User Tag List

First 22627071727374 Last

Results 711 to 720 of 798

  1. #711
    Senior Member OWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Solar isn't exactly the manliest energy source.
    If by "manliest" you mean "most useful", then I would agree.

    When solar becomes more efficient and more economically favorable, people will clamor for it. Until such time, it will remain a distant also-ran to fossil fuels, no matter how many government subsidies you throw at it.

    People aren't stupid. They don't choose their energy sources by manliness. They choose what makes the most economic sense to them.

    (I too am an electrical engineer)

  2. #712
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OWK View Post
    If by "manliest" you mean "most useful", then I would agree.

    When solar becomes more efficient and more economically favorable, people will clamor for it. Until such time, it will remain a distant also-ran to fossil fuels, no matter how many government subsidies you throw at it.

    People aren't stupid. They don't choose their energy sources by manliness. They choose what makes the most economic sense to them.

    (I too am an electrical engineer)
    Two points here. First of all is the value of something determined solely by its economic viability? Second of all, while solar energy is less useful NOW, does that mean it willl always be the case? Some things have future potential worth investing in, and even though they are less viable now does that mean its not worht investing in?

  3. #713
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Two points here. First of all is the value of something determined solely by its economic viability? Second of all, while solar energy is less useful NOW, does that mean it willl always be the case? Some things have future potential worth investing in, and even though they are less viable now does that mean its not worht investing in?
    Nuclear is the only sustainable energy capable of supporting base load power generation. We'll probably use Nat gas as a bridge to nuclear (hopefully) and nuclear will bridge to Fusion (if end up figuring that out).

  4. #714
    Senior Member OWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Two points here. First of all is the value of something determined solely by its economic viability?
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that economic viability is determined by whether something is valued.

    Second of all, while solar energy is less useful NOW, does that mean it willl always be the case?
    Of course not. In fact, I said as much.

    Some things have future potential worth investing in, and even though they are less viable now does that mean its not worht investing in?
    I agree.. provided we're talking about actual investors.. (who are morally at liberty to gamble with their own money, in an attempt to profit by predicting product successes and market futures)...

    Government subsidies are not "investments". They are stolen money used to provide the ability for unprofitable products to operate at a loss.

  5. #715
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    @OWK

    When you say something is valued, you mean valued by who?

    Also about government subsides. . . are you referring to taxpayers money? Or something else?

  6. #716
    Senior Member OWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    @OWK

    When you say something is valued, you mean valued by who?
    By individuals. Value is inherently subjective.

    To value something is to desire it greater than a potential alternative.

    If enough people value something, it has economic viability because of the pursuit of it.

    If not, it does not.

    Government attempts (through the instrument of subsidy) to make something economically viable which would ordinarily not be.

    Also about government subsides. . . are you referring to taxpayers money? Or something else?
    Yes... taxpayer money... or in the current case.. future taxpayer money (as they have spent all of the taxpayer money they could conceivably collect of the next several decades).

  7. #717
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OWK View Post
    By individuals. Value is inherently subjective.

    To value something is to desire it greater than a potential alternative.

    If enough people value something, it has economic viability because of the pursuit of it.

    If not, it does not.
    I see. Well in that case, isnt this a form of majority rule as well? While I agree that value is determined by individuals, individuals, as well as groups, are capable of valuing things which aerent the best. The fact that an appliance sells well, or that Britney Spears sells alot of records does not mean the appiance is the most comptent one, or that Britney's music is good, just that they sell well, more because of marketing(propaganda!) than any actual quality of a product. Thats why I do differ from Hoppe who I mentioned in the other thread in that the value of a thing is not purely its economic value.

    Government attempts (through the instrument of subsidy) to make something economically viable which would ordinarily not be.
    Which thing do you refer to?

  8. #718
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    It's been decided:

    Last edited by Nicodemus; 05-15-2014 at 10:24 AM.

  9. #719

  10. #720
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    My very basic understanding of the term "republican" is someone who wants to live in a republic. A republic is when the rights of one come before the rights of many. In a democracy, the rights of the majority come before the rights of any one person.

    In a republic, if something is wrong...even if the majority of people want to do it...it won't be done. There are rules (the constitution) that we all must abide by, those rules centering around the rights of the individual. What those rights are, that people are entitled to, is up for debate...the basic idea is that every single person has rights, and protecting those rights is the essence of what a government should be doing.The single, individual person is emphasized. What happens, though, is that certain people/families with power tend to get recycled through the generations as they're set up by they're own family. Though that is what tends to happen, that isn't what must happen. It seems a republic wants to guarantee the sovereignty of every individual, which means things aren't given to you by virtue of your social group, you have to take them. A republic is bottom to top. The individual person comes first. Then your family. Then your society. 1 is right.

    A democracy wants the rights of the group to come first. If the majority of people decide to do something, but it is wrong (or thought of as wrong by a significant minority), it'll still be done. Democracy is "rule by numbers". 50+1 is right. The rules and laws can be changed to suit the needs of the majority as ultimately the rules and laws are insignificant, or arbitrary. People don't have any rights, if not for the rights granted to them by the majority. The top comes first, then you. You're basically an agent of your state. It's "top down". What is moral is what most people want.

    I find the distinction hard to qualify, and really there is no reason to talk about it unless there is mutual understanding on what we're talking about. There is major misunderstanding on what the two terms actually mean, you'll find an avowed democrat with republican beliefs, and the opposite as well.

    There are no "minority groups" in a republic. There's just you and your family and the state.

    Idk...I can see merits in both systems but I definitely value one over the other.

    But, perhaps my understanding is flawed. There's so much political confusion in the world's people that I'm starting to think that perhaps you just can't come to a conclusion as to what exactly the conversation is even about.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO