See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

   bluesoc said: … You seem to be suggesting that the market will fix itself. I think such a proposition is fundamentally wrong.

   The FACT that a market can exist WITHOUT any government at all makes YOU .. fundamentally wrong.

2. #102
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

   Tin foil hat?

   The initial concept of ethanol subsidies was likely to have been hatched with the INTENTIONAL EVIL PURPOSE to starve the burgeoning masses of the third world – the ones doing the most damage to mother Gaia. It is beginning to show signs of achieving that purpose at only 10% ethanol.

   Ditto? The purpose of bankrupting the USA is so we can no longer afford to support the third world attempting to pull them out of poverty and set them on a course to self sufficiency. (which they’ll never be able to do without coal and oil anyway – the way we did it.)

   The above are philosophies consistent with the cult of Gaia (more humans will only harm the Earth more), observed by people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

3. #103
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, bluesoc said:

   The FACT that a market can exist WITHOUT any government at all makes YOU .. fundamentally wrong.

   A market is not an end in itself. Efficiency is the end, the market is simply the means.

   Also, perhaps I wasn’t too clear, but I am not suggesting that government must fix all market externalities. Private citizens are very good at correcting market failures in some instances. Government is better at others (especially when the externality affects are large number of people).

4. #104
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, bluesoc said:

   CO2 is NOT an externality.

   That’s a valid criticism. However, I think most scientists would disagree. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind on that matter, so let’s agree to disagree.

5. #105
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

   bluesoc said:
   A market is not an end in itself. Efficiency is the end, the market is simply the means.

   Is that so? Then if the market is only ‘a means’ then there must some alternatives that achieve the SAME end … name ONE!

6. #106
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm, Rodent said:

   On February 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am, wighttrasch said:
   …I hear AmerenUE wants to get another nuclear plant started up…it will only cost 6 billion dollars…

   Any specs? Nameplate MW?
   “Nuclear plant” is a lot like “light bulb”: Could mean flash light, could mean search light.

   If I guess at 2 1500MW reactors in one “plant”, then thats $6 billion for 3 billion watts that’s 2 bucks a watt installed. Not bad.
   PV solar panels run $4 to $5 dollars a watt right now, then you have to add installation, copper, inverters.
   BUT: The nuke will run for 95% of the time for 50 years. Solar panels only “run” at best 40% of the time and with fixed panels on a roof, maybe closer to 25%.
   So your solar panels cost a minimum of $9/watt, or as high as $20/watt, just for the panels. You can add anywhere from 50% to 100% to install and connect them.
   That nuke plant looks pretty cheap at $2 per installed watt.

7. #107
   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, bluesoc said:

   Is that so? Then if the market is only ‘a means’ then there must some alternatives that achieve the SAME end … name ONE!

   There’s no market for the US military. I suppose the means for that would be government.

8. #108
   On February 18th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, bluesoc said:

   Is that so? Then if the market is only ‘a means’ then there must some alternatives that achieve the SAME end … name ONE!

   I also think government is inherent in our conception of markets.

   It’d be very difficult to have a functioning and efficient market economy without well defined property rights. Those rights are defined and enforced by the government.

9. #109
   On February 18th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, John Deaux said:

   On February 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, bluesac said:

   There’s no market for the US military. I suppose the means for that would be government.

   Given that other countries choose to buy weapons from us based on their performance in combat, I’d say that’s a market.

10. #110
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm, corkie said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, bluesoc said:

    That’s a valid criticism. However, I think most scientists would disagree. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind on that matter, so let’s agree to disagree.

    What are we agreeing to disagree about?

    That CO2 isn’t an externality?

    Or that most CLIMATE scientists would agree that CO2 isn’t an externality?

    bluesoc, you might want to get on the correct side of these arguments while there’s still time.

11. #111
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, bluesoc said:

    Given that other countries choose to buy weapons from us based on their performance in combat, I’d say that’s a market.

    The weapons and the military are not the same.

12. #112
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm, corkie said:

    Actually, I have to defend part of what bluesoc is stating.

    bluesoc is stating that government management of externalities is not a liberal-conservative issue.

    I mostly agree.

    Take a look at The Tragedy of the Commons. The point of the article is that:

    …multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen.

