|
fishmech posted:Hey genius, tiny countries with bad economies are a radically different situation than the most economically powerful country in the world. Yes, in terms of the scale that they can bear before it starts to be a problem. If you took all of the suggestions I see even from the more serious D&D posters, it would still be enough to seriously damage our economy, and just declaring that it won't with no evidence doesn't count as a response. fishmech is not actually a primary source I trust. 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. It's just the concept of an opportunity cost, though. If you aren't going to spend infinite money, you have to decide what is the best investment. Unless we are really going to nationalize power generation (because the TVA was so popular), it makes more sense to spend money on programs that will help everyone be able to build nuclear plants easier and cheaper, on supporting research and development, but instead of that we should just have the government make them directly, because that's clearly more efficient, even though the government is going to pay a private company to do it, much like the utilities would be doing. Questioning the idea that the government is the best at everything isn't Randian, it's just considering all of the factors involved. I would love to see a study that compares government contract work versus private contract work, not a bunch of ad hominem attacks. I get that a lot of people here fundamentally don't believe in capitalism and public/private partnerships, but even if you do have that opinion, you can still have more reasoned opinions on what should be done now instead of just FULL COMMUNISM. EDIT: Taerkar posted:Uhhh.... What? That is entirely true, different things happen in different situations. That is not equivalent to proving the point that you are making is true. Please keep trying. Sinestro fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 26, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but the fact that the government prints money does not lead to absurdity, see: reality. The absurdity was the argument: Premise 1. The government prints money. Premise 2. Things cost money. Conclusion: Therefore the government can just print the money it needs to pay for the things it wants and opportunity costs don't exist. Money (as opposed to currency) is essentially a measuring tool, it measures the value of things. If your dick is 8 inches long, and you then change the length of an inch to be half what it is now, that doesn't make your dick any longer even if your measuring stick now says 16 inches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
You almost got it! My point was that money is a thing that is printed, and in some cases just punched into a computer and suddenly exists. No loving poo poo if you print too much (or too little) it causes problems. But money in a macroeconomic sense is a mere lubricant. At the level of infrastructure, the question is "could this large amount of labor and resources be used more effectively elsewhere" not "waaah but my checkbook." Money is a convenient shorthand for allocating these resources across large and small governments, but it is not the be all end all measure of what these projects cost or even what they're actually worth. It's much more complicated than that. Also,Frogmanv2 posted: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 17:32
|
|
|
I'm not even talking about spending infinite money -- I am talking about funding Plant W with loan X on repayment schedule Y because the plant will have Z revenue. Raise your hand, anyone in here, if you have experience or have done reading into how toll highways, mass transit, and other revenue-generating public works are funded?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
If you can with some certainty determine that Dick Enlargement Pill will make your penis two inches longer in ten years, you can afford to take out a loan in which you pay back 1/5 of an inch per year for the decade following. You'll have the two inches to spare. That's an example where poo poo's at parity, too. Some of the projects this thread has talked about in the past can possibly bring in more revenue than you spent. As a matter of fact, this is exactly how private industry does it: they spend X money, get Y money where X < Y. The government can do this too, you know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:You almost got it! My point was that money is a thing that is printed, and in some cases just punched into a computer and suddenly exists. No loving poo poo if you print too much (or too little) it causes problems. But money in a macroeconomic sense is a mere lubricant. At the level of infrastructure, the question is "could this large amount of labor and resources be used more effectively elsewhere" not "waaah but my checkbook." Money is a convenient shorthand for allocating these resources across large and small governments, but it is not the be all end all measure of what these projects cost or even what they're actually worth. It's much more complicated than that. "This large amount of labor and resources" is what we're trying to discuss, but everyone else is pretending that it's somehow infinite. Economies of any size do not exist in a vacuum and just because the money is not being physically printed does not mean that it is not still increasing the total value of the dollar, just making each individual one worth less. You can get away with that a fair bit as the largest economy in the world, but it doesn't take forever before people get tired of their dollars being worth less and less, and there are already other world currencies EDIT: Potato Salad posted:If you can with some certainty determine that Dick Enlargement Pill will make your penis two inches longer in ten years, you can afford to take out a loan in which you pay back 1/5 of an inch per year for the decade following. You'll have the two inches to spare. Yes, but the government can do other things that private industry cannot. Why is it a good idea to have the government do this, outside of an unthinking devotion to government spending as the solution to all problems? If you have the same rules as the private sector, there will be the same problems. The only difference is how much it costs to borrow money, except when the government borrows cheap money it's a slow danger to the economy as a whole. Sinestro fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
