|
On May 07 2012 06:45 sam!zdat wrote:
There's a lot of externalities in fossil fuels that aren't accounted for in the "price" of that energy. That's actually a perfect example.
edit: It would be nice if you would give me the benefit of the doubt that I understand very basic things like supply and demand. I think it's clear that I'm not an idiot.
Then all you need to do is put a price on those external costs (carbon price / carbon trading). Which is something that should really be done.
Your posts are intelligent. I'm trying to keep my responses simple for DeliCiousVP
|
I really didn't like this thread when I first read the OP, and I really tried to avoid it, but for some reason it's still here. Now that I've watched the video, I know my initial feelings were correct. This is a very fanciful idea that just can't work.
There's no way you will create a new world order for humans that bases itself on something that isn't human nature. In what situation of limited resources has any group of humans ever decided that sharing everything is better than getting what you can and protecting it. I'm not saying all humans are 100% selfish, but we are selfish by nature. You will always protect yourself and the things you care for before protecting something you have no connection to (assuming you act rationally; which should be a given assumption). Of course there is an order of things (you protect random humans before you protect a random TV), and sometimes the order isn't always clear (your mom and girlfriend are hanging off a cliff and you have enough energy to save one, which do you choose?), but there is still a need to protect your own things before other people's things.
Money also makes the world go 'round. It's extremely important in modern society. Think slaves (pre-America, Europe) and before the average person had money. It sucked.
|
On May 07 2012 06:33 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:19 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Clap clap just that you missed a few things. If you see the link it says evacuated tubes you see it ?Good that means there is vaccum in the tubes with basicly no resistence you took an above ground maglev that isent running on that effiency in a friction full enviroment. there is a reason why i didnt bring up those examples.
Geothermal energy basicly uses water to create energy through the heat creating steam. i have difficulties seing how this causes earthquakes.
Care to try again ? Yeah no, you linked a 6 page long wiki when in reality you were talking about a very specific part of that technology. Here is the link you were looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VactrainAnd the reason they aren't doing this yet is because we lack the drilling technology. They're still working on it though, so you're point doesn't really stand. Show nested quote +Researchers at Southwest Jiaotong University in China are developing (in 2010) a vactrain to reach speeds of 1,000 km/h (620 mph). They say the technology can be put into operation in 10 years. As for geothermal energy, YOU LINKED IT TO ME DUDE Show nested quote +Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing. The project in Basel, Switzerland was suspended because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of water injection.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energySeriously? Do you honestly read anything before you spew it out of your mouth? This is only making your case look even worse.
Vactrains good my language didnt have it translated thats what i was looking for. "Enhanced geothermal" is not what i was refering to but you didn't know that so that was my bad. And obviously i read it i couldn't bring all of this up on the fly.
There is a cornerstone of knowledge you need to discuss on the next level and that is the understanding that Resources and fictional based currency papper is not perfecly in sync with each other. We can talk further when you understand that.
|
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy.
|
On May 07 2012 06:25 Clarity_nl wrote:
How are we even talking about this?
It's a beautiful concept. So is communism.
Only the difference is, this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, whereas communism doesn't work because people are people and some feel superior to others. The moment you start asking any questions the whole thing falls apart.
Let's imagine a world in the future where there are factories that produce an infinity of specific things until the end of time, no maintenance required.
Now we build enough of each of these factories to supply all the needs of all the people,
all of them.
1. What about education? Will only people who want to teach, teach? Will anyone decide on what you can teach and what you can't?
2. What about progress? Will only the people interested in progress work towards it? How many would that be compared to now? How would you implement any progress without tampering with the "infinite supply of stuff" factories? If people are allowed to tamper with the factories, are there risks?
3. Aliens? I'm not even kidding. What if we meet aliens?
4. etc etc etc
1.Education will change drasticly school time will be greatly reduced so will school hours, The social education of school will be more nesscery then the factual one, You will teach people how to use tools to access information and interpret aswel as speak with your emotions. to recognize what emotions are blocking new changing information from being proccesed is one of the keystones to learning.
2.We remove the incentive to want to tamper with stuffs obviously emotional crime is still gonna be out there for the few people so surveillence is nesccery in key infrastructure.
3.If they reach us and see us before we see them odds are they can do what they wish with us, They might be watching our planet as we speak but they would be stealthed. Im all for humanity and im all for peace but i think it would be irresponsible to explore space without a military strategy odds are that our days of war isent over even if we have global peace.
