yes, but very sensible.


But I did not create the pollution, the energy company did. What is the point of even including the market price if it has no meaning?\



There is a contradiction. You supported the act, but not the obvious consequences. How is that not a contradiction?


I have already told you. The mistake was artificially creating employment. Eradicating artificial mistakes is a good



How does this show that I believe "Nuclear Power Plants are the most efficient". It conveys my feeling that Nuclear Power is the most efficient method for the rich. As, renewable energy, solar, tidal and wind, is far less profitable. And profit is what drives the market, not efficiency.


You think Nuclear Power Plants are the most effecient because you concluded that they will indeed prevail in the market, if left alone solely to the market.

Profit is indeed efficiency. Anyone who wastes natural resources will lose profits.

Mature industries are not as profitable as uprising ones. Duh. The real profits come in when new technology is implemented.



Its not, and the numerous patents bought by big companies on progressive technologies,


Hey genius, you do know that patents are a government privelege, right? You see - no government, no patents.



The evironmentalists may be "a crazy bunch", but, they raise some serious questions, to which answers are never really given.


Yeah, like they dicked around all through the 90's when new levees for New Orleans were being evaluated.



You seem not to understand, in the slightest, the concept I am proposing. Did I say anywere batteries would be used. No. Don't call me a "fool", when you know fuck all about the concept I am proposing. Just because you know nothing about this, doesn't make it a bad idea by default.


How can I not call you a fool when indeed you go out of your way to look like one.
Please answer my question. How do we get energy when the sun is out? For now we can still get energy from the various plants, but if we all switched, then what?



Plus if people had a choice. The overwhelming majority would choose solar panels over Nuclear Plants. It is companies that are subverting the peoples will. Under your ideology, where money is power and democracy is rejected completely. The majority will be trampled on, more than they are now.


What the fuck are you talking about? There is no fucking need for democracy at all.
If people want solar panels, they go out and buy them.

All I'm saying is don't subsidize anything, not Nuclear plants, not Solar Panels, not Wind Turbines, and not Wave Generators. The price will fall with greater demand, once the Energy Storage issue has been resolved.



Yes, both sides do lobby. Its just one side has more money to lobby with.
Under your system, the more profitable solution would dominate.


If there is no government, there is no one to lobby. It's a fair market.



If the Nuclear promoters, with their superior profit capability, wanted, they could easily pay the required experts to subvert the customers opinion. The less profitable solutions, would not be able to exercise the same clout over the customer and would inevitabely lose.


You really don't give consumers enough credit. The consumer is price conscious more than you like to admit.

You can pay the experts what you want - but these have failed before. The internet will carry the day.



Your views on this seem daftly romantic.


Follow the history of changes in technology, the same story repeats itself. Big Business wants protection, government gives them protection. Big business can't do shit to control their customers. Customers go to alternate solution. New emerging business prevail with high profits. Old Big Business is left in the dust.

My big beef, is the fact that they were government protected in the first place. Oh yes, and one of the reasons was indeed UNIONS. The Big Businesses needed to be profitable so that they can constantly meet the mandated pay for unionized workers.



And "cost is not impotant". What cost is this, the millions that are used to sustain the nuclear power industry, or the extremely low cost that it entails to run an eco-friendly energy system?


The cost is in artificially replacing one thing for another as soon as possible.

From NoXion's link:



Solar has for a long time been sought after for providing what is considered to be unlimited power. Whether in the form of solar thermal or photovoltaic, it directly uses the energy of the sun to generate electricity. Solar thermal focuses the heat onto pipes of water and uses this to drive turbines. Photovoltaic uses photo sensitive chemicals to generate a voltage as a result of the incident radiation.
Because of the inefficiency of solar thermal, it is seen comparatively little development, although that is not to say there is not any research into its use. Photovoltaics on the hand have a lot more potential. Their efficiency has increased dramatically over the last few years, but they still are less than 20% (Generation II PWRs are 28% efficient). However, they are constantly improving. But solar power is constantly limited by the intensity of solar radiation. While it varies slightly, causing shifts in climate, it is always around 1kW.m-2. This means that even if PV were to become 100% efficient, it would take ten times the land area to generate enough power as a nuclear power (A 1GW power station takes around 100,000m² of land). This ignores night, bad weather, sunlight not always incident perpendicular to the array, conversion from DC to AC and the fact that a solar power station would not be practical as one complete cell. Therefore, a solar power station would not be effective.
Solar power is not free energy as some would say. Until recently, PV had not matured to a point where a cell would repay the energy cost of manufacturing within its lifetime. It does not repay its energy costs as quickly as more conventional power sources. There are also hazardous chemicals involved in producing these PV cells. While of course, we are the last to raise alarm bells over the use of hazardous material, it bares noting of course, with comparison to fission, that the quantity of hazardous material is greater in solar, given the large quantity of cells required to achieve a decent generation of energy, than nuclear. We certainly do not believe this is a decent argument against PV, but it puts into perspective the relative hazards of solar and nuclear. The use of hazardous materials is not a problem for solar and it is even less of a problem for nuclear.
The role of PV is in supplementary power provided by putting PV cells on roofs and other unused space. This can be valuable at offsetting some of the demand, but clearly cannot provide a sizeable amount of baseload power.


Is anything getting through?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:19 PM
Plus if people had a choice. The overwhelming majority would choose solar panels over Nuclear Plants.
Not if they had to pay for 'em. Which, of course, they always will, individually or collectively.

You're right of course, that human needs should outweigh profits....but that doesn't mean costs can be completely ignored. Sometimes the best economic decision should be overriden for social needs.

But no society can ignore the costs of a project as staggeringly expensive as producing most electricity from solar panels.

http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pics/external%20costs.jpg

source (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/eia-external%20costs.html)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Allow me to dispel some myths about nuclear power:

Thanks NoXion. It was a very interesting read. However the writers themselves did point out they were working for the Nuclear industry, immeadiately making them biased.
Ask yourself, if a Democrat or Republican senator were to write about the brilliance of the American democratic system. Would you take that as gospel?
Also it is worth pointing out that for years scientists within the Asbestos industry claimed Asbestos was safe. It wasn't. They tried to discredit others and managed to bankrupt one man, who opposed them.
Indeed in the article you posted, they say that radiation poisoning is basically zero and that radiation related deaths in Chynobel, were the result of poor emergency response. Somewhat of a contradiction. However more worringly this statement shows that they believe, that if the proper emergency responses are not taken, people will suffer.
Now where are nuclear power plants going to be built? Beverly Hills, Kensington, Chelsea etc.? No. They will be built in poor areas, where the resources for emergency response, will be overlooked. This is my problem with nuclear power.
Also it would be interesting to know how many of the contributers to that website, would be willing to live next to nuclear power plants.


Not if they had to pay for 'em. Which, of course, they always will, individually or collectively.

You're right of course, that human needs should outweigh profits....but that doesn't mean costs can be completely ignored. Sometimes the best economic decision should be overriden for social needs.

But no society can ignore the costs of a project as staggeringly expensive as producing most electricity from solar panels.

You're right Severian that costs cannot be totally ignored. Though as you rightly said "Sometimes the best economic decision should be overriden for social needs." The comment regarding social needs is what I am for, and I believe that Nuclear Power disregards social needs and consequences, in favour of cost.
The same way slavery took costs over "social needs". Procucts would cost less if we used slave labour, however the resulting social costs are huge.
As someone who views social costs as more important, than production costs. I cannot advocate Nuclear Power.

I have a feeling that if we are to get in a lengthy debate about Nuclear Power. It would be relatively pointless. As my anti-Nuclear position is not goung to change and the pro-Nuclear opinions of members, will also not change.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Coordinating things is a job.

Yes it is. However there were also employees that did this. Face it, the owner did far less work than the worker, yet made more money. This is unjust.


No, you fool, there were different levels of each. Find proof.

Why don't you disprove me, with proof. I cannot be bothered to troll the internet looking for proof, for a debate I am having. I do have other things I need to do. Its not like debating on this subject is my profession.


But I did not create the pollution, the energy company did. What is the point of even including the market price if it has no meaning?\

You use the energy which has caused the pollution. You are part of the pollution cycle. If you didn't use the energy, the energy company would not create the pollution that it needs to create, in order to supply you with energy.

Also you see the price before VAT on some receipts. I agree, it probably is a waste of ink. Though what do you want me to do about it? Write a nasty letter. :lol:


I have already told you. The mistake was artificially creating employment. Eradicating artificial mistakes is a good

So you oppose creating the employment. Then support "eradicating" it. Then don't accept any of the blame for the consequences that this action caused. Thats a contradiction.
I think this could go on forever. You see the difference is that you view the employment as "artificial", I don't.


You think Nuclear Power Plants are the most effecient because you concluded that they will indeed prevail in the market, if left alone solely to the market.

Profit is indeed efficiency. Anyone who wastes natural resources will lose profits.

Mature industries are not as profitable as uprising ones. Duh. The real profits come in when new technology is implemented.

Profit isn't neccessarily efficiency. They are different things. You can't get profit off something that is free, yet that would be more efficient. Perhaps in your perfect world, efficiency would in fact overide profit, yet I doubt it.


Hey genius, you do know that patents are a government privelege, right? You see - no government, no patents.

So you oppose private property then?
I didn't think so. And patents are a form of private property. You see, you are contradicting yourself.
Does your "perfect world" allow people to gain exclusive control over their inventions? If it doesn't, then I would say that your ideology is more Communistic, than you thought.


Yeah, like they dicked around all through the 90's when new levees for New Orleans were being evaluated.

Not really a coherent response to my point. Try again. Please.


How can I not call you a fool when indeed you go out of your way to look like one.
Please answer my question. How do we get energy when the sun is out? For now we can still get energy from the various plants, but if we all switched, then what?


If you had read my orginal point, regarding this, you will notice I said -


And when it is not warm enough, it would still need only a little energy to bring it up to the temperature needed for a central heating system.

I was suggesting a system to reduce the demand on current energy resources, not eradicate them completely. Conventional power plants would not be removed, their energy would just be in far less demand.

And how am I the fool. You're the one who didn't bother to read my post properly. Fool. :)


What the fuck are you talking about? There is no fucking need for democracy at all.
If people want solar panels, they go out and buy them.

All I'm saying is don't subsidize anything, not Nuclear plants, not Solar Panels, not Wind Turbines, and not Wave Generators. The price will fall with greater demand, once the Energy Storage issue has been resolved.

Yes, but as I said before, under your system, the richer companies would be able to more easily gain power over the people. As they are able to create more profit, without being more efficient, and use this profit to control and impose. With money comes power, and with more money comes greater power. Only some form of Democratic system can nullify this, by creating equality.


If there is no government, there is no one to lobby. It's a fair market.

Fair point. Though isn't lobbying the public through advertising, just the same. Balances and safeguards are needed against capital. Which your system doesn't provide.


You really don't give consumers enough credit. The consumer is price conscious more than you like to admit.

You can pay the experts what you want - but these have failed before. The internet will carry the day.

The consumer is regually subverted by the powerful and rich. If this was not the case, then the consumer would have already chosen your political ideology or mine.


Follow the history of changes in technology, the same story repeats itself. Big Business wants protection, government gives them protection. Big business can't do shit to control their customers. Customers go to alternate solution. New emerging business prevail with high profits. Old Big Business is left in the dust.

My big beef, is the fact that they were government protected in the first place. Oh yes, and one of the reasons was indeed UNIONS. The Big Businesses needed to be profitable so that they can constantly meet the mandated pay for unionized workers.

Agriculture has been protected for years, yet consumers do not get cheaper non protected food. Why? because big business, once it becomes big, will always want to stay there. Under your system, where there are no Governments. Big business will make itself the Government in order to protect itself. The consumer would not be all powerful, the rich would be all powerful, and would stay all powerful. Your ideology would result in the continuing tyranny of the fewer.

Plus why shouldn't a worker ask for enough money to live on. Especially when the bosses have far more than is possibly needed. Unions protect workers from tyranny and injustice. You wish to scrap this, in favour of the tyranny and injustice employers inflicted, that was here before Unionisation. Good platform on which to stand - "Accept my system and if you're lucky, we'll re-introduce slavery".


The cost is in artificially replacing one thing for another as soon as possible.

Huh? What are you blithering on about?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thanks NoXion. It was a very interesting read. However the writers themselves did point out they were working for the Nuclear industry, immeadiately making them biased.

Really?


Originally posted by Freedom For Fission+--> (Freedom For Fission)DISCLAIMER

Except where otherwise noted, this site is my own work. This site is a private work and the opinions here are not reflective of any nuclear operators or opponents, except where directly quoted. The ads on the right of the browser are run by Yahoo GeoCities and FreedomForFission is not responsible for their content and neither should their presence be taken as an endorsement of those sites (especially as we have noticed that many of them link to anti-nuclear sites). [/b]

Here (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/deb/site.html)


Ask yourself, if a Democrat or Republican senator were to write about the brilliance of the American democratic system. Would you take that as gospel?

Stop trying to turn a scientific issue into a political one!


Also it is worth pointing out that for years scientists within the Asbestos industry claimed Asbestos was safe. It wasn't. They tried to discredit others and managed to bankrupt one man, who opposed them.

Of course they would, if they worked for the asbestos industry.

But Josh Baxter doesn't work for the nuclear industry, he is an undergraduate.


Indeed in the article you posted, they say that radiation poisoning is basically zero and that radiation related deaths in Chynobel, were the result of poor emergency response. Somewhat of a contradiction. However more worringly this statement shows that they believe, that if the proper emergency responses are not taken, people will suffer.

From here: (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/acc/chernobyl.html)


Freedom For Fission
Thousands of those in the affected area have died because people do die when they reach the end of their lives. The issue is how many deaths are directly related to the accident. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) released a full report to the General Assembly in 2000 on the sources and effects of ionising radiation. Annex J: Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident contained a review of the effects of the fallout fourteen years on. The report identified 31 short-term deaths from plant workers and emergency workers, 28 of which were due to radiation exposure.

Doesn't look like zero to me. And the response to the Chernobyl disaster resulted in people being displaced from their homes and having to depend on charity to survive.

But that's beside the point. Disasters like Chernobyl cannot happen in modern reactors.

