LFTR and Market Failures

[myrkul]

Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters.

How so?

The Scimitar Oryx is extinct in the wild. That means they only exist in zoos and game reserves. The largest breeding population extant of that Scimitar Oryx is at that ranch. How is that not protecting biodiversity?

[1713868781]

1713868781

[1713868781]

1713868781

[1713868781]

1713868781

[vampire]

2. You may be the same person as vampire. You share debate "styles".

WTF? I clicked randomly on a thread, and you're spreading BS around?

Well, now you've just proven that you're completely nuts. I pointed you my answer SIX times, and you still couldn't comprehend it. Do you have some kind of mental disability?

What about JAY-T video, the most retarded thing I saw in the last few days. I felt so dumb after watching it.

You know what, you're on a perma-ignore now.

[myrkul]

You know what, you're on a perma-ignore now.

Love you too. 

[FirstAscent]

Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters.

How so?

The Scimitar Oryx is extinct in the wild. That means they only exist in zoos and game reserves. The largest breeding population extant of that Scimitar Oryx is at that ranch. How is that not protecting biodiversity?

Biodiversity, it's very definition, implies diversity, which arises from the existence of thousands, tens of thousands of species within any given ecosystem. This then results in the ecosystem being able to provide its services, known collectively as ecosystem services. The goal is to protect biodiversity by protecting ecosystems. A general technique for doing so is to declare a top level species within its respective ecosystem as endangered (because it is endangered or will become extinct if its ecosystem is destroyed) as an umbrella species, otherwise known as a keystone species. The ecosystem is then preserved under the umbrella of the umbrella species. This protects biodiversity. I gave a general summary of this process by drawing attention to the Spotted Owl controversy and what it was all about in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96217.msg1061023#msg1061023

We can get into all kinds of discussions as to what biodiversity is, what threatens it, where you'll find it, why it needs to be preserved, and how preservation is affected.

Your example of relocating the Scimitar Oryx is simply not a case of protecting biodiversity. What they did is not necessarily a bad thing, but your usage of it as an example to protect biodiversity simply shows that you have a lot to learn about the subject.

[myrkul]

Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters.

How so?

The Scimitar Oryx is extinct in the wild. That means they only exist in zoos and game reserves. The largest breeding population extant of that Scimitar Oryx is at that ranch. How is that not protecting biodiversity?

Biodiversity, it's very definition, implies diversity, which arises from the existence of thousands, tens of thousands of species within any given ecosystem. This then results in the ecosystem being able to provide its services, known collectively as ecosystem services. The goal is to protect biodiversity by protecting ecosystems. A general technique for doing so is to declare a top level species within its respective ecosystem as endangered (because it is endangered or will become extinct if its ecosystem is destroyed) as an umbrella species, otherwise known as a keystone species. The ecosystem is then preserved under the umbrella of the umbrella species. This protects biodiversity. I gave a general summary of this process by drawing attention to the Spotted Owl controversy and what it was all about in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96217.msg1061023#msg1061023

We can get into all kinds of discussions as to what biodiversity is, what threatens it, where you'll find it, why it needs to be preserved, and how preservation is affected.

Your example of relocating the Scimitar Oryx is simply not a case of protecting biodiversity. What they did is not necessarily a bad thing, but your usage of it as an example to protect biodiversity simply shows that you have a lot to learn about the subject.

Holy crap... you're starting to make sense. Quick, get over to that ecology thread why you still have it!

No, but seriously, That's actually a coherent response to my question. Thank you. That said, this thread is not the place to be discussing it.

[myrkul]

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

Having done a little reading of that article, I think I may have an answer as to why "here read this wikipedia article" wasn't his go-to response:

The Government issue of fiat paper money has also been associated with the American School from the 1830s onwards. The policy has roots going back to the days of the American Colonies, when such a type of currency called Colonial Scrip was the medium of exchange. As early as 1837, John C. Calhoun called for a debt-free currency issued and controlled by the Government.

Now, a simple explanation that he didn't approve of that monetary policy would have sufficed, but perhaps he does approve? That's certainly not going to go over well here. Thus the obfuscation behind reams of text.