    In fact, many individuals benefiting from such limited resource will often call for regulation in their own self-interest. Trade associations, etc. are great examples of this.

    Additionally, I prefer when these industries are self-regulated, but that doesn’t always happen.

    For this reason, I don’t have a problem with charging private enterprises for the disposal of harmful substances into the public air and water. Overall, I think the pollution credit system used in this country has been a terrific success.

    As I already indicated, however, coal plants are already charged for their disposal of harmful substances into the air.

    Here’s where I completely disagree with bluesoc. bluesoc mistakenly believes that the coal companies should also be charged for the CO2 released – which is an insane idea.

13. #113
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, corkie said:

    Also, bluesoc.

    You’re crazy if you think that all of these solar companies would survive EVEN if coal companies were paying for CO2 disposal. I’ve analyzed dozens of solar companies. A very few are great, a few are good, and many suck. However, the suckie ones are attempting to get a free ride on the green train (much like many of the suckie bio diesel companies were doing last year).

    I don’t know about this particular company, however, you might not want to make too many claims about its ability to turn profitable.

14. #114
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, bluesoc said:

    Here’s where I completely disagree with bluesoc. bluesoc mistakenly believes that the coal companies should also be charged for the CO2 released – which is an insane idea.

    It’s only insane if you don’t think there are additional costs associated with CO2 emissions. But that’s a discussion for another day.

15. #115
    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pm, bluesoc said:

    You’re crazy if you think that all of these solar companies would survive EVEN if coal companies were paying for CO2 disposal.

    No. I don’t think they’d necessarily survive. That’s why I like the tax better than subsidies – we’d let the market decide. However, a carbon tax isn’t politically viable.

    Also, I agree that the subsidies could end up being a complete waste of money. I don’t actually know enough about them to form much of an opinion though.

16. #116
    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:02 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    bluesoc initially said: A market is not an end in itself. Efficiency is the end, the market is simply the means.

    To which I replied: Is that so? Then if the market is only ‘a means’ then there must some alternatives that achieve the SAME end … name ONE!

    To which bluesoc replied: There’s no market for the US military. I suppose the means for that would be government.

    Sorry, that’s incongruous and does not answer the question that I asked. Note that I said ‘SAME’. So you have to pick an alternative means to provide for something that a market supplies to begin with – like food for example.

17. #117
    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, corkie said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, bluesoc said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pm, bluesoc said:

    Fair enough.

    BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.

18. #118
    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pm, Republicanvet said:

    “We’re just one small business, creating one to two dozen jobs,” Jones said. “The point that I want to stress is that there are thousands of businesses just like ours that will be doing the same thing.”

    Thousands of small businesses that could hire more people if they wee not paying outrageous taxes and dealing with nanny-state regulations.

    On both National and State levels, there are programs in place to help “level the economic playing field” between green, renewable energy sources (like solar electricity) and polluting, finite energy sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy).

    Yeah, that nuke energy fuel is pretty finite.

    OVERVIEW:

    It’s too bad these lib nitwits never thought they could do better without such a tangled web of regulations, and less taxes.

    If Boulder libs were serious, why not eliminate all taxes on this form of “energy”?

19. #119
    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:26 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, bluesoc said:

    Given that other countries choose to buy weapons from us based on their performance in combat, I’d say that’s a market.

    The weapons and the military are not the same.

    So how do you prove your weapons are battle ready without a military?

    Also, how many countries have allowed us to open bases in their countries so we can defend them? They provide incentives for us to do so and we get a strategic location.

20. #120
    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.

    Corkie, you are nothing if not intellectually honest, if not always correct and always fair.

21. #121
    On February 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pm, corkie said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    Corkie, you are nothing if not intellectually honest, if not always correct and always fair.

    Awwww. Shucks.

22. #122
    On February 19th, 2009 at 6:41 am, conservativesRus said:

    On February 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, bluesoc said:
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of externalities. By definition they are not accounted for in the price.

    I don’t think we can have a conversation about externalities if you don’t know what they are.