Did you actually read the site or are you merely repeating anti-nuclear mantras?


Now where are nuclear power plants going to be built? Beverly Hills, Kensington, Chelsea etc.? No. They will be built in poor areas, where the resources for emergency response, will be overlooked. This is my problem with nuclear power.

You think with all the hysteria surrounding nuclear power today people will simply forget to undertake proper safety measures? The capitalist class may be greedy, but the people who work for them, the engineers, are not stupid and their jobs depend on things being safe. They do not have the same carefree attitude to safety as their bosses do. Ask any engineer.


Also it would be interesting to know how many of the contributers to that website, would be willing to live next to nuclear power plants.

Well you can count me as one willing to do so.


You're right Severian that costs cannot be totally ignored. Though as you rightly said "Sometimes the best economic decision should be overriden for social needs." The comment regarding social needs is what I am for, and I believe that Nuclear Power disregards social needs and consequences, in favour of cost.

Such as what? what dreadful social consequences will more widespread use of nuclear power have? You cannot compare nuclear power and slave labour.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Really?

From the same site -


Only forms of power have their virtues yet you do not advocate them.

That is not our job. Our job is to advocate nuclear power. While we seek to dispel the misconceptions and fears throughout the rest of the site, on this page, we merely seek to show that nuclear is not so inferior to other forms of power as often portrayed. Other forms of power do have their virtues but so does nuclear power and a healthy energy mix would take advantage of them.

Link. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/alternatives.html)

That seems like bias to me. Also the phrase "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", seems to contradict the point you made that "Josh Baxter doesn't work for the nuclear industry, he is an undergraduate." There is nowhere, that I can see, a disclaimer by the site author regarding this statement as being made by someone else. Even if there was, the site author is using pro-nuclear propaganda to support his claims. This constitutes an unbalanced source.


Stop trying to turn a scientific issue into a political one!

People don't want to live next to a Nuclear reactor. They campaign against them. This makes it a political issue.


Of course they would, if they worked for the asbestos industry.

As I said above, Josh Baxter by writing "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", either makes the statement that he works for the nuclear industry or is using nuclear industry propaganda to support his claims.
How does this make this issue any different from the Asbestos issue? History can be a useful indicator for the future.


Doesn't look like zero to me. And the response to the Chernobyl disaster resulted in people being displaced from their homes and having to depend on charity to survive.

"They say that radiation poisoning is basically zero", was a poor statement on my part. I was referring to statements like -


There is no scientific evidence of an increase in other cancers as of yet due to ionising radiation.

and,


Thousands of those in the affected area have died because people do die when they reach the end of their lives.

Which show, in my opinion, the refusal to accept any blame for the results of Chernobyl. By basically saying, virtually no people were affected.

Now I have read articles by respected scientists regarding Chernobyl, that disagree with the positions expressed on this site. If I can find these articles on the internet, I will post them, however I read them in various magazines. So I don't know if I'll be able to find them.


But that's beside the point. Disasters like Chernobyl cannot happen in modern reactors.

The Titanic, was supposed to be unsinkable. You can never be 100% certain about anything as potentialy devastating as this.


Did you actually read the site or are you merely repeating anti-nuclear mantras?

Yes I did read it, and found it very informative. This does not mean that I will suddenly feel the need to join the pro-nuclear camp. I express the right, to form my own opinions, and just because they are different to yours, does not mean I am "repeating anti-nuclear mantras".


You think with all the hysteria surrounding nuclear power today people will simply forget to undertake proper safety measures? The capitalist class may be greedy, but the people who work for them, the engineers, are not stupid and their jobs depend on things being safe. They do not have the same carefree attitude to safety as their bosses do. Ask any engineer.

They will obviously be concerned with safety. Its just they will be less concerned with safety in poorer areas, in my opinion. New Orleans shows that concern for the welfare of the lower classes, comes a distant second, to cost.
Capitalism, as I'm sure you'll agree, tends to put profit before safety.


Well you can count me as one willing to do so.

Great. After the revolution, you can live on a nuclear commune and I can live on a non-nuclear commune. Direct democracy and the power to choose our own fate, is what we are all about. I just don't want Nuclear Power Plant imposed on me.


Such as what? what dreadful social consequences will more widespread use of nuclear power have? You cannot compare nuclear power and slave labour.


"Dreadful social costs", refer to the effects a Nuclear disaster will have on the surrounding population.

And the "slave labour" comment was referring to Severians comment "that human needs should outweigh profits". I was using the "slave labour" comment, to emphasise that low costs are not the be all and end all.

[quincunx5]

Yes it is. However there were also employees that did this. Face it, the owner did far less work than the worker, yet made more money. This is unjust.


You are the one who mentioned he was in the office. You also ignore that there is not a single owner, but multiple periodically changing owners.



Why don't you disprove me, with proof. I cannot be bothered to troll the internet looking for proof, for a debate I am having. I do have other things I need to do. Its not like debating on this subject is my profession.


That's nice. Make an assumption, and then make up excuses for why you can't back it up.



So you oppose creating the employment. Then support "eradicating" it. Then don't accept any of the blame for the consequences that this action caused. Thats a contradiction.
I think this could go on forever. You see the difference is that you view the employment as "artificial", I don't.


Obviously you don't have any imagination. So let me give you an example to illustrate the point. Suppose that government decrees that we all need to erect skyscrapers, regardless of the cost. Well now we have full employment and depletion of natural resources that will go into building uselesss skyscrapers. That is what I call artificial. So yes, if a year after such a thing got started - I would support stopping such activity even if it means unemployment.

There is no contradiction. Non-intervention in the market is a consistent idea....



So you oppose private property then?
I didn't think so. And patents are a form of private property. You see, you are contradicting yourself.
Does your "perfect world" allow people to gain exclusive control over their inventions? If it doesn't, then I would say that your ideology is more Communistic, than you thought.


Every libertatrian opposes patents. They are not property, hence private property rights does not apply to them. The whole point of patents is to release an expression of a practical invention to the public, meanwhile having a time-contrained control over its use.

Patents, unlike material objects are not bound by the same laws of economics. There has never been a scarcity of Ideas.

Private property allows an invididual to obtain the full worth of their time and energy. But, patents are not meant to aid in this endeavour. Oh no, they are something different. What they allow a patent holder to do is essentially EXCLUDE another person from using their private property to exercise their own similar practical ideas. The patent holder does not even need to use his ideas to make practical goods and services, he is granted the right to prevent others from doing so.



I was suggesting a system to reduce the demand on current energy resources, not eradicate them completely. Conventional power plants would not be removed, their energy would just be in far less demand.

And how am I the fool. You're the one who didn't bother to read my post properly. Fool.


But this loss of demand would effect the Power Worker's Union. Aren't they the people you care most about?



Yes, but as I said before, under your system, the richer companies would be able to more easily gain power over the people. As they are able to create more profit, without being more efficient, and use this profit to control and impose. With money comes power, and with more money comes greater power. Only some form of Democratic system can nullify this, by creating equality.


Again, you are making the same fundemental miskate. Rate of profit does not depend on the size of the organization. In fact, disparity between rates of profit will bring investors from the big businesses to the small ones. You will have the right balance that only the market can provide.



Fair point. Though isn't lobbying the public through advertising, just the same. Balances and safeguards are needed against capital. Which your system doesn't provide.


Aren't you advertizing your ideas to me right now? Do you consider this a bad thing?
Aren't I providing the balance?

Anyone reading this forum will come up with their own conclusions. That's the best one can do.

Having a Democratic vote, especially on this forum will lead to skewed results. To me, that is tyranny.



The consumer is regually subverted by the powerful and rich. If this was not the case, then the consumer would have already chosen your political ideology or mine.


The consumer is rationally ignorant. He would rather spend his life living then preaching any ideology. I feel this is the case for most people.



Agriculture has been protected for years, yet consumers do not get cheaper non protected food. Why? because big business, once it becomes big, will always want to stay there. Under your system, where there are no Governments. Big business will make itself the Government in order to protect itself. The consumer would not be all powerful, the rich would be all powerful, and would stay all powerful. Your ideology would result in the continuing tyranny of the fewer.


The rich are not as rich as you think they are. Their assets are supported by other invididuals. Without this consistent support, they are very weak. One can only stay rich by giving consumers what they want, and having investors feel that you are indeed doing so.

Any big business cartel that forms, simply invites new competitors into the market. Also historically, every business cartel has had to break up because they were cheating on each other by LOWERING their prices.

There is no tyranny if you are free to claim any unused property for yourself. Which is what I support.



Plus why shouldn't a worker ask for enough money to live on. Especially when the bosses have far more than is possibly needed. Unions protect workers from tyranny and injustice. You wish to scrap this, in favour of the tyranny and injustice employers inflicted, that was here before Unionisation. Good platform on which to stand - "Accept my system and if you're lucky, we'll re-introduce slavery".


Your assertions to not stand up to scrutiny. You like to pretend that the Boss is the one that sets the prices. This is plainly false. The Boss may set an asking price, but the consumers are the ultimate decision makers of what something will cost (aside from government distortions).

Do you feel that all profits should go to employees?

There is no right wage to pay employees other whatever the market decides.

Unionization did not improve working conditions at all. They merely took credit for natural advances brought about in the market place. Moreover, what they really did was raise the wages of some, at the cost of exluding others.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That seems like bias to me. Also the phrase "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", seems to contradict the point you made that "Josh Baxter doesn't work for the nuclear industry, he is an undergraduate."

I am an advocate of genetic engineering. Does that make me an employee of Monsanto? It doesn't and you know it.


There is nowhere, that I can see, a disclaimer by the site author regarding this statement as being made by someone else. Even if there was, the site author is using pro-nuclear propaganda to support his claims. This constitutes an unbalanced source.

So facts are propoganda now? So wishing to dispel myths and hysteria is propagandising? That's a low blow.


People don't want to live next to a Nuclear reactor. They campaign against them. This makes it a political issue.

They campaign unnecessarily because they lack education about radiation and how modern nuclear reactors work. Lack of scientific knowledge turns it into a political issue.


As I said above, Josh Baxter by writing "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", either makes the statement that he works for the nuclear industry or is using nuclear industry propaganda to support his claims.

The fact that someone is using the facts never crossed your overly politicised mind?


How does this make this issue any different from the Asbestos issue? History can be a useful indicator for the future.

Useful indicator yes, cast iron prophecy no. Since nuclear power production is a net loss industry due to over regulation and constant lawsuits, I hardly think your asbestos analogy applies.


Which show, in my opinion, the refusal to accept any blame for the results of Chernobyl. By basically saying, virtually no people were affected.

People were affected, mainly by hysteria, mollycoddling and lack of proper treatment - or did you not read the part where the author recognises that cases of thyroid cancer have indeed risen? and that the proper treatment would be dosages of iodine for those affected?


The Titanic, was supposed to be unsinkable. You can never be 100% certain about anything as potentialy devastating as this.

False analogy. Nuclear reactors are not luxury liners. The Titanic relied on a single failsafe to prevent sinking, namely compartmentalisation. Modern nuclear reactors have multiple failsafes on different systems with backups.
Also:


Originally posted by Freedom For Fission
If that is of little comfort, the new generation III and IV reactors coming onto the market boast new passive safety features, which depend not on the engineering and redundancy, but on the basic laws of physics. The pebble bed modular reactor, for example, uses billiard ball of silicon carbide seeded with specks of fuel, rather than the traditional fuel rods. Because of this different form of fuel, the physical effect known as Doppler broadening produces a large negative temperature coefficient, whereby as the temperature of the fuel increases beyond operating temperature, the atoms spread apart, meaning that neutron absorption drops, sending the reactor subcritical in the more extreme cases, exactly when automatic subcriticality is required.

In experiments performed in China, coolant was voided from experimental pebble bed reactors. The temperature of the fuel increased from 1000° to 1600°, about 400° below that of the melting point before the temperature dropped off resulting from reactor self-shutdown. The shutdown was purely due to the fuel responding to the temperature increase through Doppler broadening by going subcritical and not through active measures such as control rods or injectable poisons.

These reactors are physically meltdown proof.

The Titanic would never have sunk had it been kept on solid bedrock ;)


They will obviously be concerned with safety. Its just they will be less concerned with safety in poorer areas, in my opinion. New Orleans shows that concern for the welfare of the lower classes, comes a distant second, to cost.
Capitalism, as I'm sure you'll agree, tends to put profit before safety.

Yeah it does, but I highly doubt that in the event of an unlikely disaster, especially a nuclear one, that the majority opinion will be "Oh never mind, it was only the peons that bit the dust, we can always buy more" This is the 21st century, not Medieval Europe. They have to be more subtle. Even in events like the recent hurricane, only truly dense idiots like Bush's mother express such opinions.


"Dreadful social costs", refer to the effects a Nuclear disaster will have on the surrounding population.

Oh, you mean the modern reactors that are designed to keep any meltdown within the complex? About as harmful as my neighbour spilling soup if you ask me.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are the one who mentioned he was in the office. You also ignore that there is not a single owner, but multiple periodically changing owners.

And all these other owners were lazy sods, who lived nicely on the wealth created by the worker. Sitting in their office, does not mean they did anything constructive.


That's nice. Make an assumption, and then make up excuses for why you can't back it up.

You made the first assumption regarding government "subsidies, inflation, median income", and you were the one who provided no proof. So you find the proof.


Obviously you don't have any imagination. So let me give you an example to illustrate the point. Suppose that government decrees that we all need to erect skyscrapers, regardless of the cost. Well now we have full employment and depletion of natural resources that will go into building uselesss skyscrapers. That is what I call artificial. So yes, if a year after such a thing got started - I would support stopping such activity even if it means unemployment.

There is no contradiction. Non-intervention in the market is a consistent idea....

The mines weren't pointless, they provided a material that was being used for energy purposes.
The skyscrapers you describe would be pointless if they were left empty, however, if they were used for business, housing etc. they would become meaningful and a good use of labour power.

However there is still a contradiction in your statements. Surely the Government closing the mines, is therefore interfering with the market, which is a big no no, for your ideology. Thatcher closing the mines was intervention, not a non-intervention.


