|
Phanatic posted:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typical Once again, you really do not seem to understand what you're trying to talk about. When you say something is typical you're saying it happens all the time. So stop whining about how you hate the government, k?
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Once again, you really do not seem to understand what you're trying to talk about. When you say something is typical you're saying it happens all the time. So stop whining about how you hate the government, k? I'm not responsible for whatever fevered hallucinations drift through your meth-addled forebrain and "typical" doesn't mean "always" no matter how many times you hit yourself in the head with a claw hammer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you want to accept a claim that the government will do a better job of building nuclear plants, it's up to you to support that claim. As you've been asked to do. And have not. You managed to completely ignore the part where the government's cost of capital is significantly lower than what private companies have to pay, which is especially significant for long-term projects with extremely front-loaded costs. The government doesn't even have to be any more efficient than private industry to be able to operate plants far cheaper. And of course you completely disregarding externalities from the government building nuclear power plants. The obvious one is carbon emissions as hydrocarbons are displaced. But there's also the benefit of cheaper energy due to the government's far lower costs of running a plant (see cost of capital above) and no profit motive. This stimulates other industries and generates economic activity that would otherwise be limited by energy costs. No one except dumbass libertarians suggests that transportation infrastructure should be built only if it can generate a profit from tolls and fees, the benefit is that it drives other economic growth. The same is true for energy infrastructure. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm not responsible for whatever fevered hallucinations drift through your meth-addled forebrain and "typical" doesn't mean "always" no matter how many times you hit yourself in the head with a claw hammer. Dude, you've been repeatedly arguing that you can't trust the government to run things because of your fear of cost overruns, and trying to backpedal by saying "no I only mean it happens 95% of the time" just doesn't work. Put down the Ayn Rand and pick up a clue. Consider that literally everyone else read you as arguing "government bad" as well. Does this mean a) you suck at writing or b) there's a conspiracy to misinterpret your bad writing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
I just came up with a great example! But I'm struggling to find better articles to back me up 'Big Goverment' is consistently buying Bechtel designed, GE built reactors at a rate of two a year, and the cost since the program got rolling has continued to decline. Not to mention the success of the past 60 years of American naval nuclear propulsion. (The best numbers I can find was it was $100M for a S6G reactor for a 688 and $400M for a S9G in a Virginia.) PDF warning Which, rounding up for both estimates and the ~wikipedia rated Power~ was $700/Kw in the 80's and $2,500/Kw today. So yeah, turns out the government has some pretty cost-effective nuclear reactor contractors. Plus the value of the fantastic safety record of the US Naval Nuclear program. M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You managed to completely ignore the part where the government's cost of capital is significantly lower than what private companies have to pay, which is especially significant for long-term projects with extremely front-loaded costs. The government doesn't even have to be any more efficient than private industry to be able to operate plants far cheaper. I didn't ignore it, I just missed it. It's a fallacy to assume that the government's cost of capital is any lower than what private companies have to pay. Cost of capital to the government is the same as the private sector's cost of capital. http://www.capitalresearch.com.au/downloads/GovtCostCap.pdf http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2325507 http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mck...e_projects.ashx quote:Moreover, when a government’s cost of equity is added to its cost of debt, its overall cost of capital rises. And just as with private companies, its cost of equity is a function of the expected level of return—or level of benefits, in the government’s case—that capital could receive from alternative investments with similar levels of risk. If public funds are redirected from another public goal—like education, defense, or scientific research—then the true cost of equity of public funds (measured by the economic return achievable in those other areas) can be quite high. Nice zinger on this bit in FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a4a2e4e-030a-11e6-af1d-c47326021344.html quote:The public sector can borrow at lower rates than the private sector. Hence Mr Wolf states that it makes little sense to advocate private infrastructure finance. As John Kay put it in 1993, this view is “naive”. Default risk for government paper is low because taxpayers come to the rescue when projects fail. Taxpayers de facto provide unremunerated credit insurance. They bear a risk and that is a cost to them and thus society at large. quote:Why are we backstopping private loans for the nuclear industry so they can pocket the profits, instead of just doing directly ourselves? I'm not a fan of *that*, either. That's more of the same thing: the private partner reaps the profits, the taxpayer takes the risk. M_Gargantua posted:I just came up with a great example! But I'm struggling to find better articles to back me up The Virginias *are* a really great example. Note that those reactors are literally assembly-line products, which is why the cost keeps coming down; they don't need to go through a whole NRC licensing scheme each time they want to stick another copy of one on another copy of the submarine. The closest thing to something like the Toshiba 4S, which even if it was certified wouldn't be able to be plopped down at a bunch of different sites without going through the whole licensing process for each single site. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