4.Herp derp derp herp herpy derp derp.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 07 2012 06:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:33 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 06:19 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Clap clap just that you missed a few things. If you see the link it says evacuated tubes you see it ?Good that means there is vaccum in the tubes with basicly no resistence you took an above ground maglev that isent running on that effiency in a friction full enviroment. there is a reason why i didnt bring up those examples.
Geothermal energy basicly uses water to create energy through the heat creating steam. i have difficulties seing how this causes earthquakes.
Care to try again ? Yeah no, you linked a 6 page long wiki when in reality you were talking about a very specific part of that technology. Here is the link you were looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VactrainAnd the reason they aren't doing this yet is because we lack the drilling technology. They're still working on it though, so you're point doesn't really stand. Researchers at Southwest Jiaotong University in China are developing (in 2010) a vactrain to reach speeds of 1,000 km/h (620 mph). They say the technology can be put into operation in 10 years. As for geothermal energy, YOU LINKED IT TO ME DUDE Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing. The project in Basel, Switzerland was suspended because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of water injection.[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energySeriously? Do you honestly read anything before you spew it out of your mouth? This is only making your case look even worse. Vactrains good my language didnt have it translated thats what i was looking for. "Enhanced geothermal" is not what i was refering to but you didn't know that so that was my bad. And obviously i read it i couldn't bring all of this up on the fly. There is a cornerstone of knowledge you need to discuss on the next level and that is the understanding that Resources and fictional based currency papper is not perfecly in sync with each other. We can talk further when you understand that.
When did I ever say it was? That doesn't mean they are not related. Something being too expensive means that the materials are difficult to obtain, or it's dificult to build, etc; money is merely a way of labeling these things under an easier system.
Taking away money would not make these things easier. We still need a shit ton of materials to build a drill, a lot more materials to build the tube itself, more materials to test it out, more materials to repair, more materials to build the robots that are supposedely going to mantain and build this stuff, more materials to build the robots that build those robots and so on. Not to mention the external costs that would go into this...
Also, what subject is it that you teach?
|
On May 07 2012 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:29 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption...
I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me
edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again. Well, this assumes that the market is perfectly efficient and rational. Which I think is pretty obviously not the case. It doesn't need to be perfectly efficient and rational for it to be true. Example: If I have $10Billion to invest in new energy plants, where am I going to invest it? In the lowest cost source of electricity generation. That's where my profit is. The difference between my low cost energy and the market rate. So, if geothermal is a better (lower cost) technology than competing technologies I'll use that. It's that simple. And the cost is based on all the resources that go into its construction and use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourceSo if there's a surplus of a resource, as there is currently with natural gas, then the price of natural gas will fall (as it has in real life). This will make natural gas the low cost source of electricity and I'll produce natural gas power plants instead. So, in the market system we have a supply of resources and a demand for them. That creates the price that is then used to make investment decisions. In other words when you say "expensive" you are saying that you are using a lot of scarce resources and when you say "cheap" you are using plentiful resources.
It could be that developing geothermal-energy technology is a viable long term strategy. It could be be that creating such technologies would require a sunk-cost investment for each company. But the sunk cost for the first company to undertake such an endeavour is higher than for all the other companies that enter the market after them, because they are able to copy or learn from mistakes made by the first company, and benefit from supplier experience. Given this, it could be that the industry as a whole would greatly benefit from investments into this technology, but it is a bad investment for the pioneering company. Totally hypothetical and simplistic, but this is a way in which a free market can fail to produce an optimal result.
A real life example of industries where sunk cost barriers for pioneers are thought to hinder optimal results is the aircraft industry. Which is subsidized pretty much everywhere. Economic theory is able to explain the rationale for such subisidies.
I hope I got that right.
|
On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy.
Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency.
It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible.
|
On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible.
Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve.
|
On May 07 2012 07:08 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:29 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again. Well, this assumes that the market is perfectly efficient and rational. Which I think is pretty obviously not the case. It doesn't need to be perfectly efficient and rational for it to be true. Example: If I have $10Billion to invest in new energy plants, where am I going to invest it? In the lowest cost source of electricity generation. That's where my profit is. The difference between my low cost energy and the market rate. So, if geothermal is a better (lower cost) technology than competing technologies I'll use that. It's that simple. And the cost is based on all the resources that go into its construction and use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourceSo if there's a surplus of a resource, as there is currently with natural gas, then the price of natural gas will fall (as it has in real life). This will make natural gas the low cost source of electricity and I'll produce natural gas power plants instead. So, in the market system we have a supply of resources and a demand for them. That creates the price that is then used to make investment decisions. In other words when you say "expensive" you are saying that you are using a lot of scarce resources and when you say "cheap" you are using plentiful resources. It could be that developing geothermal-energy technology is a viable long term strategy. It could be be that creating such technologies would require a sunk-cost investment for each company. But the sunk cost for the first company to undertake such an endeavour is higher than for all the other companies that enter the market after them, because they are able to copy or learn from mistakes made by the first company, and benefit from supplier experience. Given this, it could be that the industry as a whole would greatly benefit from investments into this technology, but it is a bad investment for the pioneering company. Totally hypothetical and simplistic, but this is a way in which a free market can fail to produce an optimal result. A real life example of industries where sunk cost barriers for pioneers are thought to hinder optimal results is the aircraft industry. Which is subsidized pretty much everywhere. Economic theory is able to explain the rationale for such subisidies. I hope I got that right.