Every libertatrian opposes patents. They are not property, hence private property rights does not apply to them. The whole point of patents is to release an expression of a practical invention to the public, meanwhile having a time-contrained control over its use.

Patents, unlike material objects are not bound by the same laws of economics. There has never been a scarcity of Ideas.

Private property allows an invididual to obtain the full worth of their time and energy. But, patents are not meant to aid in this endeavour. Oh no, they are something different. What they allow a patent holder to do is essentially EXCLUDE another person from using their private property to exercise their own similar practical ideas. The patent holder does not even need to use his ideas to make practical goods and services, he is granted the right to prevent others from doing so.

This is Communism. Freedom of ideas and inventions is Communist. Stop copying. ;)


But this loss of demand would effect the Power Worker's Union. Aren't they the people you care most about?

This is progress. They could go and work for the solar sector. Communism does not oppose progression, as this would allow people to work less and therefore have more time for leisure and interests.
Also before you scream "but closing the mines was progression", we've already discussed this and while you view closing the mines as progression, I do not.


Again, you are making the same fundemental miskate. Rate of profit does not depend on the size of the organization. In fact, disparity between rates of profit will bring investors from the big businesses to the small ones. You will have the right balance that only the market can provide.

I was refering to the fact, that as Nuclear Power needs to be created, far more than solar, tidal or wind, and as once nuclear power plants are there, they still need to operated far more than renewable sources, which basically rely on the environment. This will mean the solar, tidal and wind industries will not have the same profit capability as the nuclear industry. Therefore allowing the nuclear industry to become a dominant market force. Giving it an unfair advantage over the other renewable energy industries. You can't charge people for sunlight, you can charge them for nuclear power.


Aren't you advertizing your ideas to me right now? Do you consider this a bad thing?
Aren't I providing the balance?

Anyone reading this forum will come up with their own conclusions. That's the best one can do.

Having a Democratic vote, especially on this forum will lead to skewed results. To me, that is tyranny.

Yes, but if I were the Nuclear industry with far more capital and the capability to put my ideas on more internet boards, and you were the solar industry. You would be at a disadvantage, unfairly. There would be no balance, I would be simply dominating opinion.


The consumer is rationally ignorant. He would rather spend his life living then preaching any ideology. I feel this is the case for most people.

Yes the consumer just accepts the norm. And if Nuclear Power, with its greater advertising advantage, was constantly being promoted. Other industries would be excluded and disadvantaged. As the consumer would just accept the norm.
Propaganda, which is generally the tool of the rich and powerful, is used to subvert opinion and gain advantage. Your system would only increase the ability of propaganda to subvert.


The rich are not as rich as you think they are. Their assets are supported by other invididuals. Without this consistent support, they are very weak. One can only stay rich by giving consumers what they want, and having investors feel that you are indeed doing so.

Any big business cartel that forms, simply invites new competitors into the market. Also historically, every business cartel has had to break up because they were cheating on each other by LOWERING their prices.

There is no tyranny if you are free to claim any unused property for yourself. Which is what I support.

One can only stay rich by oppressing people and keeping them poor. With money comes power. The power to control, to subvert, to destroy. Your system would only make this power greater. Reverting us back to a Kings and servants type of society, where the few dominate everything. The few may change occasionaly, but the few would always be rich and the many poor.
The only difference between the new Kings and the old Kings, is that the New Kings would replace the divine right bestowed upon them by God to rule, with the divine right bestowed upon them by the market to rule. Tyranny with new buzzwords.


Your assertions to not stand up to scrutiny. You like to pretend that the Boss is the one that sets the prices. This is plainly false. The Boss may set an asking price, but the consumers are the ultimate decision makers of what something will cost (aside from government distortions).

Do you feel that all profits should go to employees?

There is no right wage to pay employees other whatever the market decides.

Unionization did not improve working conditions at all. They merely took credit for natural advances brought about in the market place. Moreover, what they really did was raise the wages of some, at the cost of exluding

The worker should be paid the full value of his labour. Pure and simple. He would then through progressive taxation either gain or lose some money, to make sure one proffesion is not viewed as more important than another. Eventually with money removed from the equation, goods and services are exchanged freely. Basic Communism.

Plus you say the Unions had no effect on the bettering of conditions for workers. That despite marches, strikes etc. it was the market, that decided these gains should be made. Did the market decide to end slavery? Create the minimum wage? Set limits on maximum working hours?
Please, give me a break. The Unions are the reason you get weekends off, a wage that is good enough for you to live on, the reason you don't work in extremely dangerous conditions etc. Give credit to the people that deserve it and not some "all seeing, all knowing" entity, that according to you, has never done anything bad, that you call the "Market".

[quincunx5]

And all these other owners were lazy sods, who lived nicely on the wealth created by the worker. Sitting in their office, does not mean they did anything constructive.


You are in essense insulting yourself. There is nothing stopping you from buying a stock in the mining industry and becoming "lazy".

Some of these owners are not even handling their own money. Some of these owner's were entrusted by the working class itself to give them the best return on investment.



You made the first assumption regarding government "subsidies, inflation, median income", and you were the one who provided no proof. So you find the proof.


You first made the assumption that energy prices in the 80's were lower. Where's this proof?
I merely told you that once you find this prove you have to take those factors into consideration. In case your source doesn't.



The mines weren't pointless, they provided a material that was being used for energy purposes.
The skyscrapers you describe would be pointless if they were left empty, however, if they were used for business, housing etc. they would become meaningful and a good use of labour power.


They did not provide the right amount of material used for energy purposes.

The skyscrapers are useless because there isn't enough business to fill them. This is exactly what happend to the Empire State Building after it was erected. One needs to have business before one can engage in new contruction. Having a place to work does not inspire people to work.



Thatcher closing the mines was intervention, not a non-intervention.


By hoping to have communism, are you not intervening? So isn't intervening to remove past intervention a good thing?



This is Communism. Freedom of ideas and inventions is Communist. Stop copying.


No copying. Lack of Freedom in ideas and inventions is a product of state, it goes against both ideologies.

You have to remember that we actually want the same thing. We are merely trying to predict the outcomes. I happend to be right.



Yes the consumer just accepts the norm. And if Nuclear Power, with its greater advertising advantage, was constantly being promoted. Other industries would be excluded and disadvantaged. As the consumer would just accept the norm.


Rational ignorance does not mean falling for advertising. Price would still be the most important factor.



One can only stay rich by oppressing people and keeping them poor. With money comes power. The power to control, to subvert, to destroy. Your system would only make this power greater. Reverting us back to a Kings and servants type of society, where the few dominate everything. The few may change occasionaly, but the few would always be rich and the many poor.


In case you haven't learned anything from history. The great advance that liberalism brought was the recognition that we would all be richer (including the already rich) by voluntarily trading with one another. Not by suppressing each other. That is the system in which Capitalism works best. To deny that liberalism coupled with capitalism has made everyone wealthier is to delude yourself.

I laught at you for thinking that richness comes from oppression.



The worker should be paid the full value of his labour. Pure and simple. He would then through progressive taxation either gain or lose some money, to make sure one proffesion is not viewed as more important than another. Eventually with money removed from the equation, goods and services are exchanged freely. Basic Communism.


What you fail to acknowledge that just because the worker get's the full value of his labour, does not mean that he can afford more things. In fact, he is still poor because he has to pay other's their supposed full value of labour. Nothing has changed.

Labour itself has no value, other than what the labour market decides.

To tax heavily those who have increased material wealth through profits will not only lead to stagnation, but it will lead to regression and starvation.



The Unions are the reason you get weekends off,


I don' get weekends off. I work 35-45 hours however I like. It's tyrannical to dictate what days one can have off. In fact having the majority have the same days off creates all sorts of congestion problems.



a wage that is good enough for you to live on,


There is no set wage good enough for everybody. We all rely on others. IF everyone was paid a good WAGE, then everything would be expensive. There is no advantage to earning more if everything costs more. Period.



the reason you don't work in extremely dangerous conditions etc.


You don't work there because no one wants to work there. Either one has to improve working conditions or pay a much higher price to attract workers. Improving is much cheaper.



Give credit to the people that deserve it and not some "all seeing, all knowing" entity, that according to you, has never done anything bad, that you call the "Market".


Give me break. All that you can say is that Unions improved wages for some. And there I agree.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Damn it. Why does everyone seem to reply to my posts just as I'm about to go to bed. :(

NoXion and quincunx5, I will reply tommorow. Good night. :)

[quincunx5]

Good Night :)

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:24 AM
no society can ignore the costs of a project as staggeringly expensive as producing most electricity from solar panels.
Those costs don't take into account that fission power means you have to store radioactive waste for thousands of years. If you do, nuclear becomes considerably more expensive. Would you be comfortable if the nuclear waste was burried in your back yard? Very few would. I suspect most people prefer to cover their roof in solar panels and work a little longer each day instead of having a nuclear waste dump in their backyard.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Sep 26 2005, 07:44 PM--> (Morpheus @ Sep 26 2005, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 03:24 AM
no society can ignore the costs of a project as staggeringly expensive as producing most electricity from solar panels.
Those costs don't take into account that fission power means you have to store radioactive waste for thousands of years. [/b]
Well, no, since I was talking about the costs of solar power. If you don't like nuclear, realistically that leaves fossil fuels supplemented by hydro as the mainstays of power generation.

But since you mention it, with reprocessing the half-life drops greatly.

I think fears relating to nuclear power have a real basis. The potential consequences of carelessness by profit-mongers are so huge.

But the technical problems are all potentially soluble. No technology should be regarded as categorically taboo for all time and under all circumstances.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I am an advocate of genetic engineering. Does that make me an employee of Monsanto? It doesn't and you know it.

If you read my post properly then you would see that the phrase "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", shows that the writer is more than just an advocate. The same as if you advocated genetic engineering and then said "My job is to advocate genetic engineering". This statement implies that there is a financial incentive for the support of said industry. And as we have seen over recent years, with regard court cases and expert scientific evidence, when financial gain is involved. The science seems to become a bit more flexible, in order for it to fit nicely in line, with the highest bidders argument.


So facts are propoganda now? So wishing to dispel myths and hysteria is propagandising? That's a low blow.

He could whistle out as many facts as he likes. I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I have neither the basis or education to understand them. However I also don't know whether these facts are selective. The finicial gain, which he says he gets from advocating nuclear power, in my opinion, taints the evidence. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but one of the first things I was taught in History in school, was to analyse the source, in order to establish whether there is any bias there. There is obviously bias there, his financial gain, which makes it an unbalanced source.


They campaign unnecessarily because they lack education about radiation and how modern nuclear reactors work. Lack of scientific knowledge turns it into a political issue.

Not all green campaigners lack knowledge. I've met a few, who have a background in science and they don't want nuclear power.


The fact that someone is using the facts never crossed your overly politicised mind?

As you well know, facts can be very selective.


Useful indicator yes, cast iron prophecy no. Since nuclear power production is a net loss industry due to over regulation and constant lawsuits, I hardly think your asbestos analogy applies.

No, its not a cast iron prophecy. However it shows how an industry can overlook evidence for financial gain.


People were affected, mainly by hysteria, mollycoddling and lack of proper treatment - or did you not read the part where the author recognises that cases of thyroid cancer have indeed risen? and that the proper treatment would be dosages of iodine for those affected?

Yes I did read the part about thyroid cancer having risen. I also read the part where the author disregards increased mutations in children as a result of Chernobyl. He said something along the lines of the evidence not being there to show child mutations were a result of radiation. The same way the lovely people who put up phone masts in urban areas, say the science isn't there that shows the drastic increase in cancer in these areas, is because of the phone mast.


False analogy. Nuclear reactors are not luxury liners. The Titanic relied on a single failsafe to prevent sinking, namely compartmentalisation. Modern nuclear reactors have multiple failsafes on different systems with backups.

Fair point. I was just saying over confidence isn't always a good thing.


The Titanic would never have sunk had it been kept on solid bedrock

It wouldn't have sailed anywhere either. ;)


Yeah it does, but I highly doubt that in the event of an unlikely disaster, especially a nuclear one, that the majority opinion will be "Oh never mind, it was only the peons that bit the dust, we can always buy more" This is the 21st century, not Medieval Europe. They have to be more subtle. Even in events like the recent hurricane, only truly dense idiots like Bush's mother express such opinions.

Yeah, only the truly dense idiots will say they don't care in public. But what makes you think the board members will be altruistic enough to suddenly start improving safety over profit. History tends to show that it takes quite alot of avoidable disasters before the money men start to change their policy.


Oh, you mean the modern reactors that are designed to keep any meltdown within the complex? About as harmful as my neighbour spilling soup if you ask me.

How hots the soup? :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are in essense insulting yourself. There is nothing stopping you from buying a stock in the mining industry and becoming "lazy".

Some of these owners are not even handling their own money. Some of these owner's were entrusted by the working class itself to give them the best return on investment.

One, I would never buy stock, on moral grounds. And two, the stocks the workers gained, were gained through their labour. Not someone elses.


You first made the assumption that energy prices in the 80's were lower. Where's this proof?
I merely told you that once you find this prove you have to take those factors into consideration. In case your source doesn't.

Okay then and where do you suggest I find this proof? You made proofless claims too. Yet I don't ask you for evidence. This is a debate on an internet site, nothing more.


They did not provide the right amount of material used for energy purposes.

The skyscrapers are useless because there isn't enough business to fill them. This is exactly what happend to the Empire State Building after it was erected. One needs to have business before one can engage in new contruction. Having a place to work does not inspire people to work.

People used coal for energy. Therefore they were providing material for energy use. They weren't just mining tons of coal, that would be left unused.


By hoping to have communism, are you not intervening? So isn't intervening to remove past intervention a good thing?

Yes, but I never said I was agianst all forms of market intervention. You did, and Thatcher closing the mines, was a market intervention.


No copying. Lack of Freedom in ideas and inventions is a product of state, it goes against both ideologies.

You have to remember that we actually want the same thing. We are merely trying to predict the outcomes. I happend to be right.

Yeah but, Communism said it first, so ner, ner, ner, ner, ner. :D

And we do both want similar things. The difference, basically being, I want worker control, where you want the market.

And we both think we are right and we are not going to really change the others opinion regarding that.