If you're suggesting that private firms should fork up for nuclear plants without the state backing them up and bailing them out then I think the response from the private sector in general would be "haha no"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I just came up with a great example! But I'm struggling to find better articles to back me up For context the EIA estimates the overnight capital costs of a new nuclear plant as $5,530 per kW soup to nuts. Interprete this as you will. Edit: wait are you using the direct shaft MW to come up with those cost figures? Because the EIA numbers are based on the much lower electrical MW. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Question: Does the nuclear navy require NRC approval for its reactors?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're suggesting that private firms should fork up for nuclear plants without the state backing them up and bailing them out then I think the response from the private sector in general would be "haha no" Fair point. The loan guarantees actually turn out to be relatively small: Up to 18.5 billion total in loan guarantees for advanced nuclear plants, as compared to $78.5 billion total for renewables and $8 billion for clean coal (which is total bullshit). Pander posted:Question: Does the nuclear navy require NRC approval for its reactors? No. Folks who are responsible for the Navy's reactors are the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. It's somewhat confusing, since it has one office that reports to the Chief of Naval Operations in the DoD, and another office that reports to the National Nuclear Security Administration in the DoE, and both offices are headed by the same person. But the Navy does not go to the NRC to get licenses for its nuclear reactors. It's like how the military doesn't have to obtain FAA type certificates for its aircraft if they don't want to. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Fair point. The loan guarantees actually turn out to be relatively small: Up to 18.5 billion total in loan guarantees for advanced nuclear plants, as compared to $78.5 billion total for renewables and $8 billion for clean coal (which is total bullshit.). Did the nuclear loan guarantee program hit the $18.5B limit? If not, does it really matter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did the nuclear loan guarantee program hit the $18.5B limit? If not, does it really matter? I don't think it's even come close. Have we even certified any advanced reactors since 2008?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
I mean if you're really keen on getting the private sector to pay for nuclear plants you could leverage some real nice taxes on everything you dislike then pay for the plants with that money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Can I tax the TSA into a smoking crater?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
The biggest problem with your lovely Randian argument Phanatic is that you present cost overruns as an absolute bad and a thing that should be avoided at, well, all costs. But why? You haven't proven that these overruns are more of a problem than not having the infrastructure in the first place, or that privatization prevents cost overruns (spoiler alert: it doesn't.) If expanding the highway is worth it at $100m, it's probably still worth it at $120m. If a new high speed rail line is worth spending $5 billion, it's still probably worth it at $10 billion. Public transit infrastructure especially, tends to make back way more than it costs, even when budgets are horribly mismanaged, especially due to increased tax revenue due to increased economic activity where the transit line serves. Energy is a strategic resource and for the past close to 100 years access to it has been incredibly strategically important as well as drat near a human right. It's something that needs to be served up as close to cost as possible, with great concern for its environmental impact. These are all things corporations are loving terrible at, and why we should nationalize the power grid yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Pander posted:Question: Does the nuclear navy require NRC approval for its reactors? The NRC as a Department of Energy organization and Naval Reactors as a Department of Defense organization are theoretically separate entities. Naval Reactors also is a big part of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Naval Reactors does work closely with the NRC and shares a huge majority of the safety requirements. NR and the NRC tap a lot of the same folk at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, and Idaho National Labs. Which are all DoE sites run by Bechtel and Naval Reactors. So... Kinda. Naval Reactors has a review process that's not bogged down by NRC requirements and instead mired in sometimes more stringent NR requirements. But once the design is ready and approved its finalized. Any changes after that go back through the review process. If you took an S9G plant and wanted to make it a civilian plant it would take four general things to make it NRC compliant: Sufficient back up power sources, sufficient additional fire protection, a good concrete containment bunker to put it in, and huge sources of backup water. Part of that is because an S9G plant is an already compact and self contained setup, fitting in about 30'x30'x50' including all reactor, shielding, generators, and support equipment. The trade off is they use uranium of very high enrichment which yields proliferation risks, and each plant is low power in comparison to a GW scale civilian plant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:The biggest problem with your lovely Randian argument Phanatic "Don't screw the taxpayer" is a Randian argument now. Have you read Rand? Did you ever notice Rand giving a poo poo about the people on the lower rungs of the ladder? quote:is that you present cost overruns as an absolute bad and a thing that should be avoided at, well, all costs. But why? You haven't proven that these overruns are more of a problem than not having the infrastructure in the first place, or that privatization prevents cost overruns (spoiler alert: it doesn't.) If expanding the highway is worth it at $100m, it's probably still worth it at $120m. Yeah, you know, if you completely ignore opportunity cost and just ignore all the other, more productive uses you could have put that extra $20 million to. Heck, cut funding to the schools and the VA, use the money to build another road, you'll benefit from the externalities since public transit infrastructure tends to make back way more than it costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:"Don't screw the taxpayer" is a Randian argument now. It is when, like you're actually posting, the idea of "screwing the taxpayer" is "not being literally perfect".