Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 5. (Read 28703 times)
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
Truly a classic response. One of the best, because it is so true. What myrkul doesn't understand is that free markets employ short term thinking to ensure black bottom lines. The bottom line comes first. The environment comes second. Until everything is gone. Always pick the lowest hanging fruit. It is not rational to not do so. And if you opt to not pick the low hanging fruit, your competitor will.
What you can't seem to see is that they can't pick your fruit.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
Truly a classic response. One of the best, because it is so true. What myrkul doesn't understand is that free markets employ short term thinking to ensure black bottom lines. The bottom line comes first. The environment comes second. Until everything is gone. Always pick the lowest hanging fruit. It is not rational to not do so. And if you opt to not pick the low hanging fruit, your competitor will.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
If they needed it, they would want it.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.
Really? That's how markets work? That's why if there is a supermarket somewhere there won't be another supermarket in the same area? Again, reality doesn't agree. People see the need to compete all the time, because some things can always be done better.
Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.
Well, Fuck. You're right. Your single exception invalidates the whole of libertarian theory. 
(PS: Yes, that IS how markets work: If people don't see the need to compete... they don't)
(PS: Yes, that IS how markets work: If people don't see the need to compete... they don't)
I have more examples, but don't give up. Some of your ideology can still be saved. Having certain areas being subjects to competition is a good thing. Not everything about libertarianism is completely bonkers. I can give examples of good things about libertarianism too.
Really? That's how markets work? That's why if there is a supermarket somewhere there won't be another supermarket in the same area? Again, reality doesn't agree. People see the need to compete all the time, because some things can always be done better.
I would have to call bullshit on that argument again. That's not how markets work. People see a demand/market and think "I could do that better" and compete in the current market. If people just gave up because there already is a supplier somewhere you wouldn't have competition anywhere. New business pop up everywhere doing almost exactly the same as the business already there, while trying to differentiate themselves in various ways.
No, the government hasn't been dissolved. Still you refuse to answer though. When the monopoly was discarded and anyone was free to compete what you said would happen hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? Perhaps reality isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?
No, the government hasn't been dissolved. Still you refuse to answer though. When the monopoly was discarded and anyone was free to compete what you said would happen hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? Perhaps reality isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?
Well, Fuck. You're right. Your single exception invalidates the whole of libertarian theory.
(PS: Yes, that IS how markets work: If people don't see the need to compete... they don't)
No, actually, it pretty much is. I leave you alone, you leave me alone, and we never fight. See how simple that is?
People see progress in green initiatives, and gaps in welfare. So, the charities fill the gaps, but don't spring up to push green initiatives where government is making progress. In economic terms, there is no demand, so nobody supplies. (or rather, what demand is there is already met)
I wasn't aware that your government had been dissolved. Why didn't anyone tell me AnCapistan was here?
People see progress in green initiatives, and gaps in welfare. So, the charities fill the gaps, but don't spring up to push green initiatives where government is making progress. In economic terms, there is no demand, so nobody supplies. (or rather, what demand is there is already met)
I wasn't aware that your government had been dissolved. Why didn't anyone tell me AnCapistan was here?
It is, if you live in a bubble and your actions don't impact anyone else. Outside of that things get a little more complex.
I would have to call bullshit on that argument again. That's not how markets work. People see a demand/market and think "I could do that better" and compete in the current market. If people just gave up because there already is a supplier somewhere you wouldn't have competition anywhere. New business pop up everywhere doing almost exactly the same as the business already there, while trying to differentiate themselves in various ways.
No, the government hasn't been disolved. Still you refuse to answer though. When the monopoly was discarded and anyone was free to compete what you said would happen hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? Perhaps reality isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?
Because life just isn't that simple.
Really, no new charities? So, since there already are government welfare programs no new soup kitchens will emerge? Good to know. I'd say that reality disagrees with you again though. People donate to such charities all the time, even though they pay for it with taxes. Why not for a green initiative? Because it won't support your ideology?
It hasn't been for 15 years, how long should the consumer wait for the market to fix the prices? Or should the consumer just sit tight and hope that perhaps their children will see real competition in the market?