Rational ignorance does not mean falling for advertising. Price would still be the most important factor.

Not always. Value for money is more important than price. And if people thought they were getting better value, something advertising can do, then people would choose that product.


In case you haven't learned anything from history. The great advance that liberalism brought was the recognition that we would all be richer (including the already rich) by voluntarily trading with one another. Not by suppressing each other. That is the system in which Capitalism works best. To deny that liberalism coupled with capitalism has made everyone wealthier is to delude yourself.

I laught at you for thinking that richness comes from oppression.

If America had liberal markets, it would not be richer. Same with Europe. Britain was far wealthier when it was stealing its colonies resources, rather than paying for them. Same with companies like Nike. They would be far poorer if they didn't use sweat shop labour.


What you fail to acknowledge that just because the worker get's the full value of his labour, does not mean that he can afford more things. In fact, he is still poor because he has to pay other's their supposed full value of labour. Nothing has changed.

Labour itself has no value, other than what the labour market decides.

To tax heavily those who have increased material wealth through profits will not only lead to stagnation, but it will lead to regression and starvation.

I was stating basic Marxist economics. You really need to have this debate with someone else, who knows more about this than me. As my brain is hopeless at economics and I'll only end up saying something completely idiotic, which has nothing to do with Marxist economics.


There is no set wage good enough for everybody. We all rely on others. IF everyone was paid a good WAGE, then everything would be expensive. There is no advantage to earning more if everything costs more. Period.

A good wage that you can live, basically allows you to afford food, clothing and a home, with enough left for you to be able to buy certain luxeries. Something Unions should be given alot of credit for getting you.


You don't work there because no one wants to work there. Either one has to improve working conditions or pay a much higher price to attract workers. Improving is much cheaper

Yes and Unions helped create the situation where you are able to leave your job freely if you are unhappy there. Without the fear of losing everything.


Give me break. All that you can say is that Unions improved wages for some. And there I agree.

Yes, they improved wages and conditions for the Unionised.

[quincunx5]

One, I would never buy stock, on moral grounds. And two, the stocks the workers gained, were gained through their labour. Not someone elses.


If you are that 'moral' then you should refrain from accidentally acquiring something that might gain value without any effort. Avoid buying a house. Do not use a bank. Do not buy non-durable goods. Just stick to paying for rent, buying food, and buying clothing. This will certainly prove how moral you are. I know you will turn out to be a hyporcite.

The worker is free to invest his money into another firm. The worker can make money off of someone else's labor, and vice versa.



People used coal for energy. Therefore they were providing material for energy use. They weren't just mining tons of coal, that would be left unused.


Again, we can just mine all the coal out of the ground by employing everyone. Once we have this coal, and none is left, then what? Go digging for more? Even though there are better alternatives?



Yes, but I never said I was agianst all forms of market intervention. You did, and Thatcher closing the mines, was a market intervention.


You don't seem to grasp simple concepts. Closing the mines was a government intervention in a mostly government run industry. Period.



Yeah but, Communism said it first, so ner, ner, ner, ner, ner


This is completely retarded. There was no such thing as patents or copyright in common law until aproximately 1700 in England. Anything before was neither communistic nor libertarian.
Ideas were freely exchanged. So don't give me your crap.



And we do both want similar things. The difference, basically being, I want worker control, where you want the market.


You make no sense. The market distributes goods and services, that's all it is. Worker control inhibits the distribution of goods and services. You really like regression and starvation that much?



If America had liberal markets, it would not be richer. Same with Europe. Britain was far wealthier when it was stealing its colonies resources, rather than paying for them.


Liberal markets leads to more wealth to be sucked out by the parasitic goverenments. It is a well known fact that a few hundred parasites can survive comfortably with a few thousand hosts, but not the other way around. With this wealth, the parasite can engage in an aggressive foreign policy. It would not be able to do so, without this initial wealth brought in by liberalism.

This is indeed exactly what happened in Britain, and later in the US. But it is the fault of the parasites, not the liberal markets.



Same with companies like Nike. They would be far poorer if they didn't use sweat shop labour.


Not necesarily. American Apparel (Los Angeles) makes a good proft by paying good wages. Their wages are twice the minimum wage, and there are benefits as well (I think health coverage).

Ford made bundle in the 1910's by paying an extremely high wage to his employees.

There is no single formula for making profits. Nike does not even use sweat shop labour. Their contractors use sweat shop labour.



A good wage that you can live, basically allows you to afford food, clothing and a home, with enough left for you to be able to buy certain luxeries. Something Unions should be given alot of credit for getting you.


You don't seem to understand. YOU can't addord those things because: the house builder wants FULL VALUE of his labor. The farmer wants FULL VALUE of his labor, and the clothing maker wants FULL VALUE of his labor. Also you want FULL VALUE for your labor. This does not leave you with much. It would be about the same situation if each of these actors were to get 1/2 the value of their labor. This is a generalization - 1/2 is not the magic number, the point is having everyone get a 'full value' of their labor does not increase material wealth.




I was stating basic Marxist economics. You really need to have this debate with someone else, who knows more about this than me. As my brain is hopeless at economics and I'll only end up saying something completely idiotic, which has nothing to do with Marxist economics.


I can't argue with you.
Communism is primarily rooted in economic theory. Learn it or stop advocating communism.
We're done.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you are that 'moral' then you should refrain from accidentally acquiring something that might gain value without any effort. Avoid buying a house. Do not use a bank. Do not buy non-durable goods. Just stick to paying for rent, buying food, and buying clothing. This will certainly prove how moral you are. I know you will turn out to be a hyporcite.

The worker is free to invest his money into another firm. The worker can make money off of someone else's labor, and vice versa.

I basically do stick to only using things I need. Clothes, food etc. Without doubt some of my actions may be hypocritical, as they support Capitalist companies. However, whenever feasibly possible I try to avoid this.


Again, we can just mine all the coal out of the ground by employing everyone. Once we have this coal, and none is left, then what? Go digging for more? Even though there are better alternatives?

You were arguing that the mining of the coal was pointless. I contest this view. The coal was being used for energy purposes. I also contest your view that the alternatives were better than the status quo. We are in essence, deadlocked on this issue, which makes it pointless to debate it further.


You don't seem to grasp simple concepts. Closing the mines was a government intervention in a mostly government run industry. Period.

It was still an intervention in the market. Something you oppose. It is a contradiction in your argument.


This is completely retarded. There was no such thing as patents or copyright in common law until aproximately 1700 in England. Anything before was neither communistic nor libertarian.
Ideas were freely exchanged. So don't give me your crap.

I was being humerous. Only someone who was "retarded", wouldn't realise this was a flippant remark.


You make no sense. The market distributes goods and services, that's all it is. Worker control inhibits the distribution of goods and services. You really like regression and starvation that much?

I really like "regression and starvation that much". You are the one proposing a system where there is no safety net for the unemployed, ill and disabled. How exactly would they avoid starvation? Answer, they wouldn't.
Though I suppose the disadvantaged don't matter much to you, because you certainly don't seem to care much about what will happen to them under your system.


Liberal markets leads to more wealth to be sucked out by the parasitic goverenments. It is a well known fact that a few hundred parasites can survive comfortably with a few thousand hosts, but not the other way around. With this wealth, the parasite can engage in an aggressive foreign policy. It would not be able to do so, without this initial wealth brought in by liberalism.

This is indeed exactly what happened in Britain, and later in the US. But it is the fault of the parasites, not the liberal markets.

Yet magically there would be noone with this great wealth under your system. Give me a break. There would be fantastically wealthy people under your system, with enough money to exert huge power over people. They would become parasitic. Your system would create the material conditions for these parasites, mine would abolish the conditions. The market would become the cause of these parasites, by creating unequal wealth and with it unequal power.


Not necesarily. American Apparel (Los Angeles) makes a good proft by paying good wages. Their wages are twice the minimum wage, and there are benefits as well (I think health coverage).

Ford made bundle in the 1910's by paying an extremely high wage to his employees.

There is no single formula for making profits. Nike does not even use sweat shop labour. Their contractors use sweat shop labour.

No there isn't one single formula to make profit. However if you pay someone $2 for making something and sell it for $4, you make more profit than if you pay them $3 and sell it for $4. Economics even I can understand. The lower the costs, the greater the profit.


You don't seem to understand. YOU can't addord those things because: the house builder wants FULL VALUE of his labor. The farmer wants FULL VALUE of his labor, and the clothing maker wants FULL VALUE of his labor. Also you want FULL VALUE for your labor. This does not leave you with much. It would be about the same situation if each of these actors were to get 1/2 the value of their labor. This is a generalization - 1/2 is not the magic number, the point is having everyone get a 'full value' of their labor does not increase material wealth.


No it doesn't mean they necessarily increase their material wealth. It means no one takes part of their wealth for themselves. You see the Unions didn't change the price of anything, they made the bosses give back some of the profit to the people who created it.


I can't argue with you.
Communism is primarily rooted in economic theory. Learn it or stop advocating communism

Why do I need to be an expert on something to advocate it. You advocate Nuclear Power, are you a nuclear physicist? You advocate Anarcho-Capitalism or Libertarianism, I can't remember which, are you an economist? I know enough to hold an opinion. And even if I knew everything, my opinion wouldn't be perfect.


We're done.

Are we?

[quincunx5]

It was still an intervention in the market. Something you oppose. It is a contradiction in your argument.


You are repeating yourself. There is no contradiction because government coal production is not the market.



I really like "regression and starvation that much". You are the one proposing a system where there is no safety net for the unemployed, ill and disabled. How exactly would they avoid starvation? Answer, they wouldn't.
Though I suppose the disadvantaged don't matter much to you, because you certainly don't seem to care much about what will happen to them under your system.


You don't understand the economic consequences. You support helping the few at the cost of many.

There can be no disadvantaged with freedom.



No there isn't one single formula to make profit. However if you pay someone $2 for making something and sell it for $4, you make more profit than if you pay them $3 and sell it for $4. Economics even I can understand. The lower the costs, the greater the profit.


Your economic senses are limited. You may be able to get $2 profit, but it will not matter much if the $1 profit firm sells more than twice as you.

In an unhampered market, mature industries will tend to reach thin marginal profits.



Yet magically there would be noone with this great wealth under your system. Give me a break. There would be fantastically wealthy people under your system, with enough money to exert huge power over people. They would become parasitic. Your system would create the material conditions for these parasites, mine would abolish the conditions. The market would become the cause of these parasites, by creating unequal wealth and with it unequal power.


Bullshit. Businesses do not have the power to TAX. TAXES are not voluntary. SALES are voluntary.

You can't be a parasite if the host agrees to have you. It's symbiosis.

You still don't seem to grasp that business profits by serving you, not the other way around.



You see the Unions didn't change the price of anything, they made the bosses give back some of the profit to the people who created it.


Bullshit. The prices of goods increased, much to the detriment of even those that were unionized, but even more so to the ones that were not.



Why do I need to be an expert on something to advocate it. You advocate Nuclear Power, are you a nuclear physicist?


Idiot. I never say I advocate Nuclear Power. I advocate letting the market decide the best mixture of energy sources. Nothing more.

If I was a nuclear physisist then I would be biased, wouldn't I?



You advocate Anarcho-Capitalism or Libertarianism, I can't remember which, are you an economist?


I don't need a degree to understand basic economic princples. You neither understand basic economic principles, nor do you understand Marxist dis-economic principles.



I know enough to hold an opinion. And even if I knew everything, my opinion wouldn't be perfect.


EVERYONE knows enough to hold an opinion. That is hardly an accomplishment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you read my post properly then you would see that the phrase "Our job is to advocate nuclear power", shows that the writer is more than just an advocate. The same as if you advocated genetic engineering and then said "My job is to advocate genetic engineering". This statement implies that there is a financial incentive for the support of said industry. And as we have seen over recent years, with regard court cases and expert scientific evidence, when financial gain is involved. The science seems to become a bit more flexible, in order for it to fit nicely in line, with the highest bidders argument.

Or maybe if you stopped playing dishonest semantic games, you would realise he was talking about the "job" of the site. He does state that he refers the the opinions of the site (IE, his opinions) in the plural.


He could whistle out as many facts as he likes. I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I have neither the basis or education to understand them. However I also don't know whether these facts are selective.

So safer reactors, improved procedures, and an excellent safety record are "selective facts" when advocating nuclear power to a public scared to death by Greenpeace's Nuclear Boogeyman?


The finicial gain, which he says he gets from advocating nuclear power, in my opinion, taints the evidence.

But you have nothing but your own rather dishonest semantics to prove that this person works for the nuclear industry.


Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but one of the first things I was taught in History in school, was to analyse the source, in order to establish whether there is any bias there. There is obviously bias there, his financial gain, which makes it an unbalanced source.

Or maybe, like me, he's sick and tired of the mischaracterisation of the nuclear industry as a civilisation-threatening exercise.


Not all green campaigners lack knowledge. I've met a few, who have a background in science and they don't want nuclear power.

Well, consider this; the green industry stands to gain a lot in the form of grants from the government if "renewable" resources are given the go-ahead like they already have been doing in the UK, and nuclear power is a threat to that primacy, so by your own measures, the green campaigners are just as (un)trustworthy as the nuclear advocates.


Yes I did read the part about thyroid cancer having risen. I also read the part where the author disregards increased mutations in children as a result of Chernobyl. He said something along the lines of the evidence not being there to show child mutations were a result of radiation. The same way the lovely people who put up phone masts in urban areas, say the science isn't there that shows the drastic increase in cancer in these areas, is because of the phone mast.

Well, the evidence in both cases is very sketchy. This isn't helped by our hypochondriac society and the fact there is a financial incentive to sue for millions.


Yeah, only the truly dense idiots will say they don't care in public. But what makes you think the board members will be altruistic enough to suddenly start improving safety over profit. History tends to show that it takes quite alot of avoidable disasters before the money men start to change their policy.

But somebody has to feel the heat when such things happen, and those people are usually the ones directly responsible and thus they get fired. Engineers do everything within their power when it comes to safety, and if they aren't getting the cash to do what they want, they make a fuss.

Of course, whether the bean counters give them the cash or not is a different story. But it seems that the engineers have learned their lesson and have designed reactors that don't make the neighbourhood glow when they break down like the old Russian ones used to.