I am becoming frustrated that this is devolving to elementary economic theories. The plain and simple fact is that the government can responsibly spend money on a loan basis grounded in projected revenue. That is an established fact, and you can get the gently caress out if you don't accept it. This discussion can now evolve to "What can the government do with respect to policy?" as opposed to "Can the government pay for things without just printing the cash hurr durr?" There are some really good questions and points that you touch on, Phanatic, that deserve more discussion, but we keep coming back to "literally printing money" discussion. I am interested in the following questions, personally: 1) From a policy standpoint, what can government do to plan a more robust energy grid? 1.5) From an industry / free market standpoint, what can industry do, if anything, in the planning of a more robust grid? 2) From a policy standpoint, what can government do to "force" the implementation of the more-robust grid? 2.5) Are there any industry interests that mesh well here? Are there any policies that can be adopted to make more spending by private industry on a modern, resilient grid more attractive? 3) From a financial and administration standpoint, what can, if anything, the government do to build the grid from (1) out? 3.5) Would the government be the right choice for this, or do we have evidence that private industry does it more efficiently even when money is skimmed off the top of their revenue for shareholders?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
In many ways the whole "Government Cost Overruns" issue is not a ptoblem unique to government itself but is something that gets a lot of attention because of the afformentioned "Mah Tax Dollahs!" effect.Sinestro posted:That is entirely true, different things happen in different situations. That is not equivalent to proving the point that you are making is true. Please keep trying. And just what point do you think I'm trying to make? Potato Salad posted:I'm not even talking about spending infinite money -- I am talking about funding Plant W with loan X on repayment schedule Y because the plant will have Z revenue. To add on to this the rate at which the US Government can borrow money right now is almost unprecedented in how low it is right now. quote:Raise your hand, anyone in here, if you have experience or have done reading into how toll highways, mass transit, and other revenue-generating public works are funded? I went into the private sector instead of the public one but I did receive some training and education regarding government funding as well as partial exposure on the Government-Funded research side of things. It's an entirely different beast than anything in the private sector on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
I once stood up in a city council meeting and asked, regarding a 15-foot-tall steel globe and Atlas statue, what the projected revenue for upkeep would be and on what timescales that's been assessed. crickets Energy grid spending doesn't have to be like failed city planning. Energy is generated today. In the real world. You can see how much it costs and what maintenance is like. You can see how much is collected, how much is profit, how much goes to operating budget, how much is paying off investors / loans. Math does exist, and revenue projection assessment against loans needed to make a project work is how cities and towns upgrade water facilities, sewers, build toll roads, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted: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. It literally does. Economics work significantly different between powerful countries who control major reserve currencies, and small time weak countries with unimportant currencies. Jesus, you're probably one of those people who thought the massive expansion of the money supply we had going since about 2007 was going to cause massive inflation instead of barely staving off deflation as happened in reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
In full disclosure, I work at the border of private and public sector work -- where research is done on the revenue a project can bring a sponsor, how licensing ought to be handled, on scheduling loan repayment, etc. We make bank for everyone at the table, fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
The agility and looser financial practices of the private sector obeying the guiding hand of my office works out pretty drat well for everyone involved. Probably why private industry keeps coming back to us for business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:If you have the same rules as the private sector, there will be the same problems. The only difference is how much it costs to borrow money, except when the government borrows cheap money it's a slow danger to the economy as a whole. I think this is where I have a problem with your argument. The private sector has a profit motive that generally overrules other motives. The government (notionally) has a motive to put its citizens first. It can afford to say to the private company "you will abide by this set of rules when you build this piece of infrastructure, or you will suffer these consequences." They can enforce (notionally) a better standard and provide other benefits