Losing respect for Rand Paul

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet another issue that people on the right and left both agree on, Thump..none of us are happy with bought politicians..but..hey, we all get to pound sand.  I'm not sure how we're "allowing" something we have absolutely no say in. The system is set up so that we're presented with a choice between bought politician a and bought politician b..meanwhile money buys across the aisles, they're not dummies, they win either way. One side screams "we are the 99%" and the other chants "drain the swamp"......neither gets so much as a crumb..not even from a "populist" candidate.

-and then, since it's at least appropriate for the thread..we have people tossing their votes to the ideology that states that giving money more direct access to power is the solution to the problem.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wasn't aware that anyone here was a member of congress.

Well it's a good thing I didn't say that!

 

There's no evacuated middle..that shits crowded as hell, that's where the dems live..and the middle keeps moving right trying to poach voters that will never vote for them.

The Leftist Kenyan Who Came to Destroy America with his soviet style communism was only barely left of center, and that..only in the peculiar beast of -american- politics..... and only when he wasn't busy being a full blown right wing nutjob in an attempt to "compromise".  The drone warlord and deporter in chief who massively extended the surveillance state while privatizing profits and socializing losses.  That's as left as we get it, here in the US of A....

If you're talking about politicians, perhaps.

I'm talking about real human beings. And it's a pretty deep divide.

At some point a person has to conceded that they cannot reason with the unreasonable, or compromise with people who are not interested in compromise.

Yeah, that sounds like a great way to run a railroad. A nation? Not so much. And when the vast polity is as uneducated as Americans seem to be (cf. so many Minimalist threads), expecting compromise seems like a long shot. After all, dumb horse-traders go broke.

 

We passed that point a long time ago, but people keep trying to convince themselves and others that we need to keep trying, and so we keep drifting, and the lunatic fringe is laughing all the way to the bank.

Dude, they own the bank already, you know that. They ain't laughing their way there -- they're having their minions lug the heavy suitcases to the vaults. They're actually on vacation, occasionally sending texts to the lobbyist who puts the screws on the politician.

---

Yet another issue that people on the right and left both agree on, Thump..none of us are happy with bought politicians..but..hey, we all get to pound sand.  I'm not sure how we're "allowing" something we have absolutely no say in.  The system is set up so that we're presented with a choice between bought politician a and bought politician b..meanwhile money buys across the aisles, they're not dummies, they win either way.  One side screams "we are the 99%" and the other chants "drain the swamp"......neither gets so much as a crumb..not even from a "populist" candidate.

-and then, since it's at least appropriate for the thread..we have people tossing their votes to the ideology that states that giving money more direct access to power is the solution to the problem.

You know I've got *zero* argument with you on this score.

My point is that within the polity, the intolerance of other views -- and the concomitant line-of-battle broadsides -- means that the moneyed and political classes get the free run of DC.

Sometimes I think DC stands for Divide/Conquer. <shrugs>

[The Grand Nudger]

I don;t see compromise for the sake of compromise as a virtue.  I'm not interested in being a part of the 3rd and a 1/2 Reich.

[shadow]

When the rest of the world lols at our "left" and reminds us that they're conservatives, or right leaning centrists -at best- ......everywhere else...something is awry.

---

Wrong and wrong. Usually it's a matter of improved technology.

If you say so, meanwhile, cheaper tech is winning over "better tech" in every category.

Not at all. In renewable energy, for example, it's a very new advancement, but wind and solar PV are handily winning free market bids on providing electricity in many places, like Mexico, countries in South America, and the middle east. Wind especially can get extremely cheap (we're talking 2-3 cents per kwh quite commonly). Such that they are the choice of a lot of developing nations building out power grids for the first time, because it would be more expensive to build a coal plant.

It's hard to generalize because the cost depends on an area's conditions and when the plant was built, but this in an example (a bit outdated because it's from 2016 so things are cheaper now, but it emphasizes the complete lack of subsidy necessary):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...d2ed5044a9

This, more recently, in South America, where you have wind bidding slightly below solar at about $18 per megawatt hour - aka 1.8 cents per kwh. How much do you pay for your electricity? Good luck generating coal for that price. Even with a fully amortized coal plant, like those we have in North America, you'd be hard pressed to create energy that cheap.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/...ind-mexico

Like I said, it's a new way of thinking about things.

