The first half megawatt

[Tom P]

Are you arguing against my statemement that "for most people, the cost
of PV is far too expensive to justify."?

For most people, a BMW is far too expensive to justify.
In spite of that, BMW sells over a million cars every year.

 

[Peter Franks]

For most people, a BMW is far too expensive to justify.
In spite of that, BMW sells over a million cars every year.

Are you advocating stupidity and irresponsibility?

 

[Bob F]

sure - it really makes you wonder why big business donates so much
money to political parties, right?

That seems pretty obvious to me. Business wouldn't donate if they didn't think
it would influence legislation to their advantage. SOP.

 

[Bob F]

Are you saying that cars/computers were initially cheap?

The technology that makes computers cheap were initially developed to advance
the space program and military equipment - both government programs. Gevernment
often does things to advance things they think will improve the country in some
way or another. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just looking forward.

 

[Bob F]

No, but it is one of their biggest failures, to be sure.

And even more so one of their greatest victories.

 

[Bob F]

OK, but I meant to ask on what you base your opinion, not who agrees
with you. Here in the US, we base, or are supposed to base, our
government on the Declaration of Independence, to protect the "self
evident" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The
Constitution describes the mechanism by which that happens, through
the application of several enumerated powers. The power to
redistribute wealth, or subsidize, is not one of the enumerated
powers in our Constitution.

And yet it has been done to great positive effect throughout our history.
Protective tarriffs funded our federal government for most of our history. The
Federal Highway System advanced the economy, as did the railroads, both highly
subsidized. Farm subsidies protected our food production. Liability protections
allowed the developement of nuclear power. Governents subsidise police and fire
departments. Germany and China both are building their solar technologies by
subsidizing them. Maybe not every subsidy works as planned, but it is done ALL
THE TIME.

 

[Bob F]

(Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
from one group by force and giving to another.

There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
doesn't.

Nonsense. That is your opinion and nothing more. Subsidies happen all the time.
Admittedly, many huge multinational corporations get way more than their share.

 

[Peter Franks]

And even more so one of their greatest victories.

Yes, I keep forgetting that in this flourishing economy.

 

[Peter Franks]

And yet it has been done to great positive effect throughout our history.
Protective tarriffs funded our federal government for most of our history. The
Federal Highway System advanced the economy, as did the railroads, both highly
subsidized. Farm subsidies protected our food production. Liability protections
allowed the developement of nuclear power. Governents subsidise police and fire
departments. Germany and China both are building their solar technologies by
subsidizing them. Maybe not every subsidy works as planned, but it is done ALL
THE TIME.

Wonderful.

It still isn't an enumerated power. But if you disagree with that,
perhaps you can point out which clause grants authority to redistribute
wealth.

 

[Peter Franks]

Nonsense. That is your opinion and nothing more. Subsidies happen all the time.
Admittedly, many huge multinational corporations get way more than their share.

So, you are advocating a non-uniform taking of $ by force (aka stealing)
and arbitrarily giving to others?

 

[vaughn]

It still isn't an enumerated power. But if you disagree with that, perhaps
you can point out which clause grants authority to redistribute wealth.

You certainly won't find your answer at a teabagger convention. If you are
really interested, you could take a basic law course, or simply read a sampling
of the 200 years of USSC decisions that you folks love to ignore. Remember,
the Judicial branch was created by the US Constitution also. Its decisions
matter and become basis for settled law exactly the way the framers intended..

While you are at it, please find a more appropriate forum to discuss your narrow
fundamentalist political view of the world.

Back to the topic...

Vaughn

 

[Tom P]

Are you advocating stupidity and irresponsibility?

I don't think so. Everybody is free to decide as they please. Are you
saying that the freedom to decide to do as you please is stupid and
irresponsible? You're not one of those socialists who want to stop
everybody from having fun, are you?

 

[Bob F]

Yes, I keep forgetting that in this flourishing economy.

US business profits hit 60 year records last year. Even in this economy. How do
you suppose that happened?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

 

[Bob F]

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market is
all about?

That's the last thing the "market" is about. It is about profits. Sometimes a
society makes decisions that there are more important things than profits to
better the lives of its citizens.

 

[Bob F]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:15:47 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5%
is a reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question
is will it still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th
of the price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the
price and doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
electricity prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I
install them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market
is all about?

I would say the individual themselves must decide what they are to
do, for the general good or otherwise.

Exactly. So why take my money so someone else can buy something I
don't think improves the common good? If they want to advance their
idea of the common good, they can do it with their money. Then
they're entitled to feel superior, if that's what's driving them.

This has been decided through the democratic process. If you don't
agree with it fine but you may have to live with it.

He doesn't have to live with it. He can simply move to one of the paradises in
this world for his type, like Somalia. No government to make decisions he
objects to.

 

[Peter Franks]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:15:47 +0100, Giga2"<"Giga2 wrote:

On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of
the price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I
install them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market is
all about?

I would say the individual themselves must decide what they are to do,
for the general good or otherwise.

Exactly. So why take my money so someone else can buy something I don't
think improves the common good? If they want to advance their idea of
the common good, they can do it with their money. Then they're entitled
to feel superior, if that's what's driving them.

This has been decided through the democratic process. If you don't agree
with it fine but you may have to live with it.

We don't live in a democracy.

Duh.

You capture the sentiments of the English perfectly. Always deferring
to some higher mortal authority to tell them what to do. Nice, very nice.

 

[Peter Franks]

That's the last thing the "market" is about. It is about profits. Sometimes a
society makes decisions that there are more important things than profits to
better the lives of its citizens.

You mean the citizens can't decide for themselves? They need some group
to tell them? Sounds like stupid citizens to me...

 

[Peter Franks]

US business profits hit 60 year records last year. Even in this economy. How do
you suppose that happened?

Capitalism.

Not government.

 

[Peter Franks]

You certainly won't find your answer at a teabagger convention.
?!


If you are
really interested, you could take a basic law course, or simply read a sampling
of the 200 years of USSC decisions that you folks love to ignore. Remember,
the Judicial branch was created by the US Constitution also. Its decisions
matter and become basis for settled law exactly the way the framers intended..

Yes, I'm interested. And the delegated authorities come from the
Constitution, not precedent, nor the supreme Court.

It sounds to me like you can't find it in the Constitution, and
therefore resort to diversionary tactics. Didn't work.

The authority hasn't been delegated.

NOW we can get back to the subject at hand.

 

[Peter Franks]

I don't think so. Everybody is free to decide as they please. Are you
saying that the freedom to decide to do as you please is stupid and
irresponsible? You're not one of those socialists who want to stop
everybody from having fun, are you?

No, silly, I'm supporting my statement: "for most people, the cost of PV
is far too expensive to justify." Your response, ironically, supports
that very statement.

Decide whatever you want -- that's freedom, bro. Doesn't mean that it
is the smart thing to do.

Right now, PV is far too expensive to justify for the individual. If
they want to buy PV AND a BMW, so be it. Probably a poor decision on
both counts, but have at it.

In the meantime, I'll have neither. I'll buy PV WHEN it makes economic
sense, and not a second before. As for BMW, I've never liked them
regardless of their cost, but maybe I should buy one of those to impress
you and for the 'general good of the people'.

Hasta la vista, muchacho.

Pedro Franco