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, you know, if you completely ignore opportunity cost and just ignore all the other, more productive uses you could have put that extra $20 million to. Heck, cut funding to the army and corporations, use the money to build more infrastructure, you'll benefit from the externalities since public transit infrastructure tends to make back way more than it costs. I support this argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I never claimed that. Go check. Feel free to pay a homeless person to read the longer words to you out loud. I presented a number of large government programs that are enormous failures and asked, specifically, "Why would "just have the government build plants directly" work better than all those other things?" That entire argument is based on the hope that your opponent can't recognize confirmation bias Look, the fact of the matter is that the free market has given us a fuckload of horrible coal power. If filthy air and global warming are issues that our society decides should be addressed, then how do you suggest we go about addressing them? Because if we do nothing (the free market solution) then we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Gonna need a citation on that one. What is it that you're asking for here, specifically? An example of a program that met its goals? Exceeded expectations? Your request is kind of vague
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Please, go spew your libertarian bullshit elsewhere. Even though I agree with your larger point, your posting makes me want to throw up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, you know, if you completely ignore opportunity cost and just ignore all the other, more productive uses you could have put that extra $20 million to. Heck, cut funding to the schools and the VA, use the money to build another road, you'll benefit from the externalities since public transit infrastructure tends to make back way more than it costs. Did you know the government literally prints the money? Welcome to macroeconomics, enjoy your stay~
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:The NRC as a Department of Energy organization and Naval Reactors as a Department of Defense organization are theoretically separate entities. Naval Reactors also is a big part of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Naval Reactors does work closely with the NRC and shares a huge majority of the safety requirements. NR and the NRC tap a lot of the same folk at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, and Idaho National Labs. Which are all DoE sites run by Bechtel and Naval Reactors. Why contain it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Gonna need a citation on that one. Your cynicism is amazingly cute, and you aren't in my mind even worth debating this one on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
If you can't see the hand of the government as a stabilizing and effective force in society, holy loving poo poo. The most efficient and effective entities I have worked for were and are governments. I can understand if this blows your loving mind. Private businesses I have worked for ignore facts, are cynical of their workers, and call cutting corners and betting against their futures good business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
I did work with a privately-owned ~500 users corp whose owner was adamant about continuing to invest in his workforce -- blank checks on education, far-above-market-average salary schedules, etc -- and product (wind power consulting / controller design) and ran a loving great ship as a result. That's an example to prove the rule. Private businesses run by 1980's-era MBA school of thought are not suitable to manage strategic resources. Energy is a strategic resource, and we will never see a truly resilient energy grid where....you know what, gently caress it this has all been said before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
This is the fourth post because gently caress my phone when posts get too long during writing or editing: I have found that "Haha, government project ran over budget, count on the gubbermint to gently caress things up amrite?" thinking evaporates once someone starts working in government in a strategic capacity. By strategic, I don't mean military or power, but literal strategy of "Here's what I am mandated to offer the public, here's the revenue stream we have to work with, let's loving make this happen." Failures happen and that's where cash is injected into a project, but nobody pays attention to the endless clanking gears of bureaucracy and government-operated services that succeed and serve the public by genuinely doing everything they possibly can with the revenue they can collect. There's no "We are going to make X revenue, Y will be swiped off the top in bonuses and payouts for our investors, we will have Z smaller number to actually invest in our operation to keep the ball rolling." In a well-run government op, it's "We are going to make X revenue, and we need to make X work for us in the future. What can we invest it in?" Investing everything you can forward is how we build a resilient, strategically-sound energy grid. This is an absolute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Pretty sure the same people who yell "OMG COST OVERRUN GUBBERMINT IS AWFUL" are the same people who yell "OMG GUBBERMINT IS SPENDING TOOOOOO MUCH MONEY" thereby causing the government to lowball estimates to appease the vocal minority who get concerned when numbers reach billions, and have no idea about a cost:benefit ratio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Did you know the government literally prints the money? Zimbabwe and Venezuela literally print the money, too. If you ever make it to chapter 2 in your textbook, you'll discover this thing called 'inflation' which is a nail in the coffin of the brilliant idea to just print an amount of currency sufficient to pay for everything you want. It turns out that people are actually pretty smart and they realize that each additional dollar printed to pay for the same pool of goods and services simply means that each dollar is worth a bit less, and they will respond to this by wanting more dollars as payment for the stuff they provide! This has the little downside of making everyones' savings worth less, making imports more expensive, raising interest rates, etc. The resources to pay for things remain limited, no matter how much currency you print. Add two zeroes to every unit of currency the US prints overnight, that doesn't make anyone wealthier or make them able to buy more stuff. QuarkJets posted:Look, the fact of the matter is that the free market has given us a fuckload of horrible coal power.  