Skip to main content

View Diary: DK GreenRoots: the economics of wind power (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do you know if it's a better use of resources (0+ / 0-)

    to build wind turbines, or hospitals, or to plant food, or to manufacture cars or medicine?
    Show your work.
    You don't understand the basics of economics -- a resource used for x can not be used for y or z, etc.
    And, if I recall, you think that prices have nothing to do with supply and demand. But you never revealed your theory of prices. I don't know what to say to such bizarreness. Open up an ebay seller account and learn something about prices, supply, and demand, then come back here.
    I would imagine that you think only govt. can build roads, and all that other nonsense, as well.

    •  oh please. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      at least i accused you of not understanding something that is subtle, and is in fact not understood by the vast majority of people. you accuse me of being simply stupid. since i'm not, FUCK OFF.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 01:55:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Powerful response, as always. (0+ / 0-)

        PS, I searched for "solution space" and yours was the only reference. I'd rather not spend time debunking one of your ridiculous notions, only to find that you were talking about something else.
        Anyway, the case against central planning is complete and irrefutable ... even if I grant you a group of politicians who all really just want to help "society", and not themselves... a very tall order.
        Grow up.

        •  Please fo back and read the diary (0+ / 0-)

          The case for a certain degree of central planning, namely that sufficient to establish and maintain feed-in tariffs, is clearly demonstrated. Further arguments from Economics 101 demonstrate that the free market can not produce this net benefit. No matter what Hayek, von Mises or Rand say.

          You'll pay me the 8s I won of you a-betting?

          by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 02:52:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, no, no ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boreal Ecologist

            Don't you see? USSR = QED! See how that works! Complete and Irrefutable! Tm, Sm, C, R, Patent Pending.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 03:05:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm assuming this thread is dead, but... (0+ / 0-)

            Your argument is circular.
            "We need central planning to have a tariff to fund wind power because the initial investment is high, etc. ". But that of course, assumes that govt. "investment" (govt. doesnt really "invest" like a normal person) in wind is the optimal investment. That is, you have assumed that your argument is true and used that in your "proof".
            But again, money spent on x can not be spent on y, or z, etc. This is a tautology, by the way == it is as true as 2+2=4.
            Of course, like any other business with high up-front costs, there are a number of ways to get started. If you can prove to investors that the payoff will be $x in y years, you WILL be able to raise the capital. Of course, in a free market you could actually guarantee returns to the investor, if you were sufficiently convinced of the profitability of your plan.

        •  searched what, exactly, for "solution space"? (0+ / 0-)

          because google reports 323,000 hits.

          you don't even know what "solution space" means, and yet you have the arrogance to assert nonsense such as, "the case against central planning is complete and irrefutable". you blather at me about X and Y, yet you know nothing of the mathematics of systems analysis.

          what is fairly complete and irrefutable is the case against ideology-driven approaches to solving human problems. sensible humans, unbound by devotion to abstractions like "property", understand that the best available approach to dealing with an economy is to be balanced and thoughtful. the lunatic libertarian approach -- throw up your hands in despair, and leave humanity to the whims of greed, self-interested, and unaccountable power -- is exactly the opposite. it is neither balanced nor thoughtful, but extreme, irrational, bizarre, and draws all of its authority from a slavish worship of private property.

          you are a sad and ridiculous fanatic. every opinion you have about economics begins with the assumption that Government=Bad, and so unsurprisingly every conclusion at which you arrive has that concept built in to it as an apparent "demonstration". there is plenty of room for subtle management between a Command Economy and a Free-Market Free-For-All, but you argue as if there were only the two poles, and no path connecting them.

          you don't like government? well neither do i, necessarily. here are some artifices that our government uses to control, command and regulate our economy, artifices that simply would not exist in any sort of vaguely "natural" economy, whatever that might look like, without the printing of reams and reams of legislation and legal decisions, artifices that limit the market's ability to behave in its "perfect" unfettered state:

          a. Corporations.
          b. Limited Liability.
          c. Patents.
          d. Copyrights.
          e. Trademarks.

          those five are enough to start with. grant me that those five are egregious infringements on individual liberty, as well as on the abstract "perfection" of the free market, and that therefore, in your lights, they ought to be done away with. having granted me such, i'll be happy to move on to more subtle cases. such as: what business has government got, "enforcing contracts"? if i make you a promise, and don't deliver, it seems to me that that is between you and me. fuck everyone else, they should mind their own beeswax.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 03:03:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site