Nuclear accidents are a very expnsive PR goof, and I think even the "money men" will pay it more heed than usual.


How hots the soup?

About 1600°C, but his floor is several metres of concrete :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are repeating yourself. There is no contradiction because government coal production is not the market.

Was the coal not sold through the market? Bought through the market? etc. The coal industry was in essence "State Capitalist". Which makes it part of the market.


You don't understand the economic consequences. You support helping the few at the cost of many.

There can be no disadvantaged with freedom.

I support helping the many at the expense of the few. If wealth was equal the overwhelming majority of people, would be better off than they are now.

"There can be no disadvantaged with freedom". Now that sounds like a mantra the White House would spout. It really was very amusing to read, have you got any more?


Your economic senses are limited. You may be able to get $2 profit, but it will not matter much if the $1 profit firm sells more than twice as you.

In an unhampered market, mature industries will tend to reach thin marginal profits.

Look at the example again -


However if you pay someone $2 for making something and sell it for $4, you make more profit than if you pay them $3 and sell it for $4

If those products were both on the market, they would sell the same amount, been as people according to you choose price. Therefore the company making $2 profit, would end up richer. Which shows you that higher wages are undesireable to any businessman looking to make money.

Mature industries? What, have they reached puberty?


Bullshit. Businesses do not have the power to TAX. TAXES are not voluntary. SALES are voluntary.

You can't be a parasite if the host agrees to have you. It's symbiosis.

You still don't seem to grasp that business profits by serving you, not the other way around.

Where did I say anything about tax? I said unequal wealth would bring about unequal power. With great wealth you can buy your power and control over others.


Bullshit. The prices of goods increased, much to the detriment of even those that were unionized, but even more so to the ones that were not.

Prices increased because business owners wanted to keep their profit margins. Not because people were payed more.


Idiot. I never say I advocate Nuclear Power. I advocate letting the market decide the best mixture of energy sources. Nothing more.

If I was a nuclear physisist then I would be biased, wouldn't I?

You were certainly anti tidal, wind or solar. Which been as we were discussing tidal, wind, solar and nuclear power. Gives the impression you are pro nuclear by default.
And you would only be biased if you were working for the nuclear industry. Financial incentive implies bias.


I don't need a degree to understand basic economic princples. You neither understand basic economic principles, nor do you understand Marxist dis-economic principles.

The fact that I am not as capable as you with regards understanding economic principles. Only degrades my argument, not the Communist argument. Anyway if I were promoting Capitalist economics, I doubt you would be so quick to judge.


EVERYONE knows enough to hold an opinion. That is hardly an accomplishment.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Or maybe if you stopped playing dishonest semantic games, you would realise he was talking about the "job" of the site. He does state that he refers the the opinions of the site (IE, his opinions) in the plural.

Well it is his poor English that has led to the misunderstanding. And until he corrects it, I reserve the right to question that statement as part of my argument.

He made the dubious statement, not me.


So safer reactors, improved procedures, and an excellent safety record are "selective facts" when advocating nuclear power to a public scared to death by Greenpeace's Nuclear Boogeyman?

As I said, I don't have the educational basis really to question these facts. This means also, I am not able to know whether the facts are selective.

Add to this that facts aren't conclusive, even scientifically. The debate over global warming has scientists lining up on both sides spouting facts. These facts apparently support their case while discrediting the others. The nuclear debate is in a similar situation.


But you have nothing but your own rather dishonest semantics to prove that this person works for the nuclear industry.

I already made my case by pointing out a statement he made. I am not being dishonest, I didn't make the statement up.


Or maybe, like me, he's sick and tired of the mischaracterisation of the nuclear industry as a civilisation-threatening exercise

Maybe he is, maybe hes not. I don't know what his own personal opinions are.


Well, consider this; the green industry stands to gain a lot in the form of grants from the government if "renewable" resources are given the go-ahead like they already have been doing in the UK, and nuclear power is a threat to that primacy, so by your own measures, the green campaigners are just as (un)trustworthy as the nuclear advocates.

The green industry stands to gain. But alot of anti nuclear protesters have no financial links with the green industry. They just don't want nuclear power plants. I would have thought you of all people, would respect the democratic will of the people.


Well, the evidence in both cases is very sketchy. This isn't helped by our hypochondriac society and the fact there is a financial incentive to sue for millions.

Sketchy evidence doesn't neccesarily mean its wrong. What reason does a scientist have, other than his own ego, to challenge the opinions of industry scientists? Generally his only reason is because he thinks the accepted opinion is wrong and dangerous.


But somebody has to feel the heat when such things happen, and those people are usually the ones directly responsible and thus they get fired. Engineers do everything within their power when it comes to safety, and if they aren't getting the cash to do what they want, they make a fuss.

Of course, whether the bean counters give them the cash or not is a different story. But it seems that the engineers have learned their lesson and have designed reactors that don't make the neighbourhood glow when they break down like the old Russian ones used to.

Nuclear accidents are a very expnsive PR goof, and I think even the "money men" will pay it more heed than usual.

Whatever you say to me. I will not trust profit mongers, with something as potentially dangerous. The same way I don't trust George Bush with the nuclear bomb or a toddler with a gun. Its a recipe for disaster.


About 1600°C, but his floor is several metres of concrete

:D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well it is his poor English that has led to the misunderstanding. And until he corrects it, I reserve the right to question that statement as part of my argument.

He made the dubious statement, not me.

Now you're backtracking. First you said that his words were conclusive evidence for his working for nuclear industry, and now you're saying it's simply a case of bad english?


As I said, I don't have the educational basis really to question these facts. This means also, I am not able to know whether the facts are selective.

Oh, come on. Surely your scientific knowledge is good enough to know the laws of physics? That's what modern reactors rely on when things go wrong; for example, neutron absorbing control rods (Free neutrons is what makes nuclear reactions tick) are held above the reaction chamber by electromagnets. When the power is cut off to the electromagnets, the control rods drop in and the reaction is shut down. And this is not the only safety feature. Failure of the law of gravity is so ridiculously unlikely that to express about it's reliability is quit literally loopy.


Add to this that facts aren't conclusive, even scientifically. The debate over global warming has scientists lining up on both sides spouting facts. These facts apparently support their case while discrediting the others. The nuclear debate is in a similar situation.

Global warming is a much more divisive area than nuclear safety, as there is no actual way of demonstrating which environmental model is the most accurate. By comparison it is relatively easy to build and test prototype reactors.


The green industry stands to gain. But alot of anti nuclear protesters have no financial links with the green industry. They just don't want nuclear power plants. I would have thought you of all people, would respect the democratic will of the people.

I also think that individuals and groups thereof should make educated decisions, especially about scientific and contentious subjects.


Sketchy evidence doesn't neccesarily mean its wrong.

But it also means it's far from conclusive, and to make decisions based on non-conclusive evidence is foolish in the extreme.


Whatever you say to me. I will not trust profit mongers, with something as potentially dangerous. The same way I don't trust George Bush with the nuclear bomb or a toddler with a gun. Its a recipe for disaster.

The thing is, current methods of electricity production are killing people right now. I would rather take the chance of being slightly irradiated than have the absolute certainty of my lungs turned to carbon, having valleys flooded by hydroelectric and covered in windmills, and having dangerous chemicals used in the creation of photovoltaic cells released into my drinking water.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Now you're backtracking. First you said that his words were conclusive evidence for his working for nuclear industry, and now you're saying it's simply a case of bad english?

First I said that these words showed either he worked for the nuclear industry or that he was using nuclear industry propaganda. I should, I suppose, have accounted for poor English standards, as well.


Oh, come on. Surely your scientific knowledge is good enough to know the laws of physics? That's what modern reactors rely on when things go wrong; for example, neutron absorbing control rods (Free neutrons is what makes nuclear reactions tick) are held above the reaction chamber by electromagnets. When the power is cut off to the electromagnets, the control rods drop in and the reaction is shut down. And this is not the only safety feature. Failure of the law of gravity is so ridiculously unlikely that to express about it's reliability is quit literally loopy.

What happens if the electro magnets don't turn off?


Global warming is a much more divisive area than nuclear safety, as there is no actual way of demonstrating which environmental model is the most accurate. By comparison it is relatively easy to build and test prototype reactors.


Maybe it is more devisive, but the science regarding evolution is supposed to be sound. Yet some scientists still dispute it.


I also think that individuals and groups thereof should make educated decisions, especially about scientific and contentious subjects.

Fair point. Though my opinion may not be educated, it is still my poinion. And I am quite happy with it.


But it also means it's far from conclusive, and to make decisions based on non-conclusive evidence is foolish in the extreme.

No evidence is 100% conclusive. To think so would be "foolish in the extreme".


The thing is, current methods of electricity production are killing people right now. I would rather take the chance of being slightly irradiated than have the absolute certainty of my lungs turned to carbon, having valleys flooded by hydroelectric and covered in windmills, and having dangerous chemicals used in the creation of photovoltaic cells released into my drinking water.

Now whos being dramatic. ;)

To be honest, this debate isn't really going anywhere. And been as no one else seems to be participating. I would say both my debate with both of you, NoXion and quincunx5, is pretty much deadlocked. We aren't really going to agree now, are we?

[quincunx5]

Was the coal not sold through the market? Bought through the market? etc. The coal industry was in essence "State Capitalist". Which makes it part of the market.


That's so retarded on so many levels. Even communism's gift economy would have a market.



I support helping the many at the expense of the few. If wealth was equal the overwhelming majority of people, would be better off than they are now.


That's what you think you support, but your economic views produces exactly the opposite.

Having everyone be equally wealthy does not bring further wealth.

But let us assume that everyone is now equally wealthy. Let's say I want to come up with a new technology that will improve the lives of everyone. Where will I get the funding?

Well, if I pursuade enough people they will give me money (exchange medium reflecting fruits of labour) in return for interest. What has happened? I am currently the wealthiest person, but I am in debt.

This is what a businessman is. Regular workers indirectly (though financial institutions) entrust the businessman to improve the commonwealth. Should the businessman succeed they will get their money back with interest and reap the full benefits of this new piece of technology.

Welcome to reality.



"There can be no disadvantaged with freedom". Now that sounds like a mantra the White House would spout. It really was very amusing to read, have you got any more?


Ha ha. The white house may be spouting "freedom" but it's mere existence is a contradiction. Don't confuse the fake "freedom" with the real thing.



If those products were both on the market, they would sell the same amount, been as people according to you choose price. Therefore the company making $2 profit, would end up richer. Which shows you that higher wages are undesireable to any businessman looking to make money.


Yes but you are discounting other things. The $2 profit company did not have advertisers. The $1 profit company spent $2 on physical labor, and $1 on advertising labor, hence they were able to sell more.

Or, if there were no advertisers, the workers were more productive, once they were getting $3, instead of $2 dollars. Output increased, so the $4 final cost will soon be reduced to less.

Or, if there were no advertisers, the $2 workers left the $2 company and worked for the $3 company, reducing output in the $2 company, hence eventually leading $2 company to raise final price.

The market does not stand still, it is always adjusting.



Mature industries? What, have they reached puberty?


You obviously haven't followed the typical history of industry. I can summerize it quickly:
1) Invention or Reinvention, 2) Investment, 3) Consolidation, 4) Maturity, 5) Decline, or death

The highest profits are in stages 2 and 3. The coal industry stratles between 4 and 5. The car industry is in 4. The high-tech gadget market (like PDA, cell phones) is in various stages of 1, 2, an 3.



Where did I say anything about tax? I said unequal wealth would bring about unequal power. With great wealth you can buy your power and control over others.


You can't voluntarily buy something, and then claim that your purchase is controlling the seller.
In fact, you've transfered wealth to the seller.



Prices increased because business owners wanted to keep their profit margins. Not because people were payed more.


Exactly, their only interest in keeping the company going is to make profits for various multiple chaning owners. Without this interest for profits, there would be no incentive to start a business, and even once started, there is no incentive to keep it going. Profit is the price for getting things done.



You were certainly anti tidal, wind or solar. Which been as we were discussing tidal, wind, solar and nuclear power. Gives the impression you are pro nuclear by default.


This is simply not true. I love the idea, it just happens to be impractical. I do not seek to use my opinion to force someone into using an impractical energy source.



Anyway if I were promoting Capitalist economics, I doubt you would be so quick to judge.


Try it. We'll see. I usually judge poor economic theories from anyone regardless of what they think they believe. Assuming the argument is on economics.

[Korol Aferist]

The Hurricane it hitted me and I liked it.
I can't wait for the next one!



But really it's the south!
Come on, They're too cheap to send buses for the poor!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What happens if the electro magnets don't turn off?

Well shit, first I should have mentioned that it was operated by a dead man's switch, but in the event of a runaway reaction the wires will melt, breaking the connection and causing the rods to fall.


Maybe it is more devisive, but the science regarding evolution is supposed to be sound. Yet some scientists still dispute it.

Only the details are disputed by reputable scientists. Only the proponents of "Intelligent" Design and creationists disagree.


No evidence is 100% conclusive. To think so would be "foolish in the extreme".

I never said it was. But evidence can be so strong that you might as well say it's conclusive anyway, like the link between lung disease and smoking, and the evidence in the case of phone masts and nuclear reactors is nowhere near as conclusive.


Now whos being dramatic. ;)

It's true though. For some strange reason people have a huge bug up their ass about radiation, but at the same time they seem to care little for ash, carbon monoxide, particulates, acids and heavy metals, even though they are more prevalent.

[Amusing Scrotum]

That's so retarded on so many levels. Even communism's gift economy would have a market.

Yes I suppose it would have a market of sorts. But it would be so basic that it wouldn't really resemble the market of today.

Also you still haven't answered my point, about the intervention to close the mines being a market intervention. Which you despise.


That's what you think you support, but your economic views produces exactly the opposite.

Having everyone be equally wealthy does not bring further wealth.

But let us assume that everyone is now equally wealthy. Let's say I want to come up with a new technology that will improve the lives of everyone. Where will I get the funding?

Well, if I pursuade enough people they will give me money (exchange medium reflecting fruits of labour) in return for interest. What has happened? I am currently the wealthiest person, but I am in debt.

This is what a businessman is. Regular workers indirectly (though financial institutions) entrust the businessman to improve the commonwealth. Should the businessman succeed they will get their money back with interest and reap the full benefits of this new piece of technology.

Welcome to reality.

The workers' councils would vote and decide whether it was of any use for you to pursue the creation of the technology and whether they wished to support you while you did this. The choice to choose your own future is what direct democracy is all about.


Ha ha. The white house may be spouting "freedom" but it's mere existence is a contradiction. Don't confuse the fake "freedom" with the real thing.


The real thing of course being Communism. ;)


Yes but you are discounting other things. The $2 profit company did not have advertisers. The $1 profit company spent $2 on physical labor, and $1 on advertising labor, hence they were able to sell more.

Or, if there were no advertisers, the workers were more productive, once they were getting $3, instead of $2 dollars. Output increased, so the $4 final cost will soon be reduced to less.

Or, if there were no advertisers, the $2 workers left the $2 company and worked for the $3 company, reducing output in the $2 company, hence eventually leading $2 company to raise final price.

The market does not stand still, it is always adjusting.

You know full well the costs I put forward, represented wages and that I was using a closed example. Removing other factors like advertising to make a point. Which you have tried to avoid answering.


You obviously haven't followed the typical history of industry. I can summerize it quickly:
1) Invention or Reinvention, 2) Investment, 3) Consolidation, 4) Maturity, 5) Decline, or death

The highest profits are in stages 2 and 3. The coal industry stratles between 4 and 5. The car industry is in 4. The high-tech gadget market (like PDA, cell phones) is in various stages of 1, 2, an 3.

I was being humerous again. You didn't honestly think the comment "Mature industries? What, have they reached puberty?", was a serious point.


You can't voluntarily buy something, and then claim that your purchase is controlling the seller.
In fact, you've transfered wealth to the seller.

Huh? Go back and answer my question. I have tried to answer all your points, despite my already conceded poor economic knowledge. Yet when I pose a question you find slightly sticky. You evade answering it, with some random ideological dogma.


Exactly, their only interest in keeping the company going is to make profits for various multiple chaning owners. Without this interest for profits, there would be no incentive to start a business, and even once started, there is no incentive to keep it going. Profit is the price for getting things done.

There is no need for one person to make a profit for doing something. Surely even you will realise that Co-Operative companies are workable. They don't need to drive up prices to keep profit margins, when workers gain wage increases. If you don't maintain the profit margin, the price doesn't go up.


This is simply not true. I love the idea, it just happens to be impractical. I do not seek to use my opinion to force someone into using an impractical energy source.

Sorry, I must of misunderstood you. Its just your comments seemed incredibly pro nuclear. My bad.


Try it. We'll see. I usually judge poor economic theories from anyone regardless of what they think they believe. Assuming the argument is on economics.

"Try it", ok.

In a deep, manly, pro Capitalist tone - "Well god' darn' it, I dunno 'bout yu, bu' I jus' luuuuv dem' free markets, with dere' supply n' demand curves."

:lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well shit, first I should have mentioned that it was operated by a dead man's switch, but in the event of a runaway reaction the wires will melt, breaking the connection and causing the rods to fall.

I was just being curious. No need to get tetchy about it.


Only the details are disputed by reputable scientists. Only the proponents of "Intelligent" Design and creationists disagree.

Who decides who is a "refutable" scientist?


I never said it was. But evidence can be so strong that you might as well say it's conclusive anyway, like the link between lung disease and smoking, and the evidence in the case of phone masts and nuclear reactors is nowhere near as conclusive.

Yes the evidence can be strong, but it still doesn't make it conclusive. Also isn't the lung cancer, smoking link, just as circumstantial as the radiation, mutation link?


It's true though. For some strange reason people have a huge bug up their ass about radiation, but at the same time they seem to care little for ash, carbon monoxide, particulates, acids and heavy metals, even though they are more prevalent.

I'm not one of these people. I'm against dioxin producing technology etc. as well as being against radiation producing technology. I'm not a complete green nut, but that line of thinking, certainly does influence my own opinions.

[quincunx5]

Yes I suppose it would have a market of sorts. But it would be so basic that it wouldn't really resemble the market of today.


So good and services will not be exchanged as frequently. Say good bye to a sizable portion of the population who has no idea how to cultivate land an other basic things.



Also you still haven't answered my point, about the intervention to close the mines being a market intervention. Which you despise.


I have answered your point. I cannot get through to you, if you really think that the mines were not government operated (not market).



The workers' councils would vote and decide whether it was of any use for you to pursue the creation of the technology and whether they wished to support you while you did this. The choice to choose your own future is what direct democracy is all about.


That would be great if progress actually worked that way. But it does not. You can't readily convince people that what you are making will indeed turn out to be great - no one has that foresight. No one can even say ahead of time the kind of budget it would require. People would hesitate to change the status quo.

In the free market, you, and only you are required to make the decision.



You know full well the costs I put forward, represented wages and that I was using a closed example. Removing other factors like advertising to make a point. Which you have tried to avoid answering.


You can't make a closed example like that in the free market. It's always changing. The person who buy one $4 good over the same $4 good may simply like the cover on the box, he may have not spotted the other good, or he was referred by a friend to buy so-and-so brand.

The amount the businessman pays the labor is also dependedant on where the labor is conducted. Money is not wealth. For example, assuming my income was fixed, I can live extremely comfortably in a nice apartment in Philadelphia, pay less for auto insurance, and have less of my income taxed. I still choose to live in a small apartment in NYC, pay a lot for auto insurance, and have a big portion of my income taxed.

Because I have to pay these higher costs, I will get paid more. Should I choose to move else where my income will be changed to reflect the standards of a new community.

Your example is poor. If the $2 profit firm and the $1 firm were accross the street from each other. The market would tend to reach an equilibrium at $1.5 profit.



I was being humerous again. You didn't honestly think the comment "Mature industries? What, have they reached puberty?", was a serious point.


I understand humour, but I still thought you should know history and economics.



Yet when I pose a question you find slightly sticky. You evade answering it, with some random ideological dogma.


You think I don't feel the same way? You are doing exactly the same thing, except you don't provide any concretee examples.



There is no need for one person to make a profit for doing something. Surely even you will realise that Co-Operative companies are workable. They don't need to drive up prices to keep profit margins, when workers gain wage increases. If you don't maintain the profit margin, the price doesn't go up.


If this were indeed so, we'd see many more partnership corporations. Yet, I have never seen such a public corporation run successfully. Make one and prove me wrong.

If you don't maintain the profit margin and let the prices remain, you will lose interest in keeping it running, as you the owner or ownwers are gaining absolutely nothing from it.

But of course businesses keep runing in hopes that productivity of labor or changes in the market will once again bring good profits.

Once the business loses it's relavency in the market, investors will go someplace else. Downsizing and eventual bankruptcy will close down the business.



In a deep, manly, pro Capitalist tone - "Well god' darn' it, I dunno 'bout yu, bu' I jus' luuuuv dem' free markets, with dere' supply n' demand curves."


Russian-Norwegian Americans don't sound like that at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was just being curious. No need to get tetchy about it.

I wasn't getting tetchy, I was annoyed at myself for forgetting.


Who decides who is a "refutable" scientist?

I said "Reputable" as in "not considered a total crackpot by his peers"

Creationists and IDers fall into the "total crackpot" category.


Yes the evidence can be strong, but it still doesn't make it conclusive. Also isn't the lung cancer, smoking link, just as circumstantial as the radiation, mutation link?

But the important thing is amount and effect. Someone who smokes heavily for most of their life will be more unfit than a person exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation for a month in their mid-20s.


I'm not one of these people. I'm against dioxin producing technology etc. as well as being against radiation producing technology. I'm not a complete green nut, but that line of thinking, certainly does influence my own opinions.

Well, pollution is inevitable in modern society and our job is to try and make sure that pollution has as little effect on the environment as possible. The pollution from nuclear reactors is considerably less and a lot more managable than the pollution from coal-burning power plants, and has considerably less effect on the local environment than a hydroelectric dam, solar farm or bunch of windmills.

Geothermal is good where you can get it, but until we can drill holes all the way to the Earth's mantle it will be limited to geologically active areas.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I wasn't getting tetchy, I was annoyed at myself for forgetting.

:D


I said "Reputable" as in "not considered a total crackpot by his peers"

Creationists and IDers fall into the "total crackpot" category.

Alright, a bad example on my part. Though they illustrate really well, how people can make the science fit, if it suits their ideological and/or financial situation to do so.


But the important thing is amount and effect. Someone who smokes heavily for most of their life will be more unfit than a person exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation for a month in their mid-20s.

Your quite right there, its just I don't really trust the nuclear industries figures regarding radation.


Well, pollution is inevitable in modern society and our job is to try and make sure that pollution has as little effect on the environment as possible. The pollution from nuclear reactors is considerably less and a lot more managable than the pollution from coal-burning power plants, and has considerably less effect on the local environment than a hydroelectric dam, solar farm or bunch of windmills.

Geothermal is good where you can get it, but until we can drill holes all the way to the Earth's mantle it will be limited to geologically active areas.

I would disagree with you on the environmental costs of nuclear vs. other renewables, but we've already established our views on this.
Geothermal is another interesting one. I remember my college lecturer refering to this and how one of the Scandinavian countries gets most of its central heating off geothermal power. Seems it could become the system for most central heating systems.

[Amusing Scrotum]

So good and services will not be exchanged as frequently. Say good bye to a sizable portion of the population who has no idea how to cultivate land an other basic things.

Either I am missing something or your answer is incredibly incoherent. How did you manage to derive that from my statement -


Yes I suppose it would have a market of sorts. But it would be so basic that it wouldn't really resemble the market of today

Please explain.


I have answered your point. I cannot get through to you, if you really think that the mines were not government operated (not market).

They were both. Government operated and Market operated.


That would be great if progress actually worked that way. But it does not. You can't readily convince people that what you are making will indeed turn out to be great - no one has that foresight. No one can even say ahead of time the kind of budget it would require. People would hesitate to change the status quo.

In the free market, you, and only you are required to make the decision

If no one has that "foresight", then how do you explain people getting business loans and investors for inventions. Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't be able to judge as a community, democratically, whether the said invention is a useful use of time and resources.

Plus, in the free market you are not the only person who can make that decision. You still require capital to get resources. Therefore you need investors and/or loans.


You can't make a closed example like that in the free market. It's always changing. The person who buy one $4 good over the same $4 good may simply like the cover on the box, he may have not spotted the other good, or he was referred by a friend to buy so-and-so brand.

The amount the businessman pays the labor is also dependedant on where the labor is conducted. Money is not wealth. For example, assuming my income was fixed, I can live extremely comfortably in a nice apartment in Philadelphia, pay less for auto insurance, and have less of my income taxed. I still choose to live in a small apartment in NYC, pay a lot for auto insurance, and have a big portion of my income taxed.

Because I have to pay these higher costs, I will get paid more. Should I choose to move else where my income will be changed to reflect the standards of a new community.

Your example is poor. If the $2 profit firm and the $1 firm were accross the street from each other. The market would tend to reach an equilibrium at $1.5 profit.


A closed example was sufficient for my point regarding your belief, that more liberal pratices benefit the market more. The point served as a decent example, for showing that the market would make more money using either extremely low wages or slave labour. However once again you have evaded answering my criticism, with another mantra regarding the market.


I understand humour, but I still thought you should know history and economics.

Well thank you for the little history lesson, you provided. :)


You think I don't feel the same way? You are doing exactly the same thing, except you don't provide any concretee examples.

Where have I done this? Point it out and I will try to provide you with a better answer.


If this were indeed so, we'd see many more partnership corporations. Yet, I have never seen such a public corporation run successfully. Make one and prove me wrong.

If you don't maintain the profit margin and let the prices remain, you will lose interest in keeping it running, as you the owner or ownwers are gaining absolutely nothing from it.

But of course businesses keep runing in hopes that productivity of labor or changes in the market will once again bring good profits.

Once the business loses it's relavency in the market, investors will go someplace else. Downsizing and eventual bankruptcy will close down the business.

There was an incredibly succesful commune in Canada, that the Canadian business community lobbied the Government into regulating against. Therefore destroying it.

Plus the owners are earning a good wage, why do they need profit margins, as long as they are breaking even.

Also, it is very hard for a non exploitative company to compete in the market with companies that do exploit.


Russian-Norwegian Americans don't sound like that at all.

Huh?

[quincunx5]

Either I am missing something or your answer is incredibly incoherent. How did you manage to derive that from my statement -

Yes I suppose it would have a market of sorts. But it would be so basic that it wouldn't really resemble the market of today


The market today is what keeps us alive. Bring it down to a basic level, as you suggest and death will ensue for a grand portion of the population.



If no one has that "foresight", then how do you explain people getting business loans and investors for inventions.

in the free market you are not the only person who can make that decision. You still require capital to get resources. Therefore you need investors and/or loans.


It's like you get it and then you don't.

Of course people have some foresight. That is why they get loans. But today this money is anonymous, you can get a small loan to start your business. In your society you FIRST have to seek majority approval, then you can get a loan, then you can develop something, and then your community can still change their mind and prevent you from going further.



Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't be able to judge as a community, democratically, whether the said invention is a useful use of time and resources.


How can you judge something that only exists in idea form? Do you really want to leave it up the stupid majority to understand your idea? I say no.

What is to stop the community from reversing it's decision?



The point served as a decent example, for showing that the market would make more money using either extremely low wages or slave labour.


You still don't get it. That's why I have to keep repeating things to you.

You gave me an example of how a BUSINESS can make more money using low wages.

You mix the two up as if they were the same. Grow up.



Plus the owners are earning a good wage, why do they need profit margins, as long as they are breaking even.


Not all owners are workers.
Are you talking about 'petty burgeoise'?



Also, it is very hard for a non exploitative company to compete in the market with companies that do exploit.


Competition is not always eliminative. Assuming prices are equal:
A less-exploitative company can really get good market share if it advertises how well they pay their workers. The consumers will shift to this company. If that is the case then the smaller profit rates can still accumulate to a sizable chunk, making both workers and exploiters happy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would disagree with you on the environmental costs of nuclear vs. other renewables, but we've already established our views on this.