Very well written, Yes our current system do produce some results most of it due to individuals who pursue it fervently being creative in solving whatever monetary problem they encounter.
Technology is speeding up just like our understanding is. There for we need an infrastructure that is designed to change and absorb new technologial improvments at a faster pace sometimes technologies takes 10 years before begining to become fully realised.
We might have 100 einsteins out there flipping burgers.
|
On May 07 2012 07:18 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:08 Crushinator wrote:On May 07 2012 06:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:29 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:
[quote]
a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected.
The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again. Well, this assumes that the market is perfectly efficient and rational. Which I think is pretty obviously not the case. It doesn't need to be perfectly efficient and rational for it to be true. Example: If I have $10Billion to invest in new energy plants, where am I going to invest it? In the lowest cost source of electricity generation. That's where my profit is. The difference between my low cost energy and the market rate. So, if geothermal is a better (lower cost) technology than competing technologies I'll use that. It's that simple. And the cost is based on all the resources that go into its construction and use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourceSo if there's a surplus of a resource, as there is currently with natural gas, then the price of natural gas will fall (as it has in real life). This will make natural gas the low cost source of electricity and I'll produce natural gas power plants instead. So, in the market system we have a supply of resources and a demand for them. That creates the price that is then used to make investment decisions. In other words when you say "expensive" you are saying that you are using a lot of scarce resources and when you say "cheap" you are using plentiful resources. It could be that developing geothermal-energy technology is a viable long term strategy. It could be be that creating such technologies would require a sunk-cost investment for each company. But the sunk cost for the first company to undertake such an endeavour is higher than for all the other companies that enter the market after them, because they are able to copy or learn from mistakes made by the first company, and benefit from supplier experience. Given this, it could be that the industry as a whole would greatly benefit from investments into this technology, but it is a bad investment for the pioneering company. Totally hypothetical and simplistic, but this is a way in which a free market can fail to produce an optimal result. A real life example of industries where sunk cost barriers for pioneers are thought to hinder optimal results is the aircraft industry. Which is subsidized pretty much everywhere. Economic theory is able to explain the rationale for such subisidies. I hope I got that right. Very well written, Yes our current system do produce some results most of it due to individuals who pursue it fervently being creative in solving whatever monetary problem they encounter. Technology is speeding up just like our understanding is. There for we need an infrastructure that is designed to change and absorb new technologial improvments at a faster pace sometimes technologies takes 10 years before begining to become fully realised. We might have 100 einsteins out there flipping burgers.
Thanks for the compliment, but I still think you are talking out of your ass.
|
On May 07 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible. Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve.
Thats so funny :D So we had a power company over here called Waterfall.
They were sponsoring this green enviromental campaign urging people to conserve energy because its good for enviroment telling people little tricksof how to conserve energy.
Thats actually nice right?
It was a campaign to convince people that energy was scarce, So they could raise prices :D while still maintaining their image of being a green company that cares about the enviroement..
All you can do is applaude 
|
|
|
On May 07 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible. Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve.
Yeah I live in an apartment where I don't pay for heat directly. During the winter everyone opens their windows when it gets too hot!
There is an incentive for the apartment owner to save money through efficiency but it is hard to get financing for that directly and many owners simply don't know how to quantify their investment in energy efficiency.
|
On May 07 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible. Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve. Yeah I live in an apartment where I don't pay for heat directly. During the winter everyone opens their windows when it gets too hot! There is an incentive for the apartment owner to save money through efficiency but it is hard to get financing for that directly and many owners simply don't know how to quantify their investment in energy efficiency.
Which is an inefficiency in the market.
edit: I guess I should add that in postmodernity this type of inefficiency will only get more and more common. The market can't really handle complex globally integrated economies all by itself.
|
On May 07 2012 07:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible. Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve. Yeah I live in an apartment where I don't pay for heat directly. During the winter everyone opens their windows when it gets too hot! There is an incentive for the apartment owner to save money through efficiency but it is hard to get financing for that directly and many owners simply don't know how to quantify their investment in energy efficiency. Which is an inefficiency in the market.