[niemivh]

In the "See also" section, I found a link to the "American School", and therein found a link to the second book you suggested I read, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, so I knew I was on the right track. Also there I found another familiar book title, which pretty much put a lock on this being the philosophy you espouse.

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

I dunno, I though that explaining that there is this thing called "Wikipedia" out there that sometimes has useful information would've been obvious to the point of insulting.

In terms of policy, for example, I'm for having protective tariffs (NOT revenue tariffs, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare).  And this requires establishing what the level of import tariff should be for XYZ good.  The goal of this policy is to prevent our labor force from "competition" with 3rd world slaves, so that they can keep a sizable portion of the surplus value that they create.  This could be a long discussion, but the point is that here is something (import tariffs), a 'tool' if you will, that can be used in a variety of ways: for good or for bad.  It can support the labor force here in the States and actually create the frame work for ACTUAL free trade that is only between nations that have labor laws, minimum wages, vacations, maternity leave, etc.  (You wonder how immigration from the Old World was enticed to come to the New?  This is a large part of the reason, as Henry Carey lays out in "Harmony of Interests".)  While the products that would be supposedly shipped in from wage-slave China (or wherever the runaway shop is this month) would be priced at the same level as if they were bought from a 1st world nation.  Meaning that our jobs wouldn't be perpetually in flight overseas.  What you would see as result of this, and I'm being rather brief (perhaps too much so), would be a general improvement of condition FOR ALL people of the earth, not just us in the 1st world.

I can explain why (especially why in relation to why this benefits the 3rd world as well), if you'd like, but if you read those books I cited then it should become clear enough.

[niemivh]

You know what, you're on a perma-ignore now.

Love you too. 

Never heard of em'.

[myrkul]

In the "See also" section, I found a link to the "American School", and therein found a link to the second book you suggested I read, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, so I knew I was on the right track. Also there I found another familiar book title, which pretty much put a lock on this being the philosophy you espouse.

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

I dunno, I though that explaining that there is this thing called "Wikipedia" out there that sometimes has useful information would've been obvious to the point of insulting.

It's one thing to point out "wikipedia, dumbass", and entirely a different matter to say "Everything you need to know about my position can be found here."

In terms of policy, for example, I'm for having protective tariffs (NOT revenue tariffs, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare).  And this requires establishing what the level of import tariff should be for XYZ good.  The goal of this policy is to prevent our labor force from "competition" with 3rd world slaves, so that they can keep a sizable portion of the surplus value that they create.  This could be a long discussion, but the point is that here is something (import tariffs), a 'tool' if you will, that can be used in a variety of ways: for good or for bad.  It can support the labor force here in the States and actually create the frame work for ACTUAL free trade that is only between nations that have labor laws, minimum wages, vacations, maternity leave, etc.  (You wonder how immigration from the Old World was enticed to come to the New?  This is a large part of the reason, as Henry Carey lays out in "Harmony of Interests".)  While the products that would be supposedly shipped in from wage-slave China (or wherever the runaway shop is this month) would be priced at the same level as if they were bought from a 1st world nation.  Meaning that our jobs wouldn't be perpetually in flight overseas.  What you would see as result of this, and I'm being rather brief (perhaps too much so), would be a general improvement of condition FOR ALL people of the earth, not just us in the 1st world.

I can explain why (especially why in relation to why this benefits the 3rd world as well), if you'd like, but if you read those books I cited then it should become clear enough.

No, no, I get the benefits of your system, and I get why it worked so well, before. Basically, what the American System says is, "The other markets are not free, they are biased in this way, and that. What we should do is introduce counterbalancing bias, to reduce the effect of that bias both here, and abroad." And FWIW, that works. But it ignores a lot of other problems, not least being comparative advantage.

[niemivh]

In the "See also" section, I found a link to the "American School", and therein found a link to the second book you suggested I read, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, so I knew I was on the right track. Also there I found another familiar book title, which pretty much put a lock on this being the philosophy you espouse.

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

I dunno, I though that explaining that there is this thing called "Wikipedia" out there that sometimes has useful information would've been obvious to the point of insulting.

It's one thing to point out "wikipedia, dumbass", and entirely a different matter to say "Everything you need to know about my position can be found here."