You know, I could be an ass and press you on this issue, but I'm not going to. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

The market today is what keeps us alive. Bring it down to a basic level, as you suggest and death will ensue for a grand portion of the population.

I fail to see how removing certain elements and simplifying the market. Until it is on a basic if you need, you get system. Would result in death. The average workers' council is not going to be so incompetent, that it won't realise when it is running low on food and needs to increase production. You seem to think, somewhat absurdly, that a group of people with full control over their production, will forget to feed themselves. Is your opinion of the working mans intelligence, really that low?


It's like you get it and then you don't.

Of course people have some foresight. That is why they get loans. But today this money is anonymous, you can get a small loan to start your business. In your society you FIRST have to seek majority approval, then you can get a loan, then you can develop something, and then your community can still change their mind and prevent you from going further.

The "community can still change their mind and prevent you from going further", the same way a bank can stop you, or investors can demand repayment.
Also most communities would allow you to proceed in trying to create something beneficial, provided you still contributed a little. Two hours of bin collecting or road sweeping, still leaves twenty two hours in the day that you could persue your own interests.
And anyway, with a bank loan, you still have to seek a majority approval. From the man giving you the loan.


How can you judge something that only exists in idea form? Do you really want to leave it up the stupid majority to understand your idea? I say no.

What is to stop the community from reversing it's decision?

You see, I have slightly more faith in the intelligence of others than you do. I'm suprised you don't like Governments more, because they view the general population as stupid, just as you do.
Also there is nothing to stop the community from reversing their decision. What is wrong with that? If something is obviously not going anywhere, then where is the harm in stopping it.


You still don't get it. That's why I have to keep repeating things to you.

You gave me an example of how a BUSINESS can make more money using low wages.

You mix the two up as if they were the same. Grow up.

Its basic economics, that even I can understand. Lower costs equal more profit. If this was not the case, then companies wouldn't spend money looking for ways to reduce costs.


Not all owners are workers.
Are you talking about 'petty burgeoise'?

I was refering to Co-Operative businesses, where everyone is both an owner and a worker. They control the means of production and use it to work.


Competition is not always eliminative. Assuming prices are equal:
A less-exploitative company can really get good market share if it advertises how well they pay their workers. The consumers will shift to this company. If that is the case then the smaller profit rates can still accumulate to a sizable chunk, making both workers and exploiters happy.

Oh yes, because Wal-Marts' profits are suffering so badly because they use exploitative methods.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You know, I could be an ass and press you on this issue, but I'm not going to.

Yep you could. And I would be just as stubborn an ass, pressing my issue. :P

[quincunx5]

I fail to see how removing certain elements and simplifying the market. Until it is on a basic if you need, you get system. Would result in death. The average workers' council is not going to be so incompetent, that it won't realise when it is running low on food and needs to increase production.


Oh, it will inded realize it, but not as much work will get done.

Needing to increase production doesn't exactly compel individuals to work. IF there is no incentive to work, why would they work hard? Why work at all?



You seem to think, somewhat absurdly, that a group of people with full control over their production, will forget to feed themselves.


They will not forget, but they will not do it as effectively.



Is your opinion of the working mans intelligence, really that low?


No. The working man who engages in his own pursuits is very intelligent.
Being in control of other people makes him less so.

The intelligent man will indeed feed himself, but he will be less obligated to feed others, unless he can get something in return for his efforts. Otherwise his own skills make him a slave.

The few cannot possibly meet the needs of the many any more than the legs of the few can move the masses.



The "community can still change their mind and prevent you from going further", the same way a bank can stop you, or investors can demand repayment.


In reality land they can not. A contract will tell you ahead of time when you must start repaying (like 15, 30 years for a house, or 1-5 years for short term loan).

They can't break their own contracts without getting sued. There is no such social contract in a direct democratic society.



Also most communities would allow you to proceed in trying to create something beneficial, provided you still contributed a little. Two hours of bin collecting or road sweeping, still leaves twenty two hours in the day that you could persue your own interests.


I'll ignore the fact that you will not allow people to sleep. Why just two hours? How can you be so certain that will be the magic number. If you are a physician and inventor, I think, you will be forced to provide urgent medical help first, and inventing later.



You see, I have slightly more faith in the intelligence of others than you do.


I have slightly more faith in the intelligence of SOME others. I have very little faith in the compromises made by intelligent people.

Get two intelligent people in a room, and they will only agree on a few things.
Get three intelligent people in a room, and they will agree on even less.
Get a hundred intelligent people in a room, and they will only agree on extremely little. They only agree on very basic - less diverse things.

This will not spur creativity, but mere compromises.

Istead of allowing each of these hundred invididuals to pursue their own interests independently and then competing for public approval of their idea (via the market), your proposal will make compromises before invention in the hopes that the initial compromise of ideas will create something good.

I do not deny that something good may come out of this compromise, but it will not be as abundant nor will it satisfy individuals' taste as well as letting these 100 intelligent people each satisfy a given proportion of the public.



I'm suprised you don't like Governments more, because they view the general population as stupid, just as you do.


The government is generally just as stupid, but they have managed to concentrate power.
It is not exactly intelligent to TAX people and print money. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book. It is not a new concept at all!

The government does not create, it merely takes the creative energies of millions of indivuals.
It takes these creative energies and spends it arbitrarily on others' creative energy. That is all it does. Overall this stymies the SUM of creative energies in the free market.



Also there is nothing to stop the community from reversing their decision. What is wrong with that? If something is obviously not going anywhere, then where is the harm in stopping it.


You can't readily see where something is going, until it's there. Today you are not making progress, and maybe even tomorrow, but a month from now you will have a breakgrough that will further your progress. If the community stops you tomorrow, your dream will never be realized, and the fruits of your labour will have gone to waste.

Science is not quick. It is certainly not quick enough in the eyes of the general population. It's a slow incremental process. One who's implications take significant time to realize, and even more time to make them into practical socially useful things.



I was refering to Co-Operative businesses, where everyone is both an owner and a worker. They control the means of production and use it to work.


There is nothing stopping this from occuring today. Realize that profits that will be used for expansion and fixing depreciated capital will still have to come out of the worker/owner's pockets. New workers and new machines will need to be obtained.



Oh yes, because Wal-Marts' profits are suffering so badly because they use exploitative methods.


Compared to?

Again, you are talking about a single company. I'm not talking about one company, I'm talking about the market.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Oh, it will inded realize it, but not as much work will get done.

Needing to increase production doesn't exactly compel individuals to work. IF there is no incentive to work, why would they work hard? Why work at all?


Why would they work? I would have thought this would be pretty obvious. If you don't produce any food, you starve, then die. The fear of death seems to be a pretty good incentive to work. Similarly, if certain workers want some luxury goods of some sort. They put it to the community and the community will decide whether to support these workers whilst they produce said items for the community. Alternatively if the community decides these items are not beneficial, then the workers can produce them for themselves in their spare time.
Generally however, the community will want to improve itself. Therefore as long as the community is meeting the basic needs of people, it will support people who are producing luxurious items for the community.


They will not forget, but they will not do it as effectively.

Why won't they do it as efficiently. There is a stronger incentive than under your system. Your system promotes the self. Where as Communism promotes the helping of the whole community. People will work more effectively in order to help their comrades. At the least, efficiency levels will remain the same.


No. The working man who engages in his own pursuits is very intelligent.
Being in control of other people makes him less so.

The intelligent man will indeed feed himself, but he will be less obligated to feed others, unless he can get something in return for his efforts. Otherwise his own skills make him a slave.

The few cannot possibly meet the needs of the many any more than the legs of the few can move the masses.

As I have said. Once the working man has finished his community based work, he will have plenty of time to pursue his own interests. Therefore, life satisfaction and job satisfaction will be far greater, as people will have more freedom to pursue their own interests.


In reality land they can not. A contract will tell you ahead of time when you must start repaying (like 15, 30 years for a house, or 1-5 years for short term loan).

They can't break their own contracts without getting sued. There is no such social contract in a direct democratic society.

What to stop the community and the budding inventor agreeing on a contract of sorts. There would be no set rules. Each community will no doubt vote for what they think is best. That is the beauty of direct democracy, people and communities get to decide their own future.


I'll ignore the fact that you will not allow people to sleep. Why just two hours? How can you be so certain that will be the magic number. If you are a physician and inventor, I think, you will be forced to provide urgent medical help first, and inventing later.

Well once the community meets the communities needs. Which will take alot less time as everyone will be helping. People will be left with a great deal of leisure time to pursue their own goals.
And in the case of the physician, do you think he will be the only trained medical professional? Of course not. And when he pitches his idea to the relevant workers' council, they will take into account factors like this when coming to their decision.


I have slightly more faith in the intelligence of SOME others. I have very little faith in the compromises made by intelligent people.

Get two intelligent people in a room, and they will only agree on a few things.
Get three intelligent people in a room, and they will agree on even less.
Get a hundred intelligent people in a room, and they will only agree on extremely little. They only agree on very basic - less diverse things.

This will not spur creativity, but mere compromises.

Instead of allowing each of these hundred invididuals to pursue their own interests independently and then competing for public approval of their idea (via the market), your proposal will make compromises before invention in the hopes that the initial compromise of ideas will create something good.

I do not deny that something good may come out of this compromise, but it will not be as abundant nor will it satisfy individuals' taste as well as letting these 100 intelligent people each satisfy a given proportion of the public.


These compromises will make sure no one knowingly neglects others. The compromises, will act as checks and balances to selfishness.


The government is generally just as stupid, but they have managed to concentrate power.
It is not exactly intelligent to TAX people and print money. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book. It is not a new concept at all!

The government does not create, it merely takes the creative energies of millions of indivuals.
It takes these creative energies and spends it arbitrarily on others' creative energy. That is all it does. Overall this stymies the SUM of creative energies in the free market.

I'm a Communist. Which means I am no fan of the way Governments interfere and suppress people.

We both want rid of Governments, its just I want to replace them with democratic workers' councils and you want to replace them with complete anarchy and widespread individualism, or as you like to call it "Freedom".

By the way, do you say that freedom line, in a Mel Gibson Braveheart way? :lol:


You can't readily see where something is going, until it's there. Today you are not making progress, and maybe even tomorrow, but a month from now you will have a breakgrough that will further your progress. If the community stops you tomorrow, your dream will never be realized, and the fruits of your labour will have gone to waste.

Science is not quick. It is certainly not quick enough in the eyes of the general population. It's a slow incremental process. One who's implications take significant time to realize, and even more time to make them into practical socially useful things.

Again we will differ on this, because you have a somewhat dim view of the general population. Whats to stop the workers' from many different communities voting together and deciding to support a Research Centre.


There is nothing stopping this from occuring today. Realize that profits that will be used for expansion and fixing depreciated capital will still have to come out of the worker/owner's pockets. New workers and new machines will need to be obtained.

Yes there is nothing stopping this today. But as I said, it is very hard for this type of business to compete in todays world against huge companies, which exploit their labour force to keep costs low.


Compared to?

Again, you are talking about a single company. I'm not talking about one company, I'm talking about the market

You know I just tried to think of a non exploitative major company and I couldn't. Now what does that tell you about the market?

[quincunx5]

Why would they work? I would have thought this would be pretty obvious. If you don't produce any food, you starve, then die. The fear of death seems to be a pretty good incentive to work. Similarly, if certain workers want some luxury goods of some sort. They put it to the community and the community will decide whether to support these workers whilst they produce said items for the community. Alternatively if the community decides these items are not beneficial, then the workers can produce them for themselves in their spare time.
Generally however, the community will want to improve itself. Therefore as long as the community is meeting the basic needs of people, it will support people who are producing luxurious items for the community.


In an actually free society - when someone wants something they directly make it or trade for it, without needing an almighty council to decide for them.



Why won't they do it as efficiently. There is a stronger incentive than under your system. Your system promotes the self. Where as Communism promotes the helping of the whole community. People will work more effectively in order to help their comrades. At the least, efficiency levels will remain the same.


There is a weaker incentive to help the comrade than yourself. You are directly responsible and cognizant of yourself and no one else. You CAN'T readily judge what another man needs, but you know what you need - and you will do that which increases your own wealth first.



As I have said. Once the working man has finished his community based work, he will have plenty of time to pursue his own interests. Therefore, life satisfaction and job satisfaction will be far greater, as people will have more freedom to pursue their own interests.

Well once the community meets the communities needs. Which will take alot less time as everyone will be helping. People will be left with a great deal of leisure time to pursue their own goals.
And in the case of the physician, do you think he will be the only trained medical professional? Of course not. And when he pitches his idea to the relevant workers' council, they will take into account factors like this when coming to their decision.


That's just wishful thinking. In reality the most creative and productive people will be the only ones working, or at the very least be mostly responsible for keeping the non-productive alive.



What to stop the community and the budding inventor agreeing on a contract of sorts. There would be no set rules. Each community will no doubt vote for what they think is best. That is the beauty of direct democracy, people and communities get to decide their own future.


Yes, but the inventor will need resources. That kind of social contract is pointless, as resources will constantly need to be provided. People will not be immediately satisfied (which is what they want), if they constantly need to provide the inventor his resources without any current return.
A new vote will nullify the previous contract.



These compromises will make sure no one knowingly neglects others. The compromises, will act as checks and balances to selfishness.


Can you read? One cannot be selfish if the end result is to serve the customers.
In reality land the 100 intelligent people will constantly question each other about their progress, and small innovations. Insuring that they have about equal competitive footing once the product can be sold.

Don't be silly. The compromises will act as checks and balances against progress. One cannot trace a single best path to progress. Progress results when multiple parties each compete for public approval (via the market).



Again we will differ on this, because you have a somewhat dim view of the general population. Whats to stop the workers' from many different communities voting together and deciding to support a Research Centre.


Because such a research center will not yield immediate results that will benefit society. In the short-term view of most people, supporting something that requires more resources than can be readily extracted is simply not worth it.

But to an individual who can get a loan, he is the sole person who can evaluate whether his time and energy is worth something or not. Same applies to a group of inviduals who can get private loans.



Yes there is nothing stopping this today. But as I said, it is very hard for this type of business to compete in todays world against huge companies, which exploit their labour force to keep costs low.