that are more important to society than a handful of people getting rich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I once stood up in a city council meeting and asked, regarding a 15-foot-tall steel globe and Atlas statue, what the projected revenue for upkeep would be and on what timescales that's been assessed. You are the newest member of my pantheon of heroes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I think this is where I have a problem with your argument. The private sector has a profit motive that generally overrules other motives. The government (notionally) has a motive to put its citizens first. It can afford to say to the private company "you will abide by this set of rules when you build this piece of infrastructure, or you will suffer these consequences." They can enforce (notionally) a better standard and provide other benefits that are more important to society than a handful of people getting rich. Congratulations, you have described the concept of a regulation. Sure is a shame how there are no regulations about anything not done directly with government money. To justify government construction of power plants, you have to explain why that is the only/best way for it to be achieved, ideally with something specific beyond platitudes about Good, Caring Government versus Evil, Mean Corporations. Something with numbers would be a start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I think this is where I have a problem with your argument. The private sector has a profit motive that generally overrules other motives. Although the private sector is officially guided by a profit motive, that doesn't prevent the occasional complete gently caress-up or excessive cost and schedule overruns. [1] Large enough to handle major infrastructure projects like the energy grid or a nuclear power plant – that's what this discussion is about, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:To justify government construction of power plants, you have to explain why that is the only/best way for it to be achieved, ideally with something specific beyond platitudes about Good, Caring Government versus Evil, Mean Corporations. Something with numbers would be a start. The government is free to (really, it's the government's primary job) do things that are useful, but not profitable, or things where profit motive creates a conflict of interest. Law enforcement and military are examples of the latter, and health care is the failure of this rule that proves its necessity. Since it's generally agreed that nuclear power plants aren't economically competitive right now, if we want nuclear power plants, the government paying for them is a natural fit. Government doesn't actually provide the labor and materials, they pay contractors for them, but at the end of the day, the government owns the result. I'm sure the national security sector would be ecstatic to increase our energy independence by having more baseline power not dependent on fossil fuels, to boot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:
Or, you know, government using its regulatory authority to change incentives to make nuclear economically competitive, like by doing some of the things I described. If a thing doesn't make economic sense (coal's really cheap and nuclear is expensive so nuclear plants aren't economical then you don't fix that by having the government do the that doesn't make economic sense (build uneconomical nuclear plants) you fix it by examine why it doesn't make economic sense and changing the parameters so that it does (do things that make coal more expensive and nuclear cheaper).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Private interests will only do things that can earn them a profit, regardless of the utility of the thing that people want built. The government is creating a large part of the issue, there are solutions that you exist other than building them or paying someone else to build them. The government should rationalize the nuclear regulation system. The government should make coal more expensive in line with the negative externalities that it creates. You don't just decide to make things that currently don't make sense when you have the power to instead make them make sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Or, you know, government using its regulatory authority to change incentives to make nuclear economically competitive, like by doing some of the things I described. If a thing doesn't make economic sense (coal's really cheap and nuclear is expensive so nuclear plants aren't economical then you don't fix that by having the government do the that doesn't make economic sense (build uneconomical nuclear plants) you fix it by examine why it doesn't make economic sense and changing the parameters so that it does (do things that make coal more expensive and nuclear cheaper). Sinestro posted:The government is creating a large part of the issue, there are solutions that you exist other than building them or paying someone else to build them. There's no particular reason that the government needs to literally build the plants, but whatever changes they make ultimately end up costing government dollars. I'll grant that fixing broken regulations and working to update nonproliferation treaties to allow waste reduction would be good moves regardless of who builds and owns power plants. Regardless, there are more sophisticated issues than just changing regulations. There are compelling reasons for more government participation in energy infrastructure. Private utilities are gouging customers, collecting subsidies for expansion (and then not expanding), and generally failing to keep infrastructure up to date and affordable for consumers. Public-private partnerships, like toll roads, tend to be the worst of all worlds, with the private partners having risk-free profits, the government taking all risk, and the