First time I looked at their stuff on the American System, I typically avoid Wikipedia.  But it does look like a good reference, there is some good stuff there.

In terms of policy, for example, I'm for having protective tariffs (NOT revenue tariffs, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare).  And this requires establishing what the level of import tariff should be for XYZ good.  The goal of this policy is to prevent our labor force from "competition" with 3rd world slaves, so that they can keep a sizable portion of the surplus value that they create.  This could be a long discussion, but the point is that here is something (import tariffs), a 'tool' if you will, that can be used in a variety of ways: for good or for bad.  It can support the labor force here in the States and actually create the frame work for ACTUAL free trade that is only between nations that have labor laws, minimum wages, vacations, maternity leave, etc.  (You wonder how immigration from the Old World was enticed to come to the New?  This is a large part of the reason, as Henry Carey lays out in "Harmony of Interests".)  While the products that would be supposedly shipped in from wage-slave China (or wherever the runaway shop is this month) would be priced at the same level as if they were bought from a 1st world nation.  Meaning that our jobs wouldn't be perpetually in flight overseas.  What you would see as result of this, and I'm being rather brief (perhaps too much so), would be a general improvement of condition FOR ALL people of the earth, not just us in the 1st world.

I can explain why (especially why in relation to why this benefits the 3rd world as well), if you'd like, but if you read those books I cited then it should become clear enough.

No, no, I get the benefits of your system, and I get why it worked so well, before. Basically, what the American System says is, "The other markets are not free, they are biased in this way, and that. What we should do is introduce counterbalancing bias, to reduce the effect of that bias both here, and abroad." And FWIW, that works. But it ignores a lot of other problems, not least being comparative advantage.

Well the only 'comparative advantage' that I'm familiar with is the one of Smith/Ricardo which was completely and utterly a political fraud.  Always has been, and it still the anthem of the WTO and IMF in their policy doctrines to this day.  If you'd like my opinion on that you can read my book review of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/product-reviews/0553585975/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&pageNumber=2&showViewpoints=0

Although to the extent that a certain country has more skill and expertise in something than another is totally valid, but what of it?  If we look at how Japan and Korea and Malaysia and Taiwan and China rose to power over the last half of the last century and into this one, then we'll need to understand this policy.  Ha-Joong Chang wrote some good books on the topic:

"23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"
http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344007829&sr=1-1&keywords=23+things+they+don%27t+tell+you+about+capitalism

"Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism"
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=la_B001HOFPKS_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344007860&sr=1-2


Both these books cover, albeit briefly and for a mainstream culture 'pop-culture' audience, the same principles as what I've been referencing you.


A good statesmen, a modern reincarnation of Henry Clay for example would realize what industries need to be created or reformed is in the USA's best interests.  Today, that could be potentially a tremendous amount of things as there is so much in the realm of cutting-edge technology that is not being commercially (or otherwise) pursued by "the private sector" OR something that the private sector is doing but totally abusing and ripping the public off with: Oil Industry, Banking, agra-businesses. 

For example, LFTR research and development.  You have an intransigent Energy Sector that controls various strata of our government through political donations, appointments, bribes/kickbacks, chairmanships, Consortiums, control of areas of academia etc.  So, find someone that is actually interested in building LFTR, someone like Kirk Sorensen and appoint him head of a government chartered corporation tasked to do just that.  Give him complete day-to-day authority and have him answer to a senatorial committee by the person that originally wrote the plan to charter the corporation and project to begin with.  Model it along the lines of the TVA.  This way you aren't 'vetting' the project through the bureaucratic log-jam of the rest of the government and you don't allow all the paid and corrupted operatives to sabotage the project as it would if they were involved. 


For example, oil exploration and research.  Right now all of us are getting perpetually raped in regards to the oil rights that are sold off the public lands, to the oil cartels for a pittance.  And then, after they rape our resources for virtually free (as the small royalties don't really equate to much of anything) then they don't pay taxes and tell us we're on our own when something like "Deep Water Horizon" happens.  Solution:  charter a new government owned corporation that will have exclusive rights to drill oil on our land.  This company sells gasoline and oil products and the excess revenue goes to the public treasury - lowering all our taxes.


Do you see the potential in this scenario for the type of 'vigorous action' that Hamilton promoted?  Do you see the various layers of the government, some controlled by oligarchical factions and others not?  This is the reality that we're interfacing with, and every time one looks at "the government" as a monolithic entity you are blinding yourself to the actuality of what is in front of your face.

[myrkul]

Although to the extent that a certain country has more skill and expertise in something than another is totally valid, but what of it?

it's not just skill and expertise, it's also terrain, access to resources, climate, and other things that training just can't improve. It would be silly, for instance, to want to buy your oil from New Jersey. Imagine, if you will, if each state in the US practiced protectionism - a situation the commerce clause was intended to prevent - What would happen?

Do you see the potential in this scenario for the type of 'vigorous action' that Hamilton promoted?  Do you see the various layers of the government, some controlled by oligarchical factions and others not?  This is the reality that we're interfacing with, and every time one looks at "the government" as a monolithic entity you are blinding yourself to the actuality of what is in front of your face.

I don't view "the government" as a monolithic entity. I view it as a group of individuals, like any other corporation. The actions of that corporation, however, can be viewed in aggregate. And the actions of that corporation universally distort the market.

Protectionism and mercantilism (which is what you are proposing) are out-dated economic policies. You're still thinking in nation-state terms. That's not how the world works anymore.

[niemivh]

Although to the extent that a certain country has more skill and expertise in something than another is totally valid, but what of it?

it's not just skill and expertise, it's also terrain, access to resources, climate, and other things that training just can't improve. It would be silly, for instance, to want to buy your oil from New Jersey. Imagine, if you will, if each state in the US practiced protectionism - a situation the commerce clause was intended to prevent - What would happen?

This is always the criticism against trying to have a start-up industry.  But there is a massive difference between trying to promote ridiculous or over-ambitious projects (perhaps like John Quincy Adams' most (arguably) over-ambitious projects) in such a fashion compared to what someone who is scientifically minded tries to promote (Henry Clay) - this very aspect is what defines a good statesmen; it isn't a matter of 'sitting on one's hands' like Friedrich List says.  The critics of this policy, generally: the rich, the oligarchy, the reactionary contingent of the population; are always against it, regardless of what is being proposed, so they have to frame and pigeonhole all projects of this nature into this 'ridiculous' category.  However, if South Korea or Japan or any of the other countries I cited (which also included the USA throughout most of its history) HADN'T pursued cutting-age technological advancements through the state-directed corporations at the time, and/or other policies harmonious with the American System, then we wouldn't have all the myriad of companies like Samsung, Toshiba, LG, etc. that create hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new value.  But for anything to be 'reaped' in this manner, you must first 'sow' the seeds, which is impossible under the Imperial (Free Market / Free Trade) system in which all the major corporations and oligarchical interests simply crush everything opposed to them until the entire system breaks down and collapses into a global depression and/or world war.

So, how ridiculous or misplaced would you have considered Samsung to be when it was first compelled, by government, to be converted from a textile manufacturing company to a high-technology company?  Here, South Korea had no experience, no expertise, not a single reason to believe that they could do it, not even the raw materials necessary, yet, here they are today with an annual revenue of 1/4 of a trillion dollars annually.

That said, of course, trying to produce something that is primarily based on climate is a completely different thing and trying to 'grow wine in Antarctica' or whatever the reactionary and overtly ridiculous example they are using to persuade people against the economic system to which we owe our entire modern existence, is silly to the point of not being worthy of discussion.

Do you see the potential in this scenario for the type of 'vigorous action' that Hamilton promoted?  Do you see the various layers of the government, some controlled by oligarchical factions and others not?  This is the reality that we're interfacing with, and every time one looks at "the government" as a monolithic entity you are blinding yourself to the actuality of what is in front of your face.

I don't view "the government" as a monolithic entity. I view it as a group of individuals, like any other corporation. The actions of that corporation, however, can be viewed in aggregate. And the actions of that corporation universally distort the market.

Protectionism and mercantilism (which is what you are proposing) are out-dated economic policies. You're still thinking in nation-state terms. That's not how the world works anymore.