What you are telling me is that this type of business is not as competitive, because the workers do not want to exploit themselves and do not want to offer the consumer a better price.

They are not as competitive because they are more selfish. They wish not to exploit themselves but the consumers.

So tell me what is better? Serving the consumer or serving yourself?

Now imagine every business was run cooperatively. The owner/worker is not wealthier if he has to pay more for other owner/workers' goods. Nothing has changed.



We both want rid of Governments, its just I want to replace them with democratic workers' councils and you want to replace them with complete anarchy and widespread individualism, or as you like to call it "Freedom".


How can you be for anarchy and widespread indivdualism if what you tell me are collectivist ideas of direct democracy and worker's councils. They don't go together. A forced left-right hierarchy is still not anarchistic, and isn't "Freedom".

I stand for widespread individualism with no democracy, true anarchy, and freedom.



You know I just tried to think of a non exploitative major company and I couldn't. Now what does that tell you about the market?


It tells me nothing about the market. It tells me about you.

The media always focuses on the big players, that's why you do as well.
You'll never hear the media praise a non-exploitative company. That's simply not news worthy.
We all know that only stories which bring out emotional responses are news worthy.

Don't worry though, I know only a small portion of the market myself.
That's how it's supposed to be.

[Amusing Scrotum]

In an actually free society - when someone wants something they directly make it or trade for it, without needing an almighty council to decide for them.


Now you're perverting my arguments to make petty points. The "almighty council", glad you finally realise its greatness ;) , is not going to be taking decisions on whether someone gets a new TV or not. They will merely make sure one person is not getting a new TV, computer, car, stereo etc. While everyone else is getting nothing.


There is a weaker incentive to help the comrade than yourself. You are directly responsible and cognizant of yourself and no one else. You CAN'T readily judge what another man needs, but you know what you need - and you will do that which increases your own wealth first.

A sense of community and the feeling of obligation to help those less fortunate, is a great incentive. It is easily, as powerful an incentive as selfishness.


That's just wishful thinking. In reality the most creative and productive people will be the only ones working, or at the very least be mostly responsible for keeping the non-productive alive.

People who are neither creatively gifted nor brilliant producers work now. What makes you think they will just stop. They would still have needs and wants.


Yes, but the inventor will need resources. That kind of social contract is pointless, as resources will constantly need to be provided. People will not be immediately satisfied (which is what they want), if they constantly need to provide the inventor his resources without any current return.
A new vote will nullify the previous contract.

If the contract guarantees a certain amount of time and resources for the inventor to invent. Then there will be no reason to people to become impatient.
You, unlike me, seem to think everyone needs instant gratification all the time. There is a reason the word patience exists. It exists because some people are patient. Why else would people still give money to Cancer Research Charities. There has been no great breakthrough. Yet people are still patient enough to help fund these charities.


Can you read? One cannot be selfish if the end result is to serve the customers.
In reality land the 100 intelligent people will constantly question each other about their progress, and small innovations. Insuring that they have about equal competitive footing once the product can be sold.

Don't be silly. The compromises will act as checks and balances against progress. One cannot trace a single best path to progress. Progress results when multiple parties each compete for public approval (via the market).

One can be selfish if their sole purpose of serving the customers is so that they can serve themselves.
Progress existed before Capitalism, in all types of systems. Progress will remain after Capitalism. Capitalism does not create progress. It is merely the system in which progress presently is happening. The same way progress happened in Feudalism.


Because such a research center will not yield immediate results that will benefit society. In the short-term view of most people, supporting something that requires more resources than can be readily extracted is simply not worth it.

But to an individual who can get a loan, he is the sole person who can evaluate whether his time and energy is worth something or not. Same applies to a group of inviduals who can get private loans.

I discussed my opinions on the patience of people above, so I will not bore you with it again.


What you are telling me is that this type of business is not as competitive, because the workers do not want to exploit themselves and do not want to offer the consumer a better price.

They are not as competitive because they are more selfish. They wish not to exploit themselves but the consumers.

So tell me what is better? Serving the consumer or serving yourself?

Now imagine every business was run cooperatively. The owner/worker is not wealthier if he has to pay more for other owner/workers' goods. Nothing has changed.

It is impossible for it to be as competitive. I'll use a basic example. Business A is a Co-operative in America, with American workers. Business B is a Corporation which has outsourced the majority of its labour needs to China. Business A sells its product at $10, $7 goes to the worker/owner to support their living costs. By living costs I mean a comfortable standard of living, not exuberant, yet not desperately tough. The other $3 go on costs. Advertising, reinvestment, expansion etc. Business B however can pay its workers $1 of the $10, because the cost of living in China is less and the Chinese workers have no protection. Therefore their living standards meeting basic goals, like food and water, is seen to them as a bonus. Business B now has $9 left. Business B can now spend $6 on costs, meaning double the amount of expansion and advertising than Business A.
Also leaving $3 left for the owner to take. Now even the positive advertising Business A can create, cannot surpass the greater advertising ability of Business B. Meaning Business B can generate more sales. Create more profit, some of which can be used to further reduce costs. Making Business Bs' product cheaper. Business B has now created a monopoly of the market. Meaning Business A has to reduce wages in order to compete. Eventually the wages of Business As' workers will be so low they can no longer survive. Which will mean Business A will have to go out of business. Business B has won through exploitative methods, which will always be the way to win in the market.

Now do you see how Co-Operatives can't compete successfully in Capitalist economies.


How can you be for anarchy and widespread indivdualism if what you tell me are collectivist ideas of direct democracy and worker's councils. They don't go together. A forced left-right hierarchy is still not anarchistic, and isn't "Freedom".

I stand for widespread individualism with no democracy, true anarchy, and freedom.

No I said -


I want to replace them with democratic workers' councils and you want to replace them with complete anarchy and widespread individualism,

You see, I stand for "collectivist ideas of direct democracy and worker's councils" and you stand for "widespread individualism with no democracy".


It tells me nothing about the market. It tells me about you.

The media always focuses on the big players, that's why you do as well.
You'll never hear the media praise a non-exploitative company. That's simply not news worthy.
We all know that only stories which bring out emotional responses are news worthy.

Don't worry though, I know only a small portion of the market myself.
That's how it's supposed to be.

My example, I think shows, you sufficiently the markets relationship with exploitative companies.

Also you slammed my poor economic knowledge of Communism, yet you admit to "know(ing) only a small portion of the market myself." You spigging hypocrite. :P

[Socialist_Martyr]

when there is a typhoon in a pacific island we have aid there the same day but when its our own country no one does anything for a week. WTF

[quincunx5]

They will merely make sure one person is not getting a new TV, computer, car, stereo etc. While everyone else is getting nothing.


This is economically unfeasable. You are telling me that no one will have a TV (example) until they are all made ahead of time. Then they are distributed.
The problem is wealth does not work this way. You can't keep a large inventory and then dispose of it at once.

You are not accounting for the fact that not everyone will need the same things as others. So while you may want a TV, I have no wish to obtain one. It seems that for me to express my opinion, I would have to go to the council and say - "hey I don't w ant a TV, i'd rather just have a computer". One would have to constantly express their opinion as to what they want. All the time spend on expressing opinions is time lost in obtaining real goods and services. You are merely substituting individual freedom to central planning. Every individual wish must be done politically.



A sense of community and the feeling of obligation to help those less fortunate, is a great incentive. It is easily, as powerful an incentive as selfishness.


Yet one can only do one thing at a time. People, as always, will spend most time on themselves. They will wish to produce collectively so that they can consume individually. That is the basis of every society that ever existed.



People who are neither creatively gifted nor brilliant producers work now. What makes you think they will just stop. They would still have needs and wants.


The gifted and brilliant have higher needs and wants. Satisfying both equally will not create brilliance nor creativity.



You, unlike me, seem to think everyone needs instant gratification all the time. There is a reason the word patience exists. It exists because some people are patient. Why else would people still give money to Cancer Research Charities. There has been no great breakthrough. Yet people are still patient enough to help fund these charities.


Yes, but they are not forced to give money to charity in a democratic process. It is their wish to engage in patience. Compulsive patience is very different.




One can be selfish if their sole purpose of serving the customers is so that they can serve themselves.
Progress existed before Capitalism, in all types of systems. Progress will remain after Capitalism. Capitalism does not create progress. It is merely the system in which progress presently is happening. The same way progress happened in Feudalism.


Capitalism was back then as well, albeit in a more primitive form. Capitalization is progress.

Progress will indeed remain and prosper in anarcho-capitalism.



Now do you see how Co-Operatives can't compete successfully in Capitalist economies.


Sure they can. They just have to move to China to have the same competitive advantage. But they do not wish to exploit themselves - so they loose the competition. But now they are free to enjoy the cheaper products and engage in another busisness should they decide to stay in America.



Also you slammed my poor economic knowledge of Communism, yet you admit to "know(ing) only a small portion of the market myself." You spigging hypocrite.


Wow, all hope is lost on you. Claiming to only know a handful of players in the market is not an admission to lack of understanding the workings of the market. (economy).

I can't believe you've stooped so low.

[Amusing Scrotum]

This is economically unfeasable. You are telling me that no one will have a TV (example) until they are all made ahead of time. Then they are distributed.
The problem is wealth does not work this way. You can't keep a large inventory and then dispose of it at once.

You are not accounting for the fact that not everyone will need the same things as others. So while you may want a TV, I have no wish to obtain one. It seems that for me to express my opinion, I would have to go to the council and say - "hey I don't w ant a TV, i'd rather just have a computer". One would have to constantly express their opinion as to what they want. All the time spend on expressing opinions is time lost in obtaining real goods and services. You are merely substituting individual freedom to central planning. Every individual wish must be done politically.

No I am telling you that no one can have a new TV, Car, Computer and Kitchen, while everyone else has a new nothing. Its pretty simple really.


Yet one can only do one thing at a time. People, as always, will spend most time on themselves. They will wish to produce collectively so that they can consume individually. That is the basis of every society that ever existed.


By producing for everyone, including themselves, they are going to be more satisfied, than if they are producing for some faceless owner and ruthless stockholders. They will have the incentive to make everyone in the community better off. Which is a powerful incentive.


The gifted and brilliant have higher needs and wants. Satisfying both equally will not create brilliance nor creativity.


So a starving child does not need and want food and water, like a "gifted and brilliant" man? Give me a break. Our needs and wants are all very basic, our material obsessions however, are not.


Yes, but they are not forced to give money to charity in a democratic process. It is their wish to engage in patience. Compulsive patience is very different.


Patience, is patience, is patience. If this were not the case, then people would be demanding their tax money back, because it had not produced immediate results. People in general are patient.


Capitalism was back then as well, albeit in a more primitive form. Capitalization is progress.

Progress will indeed remain and prosper in anarcho-capitalism.


There is a whole other thread where people are calling you an arse for holding this view. Capitalism is the economic model used right now. This model is different to the model used in Feudalism.


Sure they can. They just have to move to China to have the same competitive advantage. But they do not wish to exploit themselves - so they loose the competition. But now they are free to enjoy the cheaper products and engage in another busisness should they decide to stay in America.


Now they are free to be exploited. They couldn't not win using a non exploitative model, therefore they must now become either the exploited or the exploiter.


Wow, all hope is lost on you. Claiming to only know a handful of players in the market is not an admission to lack of understanding the workings of the market. (economy).

I can't believe you've stooped so low.

Poor knowledge is poor knowledge. You cannot lambaste my lack of knowledge, then defend yours. Its hypocritical.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2005, 03:40 PM

Its because they actually care about the people.

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.

Small state my arse. :angry:
See: France and the huge French government and their handling of a small, basically unarmed insurgency from the suburbs.

I will await your rescinding of this comment, armchair.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Its because they actually care about the people.

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.

Small state my arse. :angry:

See: France and the huge French government and their handling of a small, basically unarmed insurgency from the suburbs.

I will await your rescinding of this comment, armchair.


First off we will look at the original context of this statement -



Definitely the way Cubans deal with Hurricanes shames the US - they've had 6 major hurricanes from '96 - '02 and only 16 people have died because of their investment into services and the way they have organised evacuations.

Its because they actually care about the people.

I hope the one thing this hurricane has achieved in a positive sense, is to disprove the myth that small Governments are more efficient and better for the people. In Europe where the the state is considerably larger than in the U.S. this kind of thing would never happen.

Small state my arse. :angry:

Now first off we can conclude the comment "Its because they actually care about the people." Has nothing to do with the situation in current day France.

So now we can move on and explore the rest of my post. Now if you also look back in this thread, you will see that you went on to argue with my opinion that a big Government handles hurricanes more efficiently. Now to disprove this assertion you used the example of the heat wave in Europe. A stretch at best.

However this line of debate on your part failed, when you didn't accept a far more valid comparison between Cuba's hurricane handling and America's hurricane handling. Your exact words were -


If you think the argument that cuba is somehow a better nation because they have a better hurrican record, your argument was flawed at best. There are too many differences between the nations in both geography and population for there to be a comparison.

The hurricane was not the problem in New Orleans, the levy breaks were. And, the citizens there were in fact given ample warning to leave well before the Hurricane approched landfall.

It is so clear that leftists are obviously politicizing a natural disaster to fit their agenda.

Therefore if there are "too many differences between the nations in both geography and population for there to be a comparison" between Cuba's hurricane handling and America's hurricane handling. What makes you think there can be any connection between my comment regarding big Governments handling of natural disasters and big Governments "handling of a small, basically unarmed insurgency from the suburbs."

If you refuse to accept comparisons between two nations and their handling of hurricanes, something which can quite logically be compared, why should we bother discussing different Governments handling of two completely different events.

There can't be any logical comparison between the American Governments handling of a hurricane and the French Governments handling of a riot. Indeed making such a comparison while ignoring a far more relevant comparison (Cuba vs. America) shows the idiocy of your argument.

In fact to borrow one of your phrases, "I will await your rescinding of this comment" Capitalist Imperial.

[Columbia]

Make the federal government as strong as possible, and have it override any state action and be responsible for all disasters that are of a certain level. I am a believer in a strong, central government. No waiting around for the state to do it, or the county, or anyone else.