masses getting screwed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Public-private partnerships, like toll roads, tend to be the worst of all worlds, with the private partners having risk-free profits, the government taking all risk, and the masses getting screwed. Just fyi, the vast majority of toll roads in this country are fully public entities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The absurdity was the argument: The government prints money thus it can essentially issue itself loans by printing a bunch of it and investing that to increase revenue further down the line when it can avoid printing money for a bit. If the suggestion is that the government can't make a profit off of taking loans on its own terms then I'm not sure how it's supposed to work for business which will 100% of the time accept a loan if it's favorable enough that it can make a return on immediate investment of that loan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
quote: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. Care to retry your argument in an environment of historically low inflation despite consistently loose monetary policy, and a society with concentrated wealth and substantial household debt? It's almost like you're intentionally ignoring reality to make a hypothetical argument, and citing examples from countries with vastly different macroeconomic circumstances, but surely that can't be right because it would be monumentally stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted: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. You spent a whole paragraph explaining how the government needs to institute carbon taxes in order to make people pay for the externalities of coal power. You agree that the free market allows people to hide these externalities, which is why was coal the cheapest source of power for such a long time. How is it that you're not able to put 2 and 2 together?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Or, you know, government using its regulatory authority to change incentives to make nuclear economically competitive, like by doing some of the things I described. If a thing doesn't make economic sense (coal's really cheap and nuclear is expensive so nuclear plants aren't economical then you don't fix that by having the government do the that doesn't make economic sense (build uneconomical nuclear plants) you fix it by examine why it doesn't make economic sense and changing the parameters so that it does (do things that make coal more expensive and nuclear cheaper). Nuclear plants are already economical; the projected total system LCOE of nuclear power is lower than nearly all other sources. But natural gas is even cheaper than that, so people who are interested in making money just want to build natural gas plants. Taxing natural gas burners to compensate for externalities is a good idea, and rewarding no-carbon electricity producers is a good idea, too. But why not do that and pay people to build nuclear power plants? We have the resources to do all of these things Sinestro posted:Yes, but the government can do other things that private industry cannot. Why is it a good idea to have the government do this, outside of an unthinking devotion to government spending as the solution to all problems? If you have the same rules as the private sector, there will be the same problems. The only difference is how much it costs to borrow money, except when the government borrows cheap money it's a slow danger to the economy as a whole. Even if we change the incentives tomorrow to make building new nuclear power more appealing, we should do as much as possible to slow the effects of climate change, which means putting down as many nuclear power facilities as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear plants are already economical; the projected total system LCOE of nuclear power is lower than nearly all other sources. But natural gas is even cheaper than that, so people who are interested in making money just want to build natural gas plants. Uh, did you read those EIA Total System LCOE numbers? Nuclear has the second highest LCOE (98.7 $/MWh), second only to "conventional combustion turbine natural gas." Nuclear total system LCOE is almost double the value for natural gas combined cycle and still higher than even wind/solar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh, did you read those EIA Total System LCOE numbers? Nuclear has the second highest LCOE (98.7 $/MWh), second only to "conventional combustion turbine natural gas." Nuclear total system LCOE is almost double the value for natural gas combined cycle and still higher than even wind/solar. Not according to the 2015 report:  I hadn't read the 2016 report yet, so I've taken a moment to do that. It seems that the 5-year LCOEs changed pretty significantly from one year to the next  . But really the point was that nuclear is already as economical as conventional coal, even without any carbon sequestration, but this isn't even included in the 2016 report (but was included in the 2015 report)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Not according to the 2015 report: Yeah because as of the Clean Power Plan, no more conventional coal will be built. Interesting YoY change, looks to be lower fuel prices for gas and cheaper capital for renewables, makes sense. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