Well, when one thinks that these methods are hopeless or pointless because you see the dominate form in the government and 'write the rest off' because you deem it unable to perform what is necessary, then that betrays a certain lack of political understanding and a certain level of unreasoning hopelessness.  Go read about the New Deal.  How the reactionary-feudal Republicans were, after it was clear FDR was the anti-Hilter, the anti-Mussolini, were hopping-mad and raving and frothing against him.  Understanding where the 'weak spots' are in this system and striking them will create such a backlash amongst the oligarchical factions that their presence will become more and more known, which in turn will weaken their power.  In addition, we can do much to turn elements of the oligarchy against other elements of it.  The situation we face is far from hopeless or lost, but we must break from the prison in thinking it as such.


Regarding HOW "protectionism" is 'out-dated' is clear, yet wholly and entirely irrelevant.  This is like someone telling Sparticus or Toussaint L'ouverture that freedom is out of style because slavery and oppression are ubiquitous.  It is clear that Imperialism is alive, and that it is dominating the planet at present, even as it is collapsing and buckling under the rate of its own exploitation.  But as I describe above, and as I have elsewhere, and as will become more clear as you read "Oligarchy" by Jeffrey A. Winters, you'll see that what I'm proposing is not some alternative fad or trend to be taken up or denied, it is not my opinion that this is what needs to be done, it is a survival strategy, as it is REQUIRED behavior if you think you're going to have any sort of freedom or liberty or standard of living for your and your children.  We are in a collapsing, death-spiral paradigm, and you claim that 'this is the new normal'.  Well that might be, but it doesn't mean that people such as myself can't see the 'Bridge Out' sign up ahead and the cavernous pit up ahead that we are speeding toward.  You basically state: 'that may be the way in which to return to autonomy and self-determination and sovereignty, but hey, we've lost, it is hopeless, the world doesn't work that way anymore'.  It doesn't have to, the future has yet to be determined.  I'm offering survival, progress, advancement, happiness, wealth, technological development, peace and sanity - all of which are the antithesis of our present system.


Take LFTR, here is a perfect example, yet again.  This is a photon-torpedo that could be shoved down the throat of the war-mongering, murderous, imperial, gangsterism of the Oil Cartel and the Energy Industry as a whole.  They are collectively willfully holding back the tide of human progress and while anyone, looking at this scenario over a large scale time-frame would be correct (in my estimation) in saying that these people are traitors to the human race and should be treated as such, all I'm promoting is to allow humanity to move forward, which will, naturally result in a diminution of power and authority of these people who've done little or nothing worthwhile to deserve it.

This really gets at the flaccid, supine and groveling nature of the Traditional Left, which think that the solutions to this problem reside in the existing paradigm of existing production and technology.  They want to chase these people around with red-tape and taxes and expose's and documentaries.  They think that restricting production (what cartels and monopolies always do anyway to raise prices) as 'conservationism' is somehow a solution to the problem of our existing energy problems.  These tactics, and the people largely promoting them, are wholly inept and worthless.  I say: "Make their industries irrelevant!"  Break their power by moving humanity forward, past where their power is worth anything anymore.


For if I'm some 'out of date' or 'out of touch' crank, simply because I found the gravity by which world-affairs orbit, and the secret economic history of our country and how we created wealth and national power and technology in the face of the most Imperial and warmongering force that then existed, then what is the alternative?  Utopian solutions promoted by foreign demagogues who were financed and promoted by finance oligarchs?  Using the above example, how do you think any force, that is outside governmental will ever create something on the scale and capital-intensity that LFTR requires?

[myrkul]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but this seems to be the central thrust of your argument: That only government can create, through mercantilism, great strides in technology that the free market cannot, because it is not willing to fund them.

how do you think any force, that is outside governmental will ever create something on the scale and capital-intensity that LFTR requires?

First, I would like to point out that you seem to have the same flawed view of the "market" as you accuse me of having of the "government." The market is a collection of individuals, each pursuing their own goals. Some of those goals coincide with the progress of Thorium technology, some do not.

Second, I would ask, "What is preventing Sorenson from building a LFTR reactor right now?"