Yup! I totally agree with you.
And he or she who solves that inefficiency will make a lot of money.
There was, and to an extent remains, inefficiencies in the residential solar panel market. Some of that was solved by third party ownership structures (solar leasing). Now one of those companies, Solar City, is expected to have an IPO with a $1 Billion valuation this fall. So yeah, find those problems and solve them! Then you'll have a ton of cash and can impress all the ladies with your awesomeness :-D
|
On May 07 2012 08:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 07:49 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 07:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 06:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Yeah, markets have their place. When you can regulate them such that the true costs are reflected in the market, then things work out more or less how capitalism is supposed to work.
One problem, however, is that energy markets can't really tackle demand-side. There's not a lot of incentive in the market, without a lot of subsidies etc., to invest in efficiency rather than consumption. Why would an energy company try to make people use less energy? And do we want to have some entity in whose interest it is to encourage energy consumption? I think it would be better if there were no player in the market who WANTED people to waste energy. Well there's an incentive for the person paying the energy bill to not waste it. But yes, that's currently an area where there is absolutely a market inefficiency. It's easy to finance new generation of power but it's not easy to finance energy efficiency. It is being worked on though. Right now it's more common on the commercial side then the residential side where the financing options are, admittedly, ridiculously terrible. Well, for example, I live in an apartment and I don't pay electricity directly, so I have no incentive to conserve. Yeah I live in an apartment where I don't pay for heat directly. During the winter everyone opens their windows when it gets too hot! There is an incentive for the apartment owner to save money through efficiency but it is hard to get financing for that directly and many owners simply don't know how to quantify their investment in energy efficiency. Which is an inefficiency in the market. Yup! I totally agree with you. And he or she who solves that inefficiency will make a lot of money. There was, and to an extent remains, inefficiencies in the residential solar panel market. Some of that was solved by third party ownership structures (solar leasing). Now one of those companies, Solar City, is expected to have an IPO with a $1 Billion valuation this fall. So yeah, find those problems and solve them! Then you'll have a ton of cash and can impress all the ladies with your awesomeness :-D
Yes, we definitely should encourage this type of activity. I don't have an answer at this moment for the best structure to encourage this, but it's interesting and I'll think about it.
I will say that I think the new economy will largely be a reputation economy, so the upside for doing things like this might not be monetary in the way we think of it now. I've been trying to imagine how such a thing might work, so I don't have a concrete proposal yet.
|
On May 07 2012 07:06 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:25 Clarity_nl wrote:
How are we even talking about this?
It's a beautiful concept. So is communism.
Only the difference is, this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, whereas communism doesn't work because people are people and some feel superior to others. The moment you start asking any questions the whole thing falls apart.
Let's imagine a world in the future where there are factories that produce an infinity of specific things until the end of time, no maintenance required.
Now we build enough of each of these factories to supply all the needs of all the people,
all of them.
1. What about education? Will only people who want to teach, teach? Will anyone decide on what you can teach and what you can't?
2. What about progress? Will only the people interested in progress work towards it? How many would that be compared to now? How would you implement any progress without tampering with the "infinite supply of stuff" factories? If people are allowed to tamper with the factories, are there risks?
3. Aliens? I'm not even kidding. What if we meet aliens?
4. etc etc etc 1.Education will change drasticly school time will be greatly reduced so will school hours, The social education of school will be more nesscery then the factual one, You will teach people how to use tools to access information and interpret aswel as speak with your emotions. to recognize what emotions are blocking new changing information from being proccesed is one of the keystones to learning. 2.We remove the incentive to want to tamper with stuffs obviously emotional crime is still gonna be out there for the few people so surveillence is nesccery in key infrastructure. 3.If they reach us and see us before we see them odds are they can do what they wish with us, They might be watching our planet as we speak but they would be stealthed. Im all for humanity and im all for peace but i think it would be irresponsible to explore space without a military strategy odds are that our days of war isent over even if we have global peace. 4.Herp derp derp herp herpy derp derp.
Well since I get to cherrypick.... who takes care of surveillance?
And WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN!?!?!?
I'm all for idealism but there is a line, and then there is a 90 degree cliff, and then there is a black hole, and I think we took the black hole and traveled back to 1955.
|
I think instead of a surveillance state we should have a surveilled state
|
On May 07 2012 09:21 sam!zdat wrote:
I think instead of a surveillance state we should have a surveilled state
I'm not even sure what that means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