One issue that has bothered me for a long time. As wind and solar continue to gain market share and continue to compete with coal and natural gas power and erode their profits. Seems reasonable that we will see fewer fossil fuel plants being built and some old ones shut down and wind and solar continue gaining market share. It further seems reasonable that at some point, if this continues, there will be a large peak in demand when wind and solar aren't producing effectively and there won't be enough fossil fuel plants to meet this demand and then, serious poo poo hits some very seriously large fans. Who is responsible to make sure this doesn't happen? Are there regulations and policies in place? Because in my mind, at least for some places in the world, it seems like an inevitability. And for me seems to be an extremely strong argument that there should be a single entity entirely responsible for electricity supply and generation, accountable to the public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Quick, someone invent public utility commissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Who is responsible to make sure this doesn't happen? Old men, running the world. BattleMoose posted:Because in my mind, at least for some places in the world, it seems like an inevitability. A new age.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Is anyone else super stoked about the state of energy efficiency? In the past three years, a solar powered ship and airplane have both circumnavigated the globe on solar power, and a car was developed that gets back more energy from PV than one would use in a day: Ship, PlanetSolar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar Manned Aircraft, SolarImpulse 2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft Car, Stella Lux: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/19/solar-powered-energy-positive-family-car-will-race-in-australia/ Die shrinks have allowed our PCs to use a fraction of the wattage they once required. CFLs and LEDs have reduced consumption for lighting and televisions. "PassivHaus" homes boast so much insulation that they only use energy recovery ventilation to cycle fresh air into the house while retaining heat, and don't need any additional HVAC. The showerloop.org site developed a shower that can filter, sterilize, and recycle water in the shower while retaining the heat; I'm building one for myself. Tesla built the largest factory on earth just so they can drive down the economy of scale for energy storage. The weak link that I've seen is just general obliviousness from offices and residences where the AC or space heater is left on with the windows open, and other egregious poo poo, and even then home automation like Nest is starting to help out with that. I hope the general public and corporations can be incentivized to adopt this stuff before it's too late. I drive an electric car and where I live it's been a chicken-and-egg dilemma where there's been almost no movement on charging stations for years now because electric cars haven't reached critical mass, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
New NREL study showing that the Eastern Interconnect can get to 30% solar + wind with only regulatory and incentive structure changes, no new storage or technology http://www.nrel.gov/grid/ergis.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
In recent times it appears that this thread has swung back towards the 'renewables can't replace baseload'. In light of this, I wanted to get some of the active members comments on this detailed plan for moving Australia to 100% renewables without traditional baseload generators http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
blacksun posted:In recent times it appears that this thread has swung back towards the 'renewables can't replace baseload'. It appears to rely on concentrating solar power at large scale to work as a base load and for nebulous efficiency gains to reduce the amount of power needed. In reality concentrated solar has a ton of teething problems and efficiency improvements so far tend to slow the increase in power consumption, not reduce power consumption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It appears to rely on concentrating solar power at large scale to work as a base load and for nebulous efficiency gains to reduce the amount of power needed. Can you provide further details regarding your criticism of their ability of make the efficiency gains the plan requires? One of the condensed talking points of the plan is that it could be executed at a cost of $8 AUD per household, per week. Even at double this, with increased costs of CSP and lower efficiency gains, this still seems like an achievable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Do you think the things starting on page 13 (pdf page 35) will actually happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Do you think the things starting on page 13 (pdf page 35) will actually happen? Do you think people are actually going to start building hundreds of nuclear power plants?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
blacksun posted:In recent times it appears that this thread has swung back towards the 'renewables can't replace baseload'. This seems to be pretty accurate from a technical perspective afaik. There are a lot of hidden *big* things in it, like the model shifts or the storage/reliability trade off presented. However, probably pretty realistic in terms of *One Way to Do It*. hobbesmaster posted:Do you think the things starting on page 13 (pdf page 35) will actually happen? Confusing a proscriptive document for a descriptive one is a problem in this thread.... But I doubt any one scenario model will be accurate, however this seems like a technically feasible way to achieve the goals. And it doesn't just deal with the electric grid, but the entire energy economy, something often ignored in proposals. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This seems to be pretty accurate from a technical perspective afaik. There are a lot of hidden *big* things in it, like the model shifts or the storage/reliability trade off presented. However, probably pretty realistic in terms of *One Way to Do It*. Besides having enormous amounts of storage, it also requires
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 07:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!