Yeah, it was the "free market" that did it, not the fact that coal represents an abundant and easily-accessible energy source. That's why in the Soviet Union where there was no free market and the economy was centrally controlled with 5-year planning cycles, coal was just a niche product and everything ran on compressed unicorn farts.quote:If filthy air and global warming are issues that our society decides should be addressed, then how do you suggest we go about addressing them? If nuclear isn't being used because it's so expensive relative to coal, then you need to do things to reduce the cost of nuclear power and increase the cost of coal. Coal's cheap only because the pollution it generates is regarded as this big distributed externality, utterly divorced from the source. Change that. Thousands of deaths each year, pregnant women not able to eat fish because of mercury contamination, cancers from radiological release (if the LNT model is correct). Put a dollar amount on that and institute a carbon tax. Yes, that will get passed on to the end-user, so use tax credits to compensate for the regressive nature of that and you can use the money raised by the tax for financial assistance and job retraining programs for the coal miners you're putting out of work. It prevents economic distortions if the external costs of of a thing are included in the price of a thing, it's a useful and valid function of government to make that happen when market forces alone can't, and that has absolutely not been done with coal. That amounts to an *enormous* financial subsidy for the coal industry that every single person on the planet helps pay. That needs to change, especially because a number of the externalities of nuclear power *are* priced into it: there's a mandated nuclear waste disposal fee that gets paid, the costs of security to meet NRC requirements get paid, etc. Coal needs to stop getting a break in this regard. Reducing the cost of nuclear means reducing the uncertainties. The unpredictable time required to gain regulatory approval drastically extends construction time which directly and equally-drastically increases cost. The government needs to streamline the heck out of that process, especially the parts about public comment because NIMBYists need to get hosed. It would also be a good idea for the government to, on its own, go out and start pre-approving sites where new plants could be constructed. Another issue hindering the development of new technologies is the first-mover effect; the first of any type of project includes additional risks that subsequent projects don't bear, which means there's an advantage in going second, which means investors are reluctant to help fund a project which provides information to the second movers because they can't get anything in value in exchange for that information; providing a financial incentive to first-movers of that sort strikes me as appropriate, like in the form of production tax credits amounting to some percentage of the historical construction cost. Government R&D in fuel cycle research, lowering operating and capital costs, etc, is also absolutely appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Zimbabwe and Venezuela literally print the money, too. If you ever make it to chapter 2 in your textbook, you'll discover this thing called 'inflation' which is a nail in the coffin of the brilliant idea to just print an amount of currency sufficient to pay for everything you want. It turns out that people are actually pretty smart and they realize that each additional dollar printed to pay for the same pool of goods and services simply means that each dollar is worth a bit less, and they will respond to this by wanting more dollars as payment for the stuff they provide! This has the little downside of making everyones' savings worth less, making imports more expensive, raising interest rates, etc. The resources to pay for things remain limited, no matter how much currency you print. Add two zeroes to every unit of currency the US prints overnight, that doesn't make anyone wealthier or make them able to buy more stuff. I don't think we can assume Boten Anna was talking about hyperinflation-grade printing. Ours is an extremely strong economy whose government has, as the result, the capacity to borrow at or just above inflation and can thus invest in the future by building the high-cost, high-reward systems this thread talks about on the energy generation front without undermining the future by draining cash. Scheduled payment plans paid out on infrastructure that builds a brighter future built the bright future we are living in right now. Phanatic posted:If nuclear isn't being used because it's so expensive relative to coal, then you need to do things to reduce the cost of nuclear power and increase the cost of coal. This is good stuff. Thing is, the next step of - quote:Yeah, it was the "free market" that did it, not the fact that coal represents an abundant and easily-accessible energy source.