Third, building a LFTR reactor is considerably less capital intense than building a "conventional" nuke plant. Those do continue to get built, privately. In a free market, Sorenson could use his considerable speaking skills to get investors handily. I want to invest in his reactor, simply having watched one of his videos. Get some hospitals interested in the benefits of those medical isotopes, and I'd wager he'd have his capital.

[niemivh]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but this seems to be the central thrust of your argument: That only government can create, through mercantilism, great strides in technology that the free market cannot, because it is not willing to fund them.

I'd say this is generally true in most cases, yes.  Look at all the research that is going on today in cutting-edge technological fields.  It is either governmental or quasi-governmental.  Where is the this great well-spring of free-market research in cutting-edge technological fields?  It simply doesn't exist, and where it is lacking, the governments of the world can and should step in to a degree that can be deemed reasonable to a scientific analysis of what is possible.

how do you think any force, that is outside governmental will ever create something on the scale and capital-intensity that LFTR requires?

First, I would like to point out that you seem to have the same flawed view of the "market" as you accuse me of having of the "government." The market is a collection of individuals, each pursuing their own goals. Some of those goals coincide with the progress of Thorium technology, some do not.

I do not have the same flawed outlook that you do.  Like I've said repeatedly, where The Market is providing actually progress and not colluding to heavily suppress production for heavily increased profits then leave-it-be.  For example, the current blood-bath in the Smartphone market, there are going to be a large amount of losers, which at present look like: Blackberry, Nokia, HTC and others, but strides in technology are happening and the sector is developing rapidly.  This is what market competition excels at doing and something that the government should never be involved directly, as 'the government', in doing.  Also, due to market compression and competition this would be one of the stupidest things for us to state: "Let's start a government chartered corporation to make Smartphones!"  Any statesmen proclaiming something that stupid should be thrown out of office.  The government should charter corporation in such a previously illustrated manner where: 1)  There is a social imperative or need.  2)  That need isn't presently being fulfilled by existing 'market' forces.

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

Second, I would ask, "What is preventing Sorenson from building a LFTR reactor right now?"

Large amounts of capital.   That isn't forthcoming because private equity they won't take the risk.  Unless Howard Hughes or Steve Jobs rise from the dead, you know, classical capitalists that TOOK RISKS, to finance this projects, then it won't happen.  As it hasn't, it likely won't, so we should do it through our sovereign government.  If the private sector snoozes on something of this magnitude too long, then sorry, the public gets the patents, the production and the revenue from building it.  At least it would, if I had some power to do good, or if my sentiments were widespread.

Third, building a LFTR reactor is considerably less capital intense than building a "conventional" nuke plant. Those do continue to get built, privately. In a free market, Sorenson could use his considerable speaking skills to get investors handily. I want to invest in his reactor, simply having watched one of his videos. Get some hospitals interested in the benefits of those medical isotopes, and I'd wager he'd have his capital.

We can only hope, but I'd rather politically agitate for it rather than hope.  Spread the word.

[myrkul]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

[niemivh]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.


Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.


This also touches on the nature of taxation, partially addressing that question you posed in the other thread.  Since technology is not a Zero Sum Game and the creation of LFTR as a viable alternative and revolution in the energy production and mankind's overall power and mastery over nature anything invested into LFTR will yield massive, unfathomable returns.  And if, let's say, that the return of LFTR is (as the professor who discovered Thorium's fission-ing capacity said: "a 50 Quadrillion dollar discovery") even as low as $50 returned for each dollar invested we must ask: "are they the same dollars?"  The prior paradigm that existed for humankind had energy being able to be monopolized and none of it was efficient enough to viably desalinate sea-water.  With LFTR this looks to be possible, so it would be as revolutionary as the steam-engine.  There is so much Thorium that energy resource contention and the drivers for war that exist in that paradigm are greatly diminished if not completely dissolved.  What possible price can be put on that in "monetary terms"?