Yeah..and are -you- planning on coming out of pocket, personally..to educate each and every one of them to think the new way?  Roll that into the cost of your product, and gl with that.  I have profound difficulty in educating my consumers so that they are willing to pay the --same- price for a better product.  I expect that it will be easier for you..when you get around to it...but I hope you at least realize how much money someone else spent to make that situation a reality...when the day comes. 

I mean, I'm planning to go into the energy industry where this isn't as much of a problem because you sell to a power utility. But sustainability marketing is something I'm really interested in as well, and it would be how you'd go about doing this. But I would argue educating the populous is even more of a challenge for people who think democracy will save them.

Largely I can shove solar or wind power down your throat whether you like it or not: if it's cheaper, you don't need to care about the environment to use it

[The Grand Nudger]

Not at all. In renewable energy, for example, it's a very new advancement, but wind and solar PV are handily winning free market bids on providing electricity in many places, like Mexico, countries in South America, and the middle east. Wind especially can get extremely cheap (we're talking 2-3 cents per kwh quite commonly). Such that they are the choice of a lot of developing nations building out power grids for the first time, because it would be more expensive to build a coal plant.

It's hard to generalize because the cost depends on an area's conditions and when the plant was built, but this in an example (a bit outdated because it's from 2016 so things are cheaper now, but it emphasizes the complete lack of subsidy necessary):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...d2ed5044a9

-and it's the cheaper, dirtier solar winning those bids. Exploitation is simply more cost effective -to the producer- in the absence of strong regulation. This gives those producers the ability to push out more environmentally sound competitors and rake a better profit on volume.

I mean, I'm planning to go into the energy industry where this isn't as much of a problem because you sell to a power utility. But sustainability marketing is something I'm really interested in as well, and it would be how you'd go about doing this. But I would argue educating the populous is even more of a challenge for people who think democracy will save them.

Educating the pop is best done by schools, not product advertisers..for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious. Funny how four out of five dentists choose every brand of toothpaste, amiright?

Largely I can shove solar or wind power down your throat whether you like it or not: if it's cheaper, you don't need to care about the environment to use it

-and you'll get crushed by anyone willing to cut environmental corners...we know this, because that's what already happened.

I get where you're coming from..but I don't think you're fully appreciating the reality of the market. I hope you find a way to turn the trend around..but you're not going to do so with a free market..or by competing on price. You;re going to require strong regulations and a well educated consumer base that demands quality...and has the money to pay the premium. You might be able to improve on the dirtiest sectors..but that's a damned low bar. More is required, and I doubt you want to get into sustainable energy to make the less sustainable versions of sustainable products, which includes energy. Being "better than coal" is a low bar..and doesn;t make something sustainable..some pv actually isn't...it;s not the pvs fault, ofc, it;s the producers fault, but those producers dominate the market.

[shadow]

Not at all. In renewable energy, for example, it's a very new advancement, but wind and solar PV are handily winning free market bids on providing electricity in many places, like Mexico, countries in South America, and the middle east. Wind especially can get extremely cheap (we're talking 2-3 cents per kwh quite commonly). Such that they are the choice of a lot of developing nations building out power grids for the first time, because it would be more expensive to build a coal plant.

It's hard to generalize because the cost depends on an area's conditions and when the plant was built, but this in an example (a bit outdated because it's from 2016 so things are cheaper now, but it emphasizes the complete lack of subsidy necessary):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...d2ed5044a9

-and it's the cheaper, dirtier solar winning those bids.  Exploitation is simply more cost effective -to the producer- in the absence of strong regulation.

I mean, I'm planning to go into the energy industry where this isn't as much of a problem because you sell to a power utility. But sustainability marketing is something I'm really interested in as well, and it would be how you'd go about doing this. But I would argue educating the populous is even more of a challenge for people who think democracy will save them.

Educating the populace is best done by schools, not product advertisers..for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious.  Funny how four out of five dentists choose every brand of toothpaste, amiright?  

Largely I can shove solar or wind power down your throat whether you like it or not: if it's cheaper, you don't need to care about the environment to use it

-and you'll get crushed by anyone willing to cut environmental corners...we know this, because that's what already happened.