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I don't think we can assume Boten Anna was talking about hyperinflation-grade printing. Ours is an extremely strong economy whose government has, as the result, the capacity to borrow at or just above inflation and can thus invest in the future by building the high-cost, high-reward systems this thread talks about on the energy generation front without undermining the future by draining cash. I wasn't saying that if you pay $120 million for a road instead of $100 million, that's going to lead to hyperinflation. I was using hyperinflation as a reductio ad absurdum to point out the flaw in his argument. Yes, we use a fiat currency that we literally print. No, that does not eliminate opportunity costs. If you print $20 million dollars, you can now use it to pay for the cost overrun on the road, or you can use it for better medical care at VA hospitals. You can't print enough to pay for *everything* you want without deleterious effects on the economy which means that resources are still scarce and you still need to consider opportunity costs instead of saying "Oh well, $10 billion instead of $5 billion for this high-speed rail line? Who cares, just print it!" quote:- and handling externalities of coal is to commence the loving of NIMBYs and the coal industry. That requires government, and I think you're basically saying that loving the Coal Industry by Making it Pay for the Damage it Incurs (TM) is the role the government should play in energy generation. Is that right? Is it safe to say that where we (and others in the thread) split from your thinking is that some of us think the government should do more than just Fuckage, but actually develop the grid as well? I gave a bunch of examples about how the government has valuable and necessary functions and should help develop the grid, it wasn't all just about how the government should disincent coal: R&D, site approval, backstopping first-movers, etc. Maybe an analogy would help: automobile emissions. There's another case of an external cost. It's entirely appropriate for the government to set emissions standards for cars. For it to tell people "If your car fails this emissions inspection you need to take action to correct it or we won't let you drive it on the roads," and for it to tell manufacturers "Your cars need to emit no more than x grams of NOx and y grams of particulates per z gallons of fuel used." Set the goal, let a whole bunch of smart engineers and smart actuaries who work for a whole bunch of companies figure out the most efficient way of doing that. It's entirely appropriate for the government to support R&D of new technologies to reduce emissions. It's *not* appropriate for a whole bunch of politicians who know very little about engineering or economics to mandate specific means of doing so, like "You will use this particular design of catalytic converter," or "you will sell x million gallons of corn ethanol per year." Because the government is *really bad* at picking winners like that. It both freezes out innovation and generates insanely perverse incentives (the perverse incentives of corn ethanol are *amazing*, it is literally a transfer payment from poor people to Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra) There have been energy bills that mandated that electricity suppliers used specific percentages of renewables in their portfolios: such-and-such a percentage of solar, such and such a percentage of wind, but didn't include nuclear as a qualifying technology. That's exactly the wrong way to do things. quote:I am trying to see where you are coming from precisely. Where I'm coming from is that a lot of people here are of the opinion that "just have the government do it directly" will lead to better outcomes. that's something that must be shown from specific evidence, not simply taken as a priori. And I'm still rolling my eyes at the "free market gave us coal" comment. A market where the government is literally sending the Army to shoot striking mine workers who want to unionize is pretty much the opposite of free. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
You realize that reductio ad absurdum is not generally considered a good argument, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:You realize that reductio ad absurdum is not generally considered a good argument, right? It's a foundation of the Socratic method: if your premises logically lead to absurd conclusions then your premises are wrong. What are you thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:You realize that reductio ad absurdum is not generally considered a good argument, right? I fail to see how it is that, in a thread where people were reacting to even questioning if direct government construction of nuclear plants versus incentivizing private utilities to build them is apparently the most blatant of stupid Randian bullshit. Illustrating the same argument with bigger numbers to help make a point is not a fallacy, especially when people were saying that the government should just spend as much money as possible on everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Zimbabwe and Venezuela literally print the money, too. Hey genius, tiny countries with bad economies are a radically different situation than the most economically powerful country in the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's a foundation of the Socratic method: if your premises logically lead to absurd conclusions then your premises are wrong. What are you thinking of? Socratic method is not the end all of dialectical method. Pushing logical boundaries ad absurdum is a great way to start something off and explore borders, but it's not a good way to fill in the space created with details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hey genius, tiny countries with bad economies are a radically different situation than the most economically powerful country in the world. Hey, genius, the way economics operates and people respond to incentives doesn't change based on which side of a line on a map you're on. Potato Salad posted:Socratic method is not the end all of dialectical method. Pushing logical boundaries ad absurdum is a great way to start something off and explore borders, but it's not a good way to fill in the space created with details. Sure, agreed. I did fill in the space with details, details that are totally noncontroversial to anyone with training in economics: fiat currency does not obviate opportunity costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Uhhh.... What? Economic theories are not a one size fits all thing. What works in one country often won't work in another. Hell even different regions of a country can have wildly different economic challenges and issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's a foundation of the Socratic method: if your premises logically lead to absurd conclusions then your premises are wrong. What are you thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:21
|
|