    You have no idea what I understand or do not understand.
    Why do you believe government understands the true cost of something when buyers and sellers of that very same thing do not? I would argue that those invested financially have far more knowledge about something than those who do no have an investment. You seem to believe otherwise.
    It seems to me there is a logic problem concluding that externalities are known by regulators but not by investors.
    As I’ve said before, just because something is taught in a classroom – even by highly regarded professors, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH.

23. #123
    On February 19th, 2009 at 7:00 am, Ganryu said:

    • All major decisions would be made by consensus of all company employees.

    I may have to look back through my weel worn and dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged, but I distinctly remeber a certain company that employed a Mr. J. Galt trying this very thing and it not working out for them. I realize that was just a piece of fiction, but we seem to be following the storyline more and more on a daily basis, except that the real producers don’t have a Galt’s Gulch to run away and hide in. I for one will be standing by with a ready paint supply at the end.

24. #124
    On February 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am, bluesoc said:

    BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.

    It was much appreciated. However, it appears they’re back…

    It seems to me there is a logic problem concluding that externalities are known by regulators but not by investors.

    Investors may be aware of externalities, they simply do not factor them into their decisions. Remember, externalities affect third parties not subject to the transaction. Consider a chocolate factory that’s right next to a city. It produces pleasant aromas (positive externality) that the entire city enjoys. However, when the factory is making business decisions, it does not take this into account (because no one is paying them for the aroma). They may be aware of the externality, but that doesn’t mean that it is reflected in the price.

    As I’ve said before, just because something is taught in a classroom – even by highly regarded professors, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH.

    Externalities are EVERYWHERE. If you’ve ever put up Christmas lights, you’ve created externalities.

25. #125
    On February 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am, conservativesRus said:

    On February 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am, bluesoc said:

    My argument is why you think government is smart enough to completely understand and “fix” externalities.
    Further – I think it rather naive of you to conclude that those with a financial stake completely ignore the external effects of their decisions – both “good” and “bad”.

26. #126
    On February 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am, corkie said:

    On February 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am, conservativesRus said:

    My argument is why you think government is smart enough to completely understand and “fix” externalities.

    I don’t think bluesoc is claiming that the government is always smart enough to “fix” externality problems correctly.

    In fact, I bet bluesoc would admit that the government has made may mistakes attempting to “fix” externality problems.

    This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try. Would you completely abolish FCC licensing of the EM spectrum? Would you completely abolish the entire pollution credit system?

    Further – I think it rather naive of you to conclude that those with a financial stake completely ignore the external effects of their decisions – both “good” and “bad”.

    I don’t think bluesoc is concluding that. I think bluesoc would agree that many people are cognizant of the external effects of their decisions. In fact, those people are probably the ones in favor of making everyone play by the same rules.

    If you were owned a factory that decided (because you were a good citizen) to pay 15% of your sales to cleanly dispose of your waste, then you wouldn’t want one of your competitors to gain a cost advantage by dumping their waste into a nearby river for free.

    Again, I think you’re making the wrong argument with bluesoc. bluesoc is trying to argue that grid electricity power is artificially cheap because producers are not being charged for releasing CO2. I disagree with the CO2 charge, but bluesoc has tabled that argument (the better argument) and decided to focus on arguing externalities with a few of you (the weaker argument).

    Let’s not allow bluesoc to chose the argument here. Let’s chose it ourselves.

27. #127
    On February 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, bluesoc said:

    I disagree with the CO2 charge, but bluesoc has tabled that argument (the better argument) and decided to focus on arguing externalities with a few of you (the weaker argument).

    Let’s not allow bluesoc to chose the argument here. Let’s chose it ourselves.

    Coming to my defense two days in a row! Thanks.

    The reason I table the CO2 argument is that both of us will simply be deferring to experts. There’s not much fun in an argument of that sort.

    Even if you were knowledgeable enough in the field to form an opinion without the assistance of experts (which may be the case, I honestly don’t know), I most certainly am not. It would basically be your opinion vs. my opinion of expert opinion. Again, not a fun argument.

28. #128
    On February 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, corkie said:

    On February 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, bluesoc said:

    Again, not a fun argument.

    Actually, I would LOVE it. But I understand your point.

    You seem very reasonable. You might want to keep an open mind on this one. The tide of opinion really is turning on this. It will probably never be “settled,” but I honestly think that the voices of AGW will be reduced to a whisper.