I get where you're coming from..but I don't think you're fully appreciating the reality of the market.  I hope you find a way to turn the trend around..but you're not going to do so with a free market..or by competing on price.

I get what you're saying, but in this kind of field, I'll take 'cheap solar' over coal any day, and that can compete on price as is. I'd love more government regulation on environmental issues - nothing would make my job easier. But I'm not going to rely on it for the next few decades. Ideologically I agree with you about what's ideal, but in a practical sense, it's not actually impossible to apply our poorly regulated capitalism to some sustainable endeavors.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I get that you'll take solar over coal..and the -world- has chosen dirty solar over cleaner solar.  Now you've got a chub for more environmental regs?  Whatever happened to libertarianism? You're telling me it's not possible..but, ofc, with strong regs and an educated populace....it is. That's how you approach practical sustainability, by doing what would actually work instead of half assing the job and hoping that someday, somehow, better tech will eliminate bad actors. That will never happen, because bad actors will use better tech to be bad actors. Case in point..solar.

[shadow]

Yes, I get that you'll take solar over coal..and the -world- has chosen dirty solar over cleaner solar.  Now you've got a chub for more environmental regs?  Whatever happened to libertarianism? You're telling me it's not possible..but, ofc, with strong regs and an educated populace....it is. That's how you approach practical sustainability, by doing what would actually work instead of half assing the job and hoping that someday, somehow, better tech will eliminate bad actors. That will never happen, because bad actors will use better tech to be bad actors. Case in point..solar.

What is dirty solar? Is this a serious problem?

I think I've been pretty clear about my position on Libertarianism. Right now there are a huge amount of negative externalities that corporations aren't incorporating into their cost of business. That is a failure of the free market, and the government's role should be to force companies to  internalize those costs. In the case of North America, this absolutely means more environmental regulations.

You can't have a libertarian system that isn't screwing people unless you have this. Without regulations, you're harming other people with negative environmental externalities, so you're not bearing the cost of your own business. So I don't support that. If you internalize those costs, though, I'd rather have private actors seeking a profit within those bounds. It's not a matter of fighting about whether we should always have more or less regulation - I think there is the right about, that properly structures a market so it's fair. We're not there in some countries in some industries, so I'd support more regulation there. In other industries, I think there is too much government involvement, so I'd support less regulation or subsidy.

As for an educated populous... yes, of course I support that. Doesn't mean that that's the direction America is heading, unfortunately.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is dirty solar? Is this a serious problem?

Holy shit yes.  Dirty solar is solar made with innefficient coal power that dumps toxins into peoples drinking water and sources it's materials from hellish thrid world mines and forges...the end product being a panel that produces less and for less time..before becoming some of the most horrid environmental waste itself.  

That's the kind of solar that the current global leaders produce..and they're successful because doing the above makes their solar comparatively cheaper than cleaner solar....and they control the solar ranking system used to assess them....advertisers doing the educating.  The majority of the panels installed, worldwide...are of this variety.  In the worst cases..they're actually dirtier than the most efficient coal plants, even though they;re often cleaner than the coal plants in their countries of origin.

Fucked up, huh? I presume that this isn;t the kind of green energy you plan on getting into..but it will be the kind of energy that you'll compete with.

[shadow]

What is dirty solar? Is this a serious problem?

Holy shit yes.  Dirty solar is solar made with innefficient coal power that dumps toxins into peoples drinking water and sources it's materials from hellish thrid world mines and forges...the end product being a panel that produces less and for less time..before becoming some of the most horrid environmental waste itself.  

That's the kind of solar that the current global leaders produce..and they're successful because doing the above makes their solar comparatively cheaper than cleaner solar.  The majority of the panels installed, worldwide...are of this variety.  

But that goes for literally anything made in China... all the cheap clothes and consumer goods we buy. And coal more than anything, were we to continue to use that as a power source. Your issue is with cheap Chinese manufacturing, not the energy industry or any other.

And when you build a solar power plant, it produces electricity for decades. You dig coal out of the ground, you burn it, and then you need more coal. One has a fixed environmental cost, the other is constant. It's a massive difference.