Really, no new charities? So, since there already are government welfare programs no new soup kitchens will emerge? Good to know. I'd say that reality disagrees with you again though. People donate to such charities all the time, even though they pay for it with taxes. Why not for a green initiative? Because it won't support your ideology?
It hasn't been for 15 years, how long should the consumer wait for the market to fix the prices? Or should the consumer just sit tight and hope that perhaps their children will see real competition in the market?
No, actually, it pretty much is. I leave you alone, you leave me alone, and we never fight. See how simple that is?
People see progress in green initiatives, and gaps in welfare. So, the charities fill the gaps, but don't spring up to push green initiatives where government is making progress. In economic terms, there is no demand, so nobody supplies. (or rather, what demand is there is already met)
I wasn't aware that your government had been dissolved. Why didn't anyone tell me AnCapistan was here?
Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Why should that be any different for anything else?
It's not that pre-existing charities would decide to blow the money on hookers and blow, but that no new charities would come into existence, because of the existing government funding. Same for any that did: "Sorry, GreenPower Collective, My taxes already pay for the kinds of research you say you'd be funding, so, I'll pass."
You just did. The successful ones got bought out. I'm not saying that won't happen without the government, but I'd wager there'd be more competition for them to buy out than they can afford to pay off.
Because life just isn't that simple.
Really, no new charities? So, since there already are government welfare programs no new soup kitchens will emerge? Good to know. I'd say that reality disagrees with you again though. People donate to such charities all the time, even though they pay for it with taxes. Why not for a green initiative? Because it won't support your ideology?
It hasn't been for 15 years, how long should the consumer wait for the market to fix the prices? Or should the consumer just sit tight and hope that perhaps their children will see real competition in the market?
I disagree with you about not forcing anyone. I don't believe your right to fuck things up is greater than others right to not have their life fucked up.
Chilling effects? So charities with a lot of money and being ever so much more efficient than anything the government will not develop the solution to all problems because "the government is already funding green tech, so let's just sit on our money instead, or use it for hookers and blow".
And people who just can't give to charities because they pay too much tax won't give to charity anyway. It's not the taxes that prevent it, it's their will to give.
So I would say that your arguments would be of better use in a field as fertilizer since it's clearly bullshit all of it.
Chilling effects? So charities with a lot of money and being ever so much more efficient than anything the government will not develop the solution to all problems because "the government is already funding green tech, so let's just sit on our money instead, or use it for hookers and blow".
And people who just can't give to charities because they pay too much tax won't give to charity anyway. It's not the taxes that prevent it, it's their will to give.
So I would say that your arguments would be of better use in a field as fertilizer since it's clearly bullshit all of it.
Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Why should that be any different for anything else?
It's not that pre-existing charities would decide to blow the money on hookers and blow, but that no new charities would come into existence, because of the existing government funding. Same for any that did: "Sorry, GreenPower Collective, My taxes already pay for the kinds of research you say you'd be funding, so, I'll pass."
And you still haven't explained why no new players emerge in the power market and undercuts the profit monsters that are there now. It should happen according to your theory, and no significant artificial barriers of entry exists according to papers about the power market. And when I say new players, I mean large enough players to actually have an impact. Those who have tried have been either unsuccessful or bought by the major players.
You just did. The successful ones got bought out. I'm not saying that won't happen without the government, but I'd wager there'd be more competition for them to buy out than they can afford to pay off.
Not contesting point 2. Doesn't mean that forcing people to pay for your vision is the way to get it done.
As for the reason why it's not getting done, You actually could argue that the market isn't free enough.
Rather than leave it there, though, I'll explain:
The government makes a great deal of fuss about how much money they spend on 'green' projects. This has two chilling effects on green charities: 1, "They're already doing it". This would affect the charities themselves, since the government is already doing it, there's no need for it to be done.2, "I already pay for that". This would affect the people who would potentially give to the charity, since their taxes already go to pay for the green programs they would sponsor, there's no need to give more.
I disagree with you about not forcing anyone. I don't believe your right to fuck things up is greater than others right to not have their life fucked up.