This gets at the nature of "non-monetary economics" to which I would like to write a book about.  In economics the fountain of wealth creation is not money, it is Production & Technology.  Money is simply a marker for this progress that is supposedly going on beneath it's veneer.  Looking at the world through the lens of monetarism is a toxic and anti-human doctrine because it alludes that Money should be the dominate system for conducting human affairs.  But when Money fully reigns supreme, as it is close to doing in our present condition, the entire society degrades rapidly into collapse because it is a genocidal and cannibalistic system.  Every person that works in finance says the same thing: that the economy is a zero sum game; which exposes and confirms the very nature of what I'm saying.

[myrkul]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.

No, I've known you were a Hamiltonian even last year. That you describe your philosophy as the anti-Keynes, however, does cast it in a fairly positive light.

Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.

What you neglect, though, is exactly what power and leverage would be flexed by the existing energy oligarchs. That power would be State power. It's far, far cheaper to buy off a congressman, than it is to convince thousands or millions of people that this technology is evil.

But ignoring that, Voluntary funding has huge benefits over taxation, simply because every funder will do so willingly. Nobody will fight you in the press for using "their" money for purposes they don't approve. And Yes, I don't care what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, taxation is theft. It is mugging. It is extortion. It is the extraction of money by violent means. There is no way to make that "OK".

[niemivh]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.

No, I've known you were a Hamiltonian even last year. That you describe your philosophy as the anti-Keynes, however, does cast it in a fairly positive light.

Well if you sufficiently knew the doctrines/books/ideologies of both, then you would know how opposed they are to each other.

Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.

What you neglect, though, is exactly what power and leverage would be flexed by the existing energy oligarchs. That power would be State power. It's far, far cheaper to buy off a congressman, than it is to convince thousands or millions of people that this technology is evil.

Such naivete.

But ignoring that, Voluntary funding has huge benefits over taxation, simply because every funder will do so willingly. Nobody will fight you in the press for using "their" money for purposes they don't approve. And Yes, I don't care what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, taxation is theft. It is mugging. It is extortion. It is the extraction of money by violent means. There is no way to make that "OK".

 

You finished reading that "Oligarchy" book yet?  Let me know when you are done, this and the other thread's conversations are on hold from my end until you finish reading that book.

[myrkul]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.

No, I've known you were a Hamiltonian even last year. That you describe your philosophy as the anti-Keynes, however, does cast it in a fairly positive light.

Well if you sufficiently knew the doctrines/books/ideologies of both, then you would know how opposed they are to each other.

Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.

What you neglect, though, is exactly what power and leverage would be flexed by the existing energy oligarchs. That power would be State power. It's far, far cheaper to buy off a congressman, than it is to convince thousands or millions of people that this technology is evil.

Such naivete.

But ignoring that, Voluntary funding has huge benefits over taxation, simply because every funder will do so willingly. Nobody will fight you in the press for using "their" money for purposes they don't approve. And Yes, I don't care what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, taxation is theft. It is mugging. It is extortion. It is the extraction of money by violent means. There is no way to make that "OK".

 

You finished reading that "Oligarchy" book yet?  Let me know when you are done, this and the other thread's conversations are on hold from my end until you finish reading that book.

So, if I never read it, you'll shut the fuck up?

You got yourself a deal.

[niemivh]

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.

No, I've known you were a Hamiltonian even last year. That you describe your philosophy as the anti-Keynes, however, does cast it in a fairly positive light.

Well if you sufficiently knew the doctrines/books/ideologies of both, then you would know how opposed they are to each other.

Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.

What you neglect, though, is exactly what power and leverage would be flexed by the existing energy oligarchs. That power would be State power. It's far, far cheaper to buy off a congressman, than it is to convince thousands or millions of people that this technology is evil.

Such naivete.

But ignoring that, Voluntary funding has huge benefits over taxation, simply because every funder will do so willingly. Nobody will fight you in the press for using "their" money for purposes they don't approve. And Yes, I don't care what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, taxation is theft. It is mugging. It is extortion. It is the extraction of money by violent means. There is no way to make that "OK".

 

You finished reading that "Oligarchy" book yet?  Let me know when you are done, this and the other thread's conversations are on hold from my end until you finish reading that book.

So, if I never read it, you'll shut the fuck up?

You got yourself a deal.

Alright, you're on Ignore now.  I'm sorry you're so constipated today.

PM me if you ever get off your plump laurels to read anything outside your FisherPrice(tm) world view of yours.