Chilling effects? So charities with a lot of money and being ever so much more efficient than anything the government will not develop the solution to all problems because "the government is already funding green tech, so let's just sit on our money instead, or use it for hookers and blow".
And people who just can't give to charities because they pay too much tax won't give to charity anyway. It's not the taxes that prevent it, it's their will to give.
So I would say that your arguments would be of better use in a field as fertilizer since it's clearly bullshit all of it.
And you still haven't explained why no new players emerge in the power market and undercuts the profit monsters that are there now. It should happen according to your theory, and no significant artificial barriers of entry exists according to papers about the power market. And when I say new players, I mean large enough players to actually have an impact. Those who have tried have been either unsuccessful or bought by the major players.
How do you know that it's not happening? I am aware of a great deal of micro-hydro power systems being installed across my state, some privately while others are locally public/private ventures. None larger than 10 kw, that I know of. There are hundreds of sutible micro-hydro sites in Kentucky, and many of them have already been bought up for this purpose. Many of the old locks are being converted or circumvented for this end. Even the local power company has gotten into the micro game, and retrofitted the McAlpin Locks & Dam (which routes river barge traffic around the Falls of the Ohio) into a 10 Mw hydro. There are also solar power contractors that are installing roof systems in my city, I had one come out and give me a quote last year. Granted, that's not quite the same as power sharing with my neighbor, but grid-tied green power is both legal and growing around here. With grid-tie, the power utility then becomes an intermediary broker, but there is nothing preveting me from dealing directly with my next door neighbor.
Heh. Had no idea any of that was going on. Guess that's what you get when you pull as far away from the 'white' market as I have.
1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?
How do you know that it's not happening? I am aware of a great deal of micro-hydro power systems being installed across my state, some privately while others are locally public/private ventures. None larger than 10 kw, that I know of. There are hundreds of sutible micro-hydro sites in Kentucky, and many of them have already been bought up for this purpose. Many of the old locks are being converted or circumvented for this end. Even the local power company has gotten into the micro game, and retrofitted the McAlpin Locks & Dam (which routes river barge traffic around the Falls of the Ohio) into a 10 Mw hydro. There are also solar power contractors that are installing roof systems in my city, I had one come out and give me a quote last year. Granted, that's not quite the same as power sharing with my neighbor, but grid-tied green power is both legal and growing around here. With grid-tie, the power utility then becomes an intermediary broker, but there is nothing preveting me from dealing directly with my next door neighbor.
Quote
2) So after global warming have reached the tipping point and we're all screwed then? You remind me of myself when I was ten and built boxcars. Just when I realized that the car was going a bit too fast I remembered that brakes would have been good to add to the car too. The market is really good at resource allocation, but when it comes to planning it sucks, and not just a little.
The free market is actually quite good at planning. This may be counter-intuitive, but hsitory bears it out. Much better at planning than central planning has ever been over any extended period of time.
1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?
Not contesting point 2. Doesn't mean that forcing people to pay for your vision is the way to get it done.
As for the reason why it's not getting done, You actually could argue that the market isn't free enough.
Rather than leave it there, though, I'll explain:
The government makes a great deal of fuss about how much money they spend on 'green' projects. This has two chilling effects on green charities: 1, "They're already doing it". This would affect the charities themselves, since the government is already doing it, there's no need for it to be done.2, "I already pay for that". This would affect the people who would potentially give to the charity, since their taxes already go to pay for the green programs they would sponsor, there's no need to give more.
1, they're doing nothing a sufficiently motivated rich individual or private charity couldn't do, and arguably more efficiently.
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
2, we would have wind turbines, and other clean sources of energy, when they became cost effective (ie: oil prices raised to the point that turbines, even with their low initial efficiency become worthwhile)
1) But IT ISN'T HAPPENING. Nothing stopping neither of those doing it today, and if they can do it better everybody wins. But it isn't happening. What? Is the market not free enough for a charity to do their thing?
2) So after global warming have reached the tipping point and we're all screwed then? You remind me of myself when I was ten and built boxcars. Just when I realized that the car was going a bit too fast I remembered that brakes would have been good to add to the car too. The market is really good at resource allocation, but when it comes to planning it sucks, and not just a little.
Jump to: