Reply #36: Until proven, no I do not agree. [View All]

[kristopher]

Smears are not proof and your ability to "determine" whether any "analysis is correct" has been demonstrated repreatedly to be nonexistent.

Post 151 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217508


Since you have no idea of what "markets" mean

The idea that you are qualified to opine on how to and whether it is desirable to "subvert" them is laughable.

Lets take yet ONE MORE example to demonstrate how gross and fundamental is your lack of understanding and your willingness to play as a POSER.

Very specific: "Now, if we subvert the market, if we say "well, the subjective theory of value is bullshit" and we come up with technologies to do our manufacturing outside of the dominant mindset, then we will have achieved something the markets are incapable of: application of positive technology with zero marginal cost. So in the end your manufacturing costs are in time, energy, and materials, the former two of which are essentially free."

If you achieve manufacturing something *at* zero marginal cost then you are doing the impossible. Not just something politically different, something that actually violates the very concept of marginal cost so much as to show us without any room for doubt that you have no idea what marginal cost means.

Marginal cost is the cost of producing the next unit of something. Energy isn't free. Time isn't free. Materials aren't free.

You are TRYING to say that we can avoid capital costs; in other words the costs of building whatever facility it is you have in mind.

Since you don't understand what marginal cost is and you use it to refer to capital cost, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't be able to understand the mistake that underpins your belief that having the government invest directly in these facilities is some magic way of avoiding these capital costs.

The government raises money by taxes. If it pays for a factory, that is capital investment and it is a part of the cost of production no less than if the money is supplied by private investors looking for profit.

What we can and ARE doing is to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure enjoys the same or even more favorable financing terms than fossil fuel facilities. For example if I want to build a wind farm it will probably cost 18% interest if I raise the money from venture capital sources. IF however, I have government or regulated utility guarantees for the loans as they do for coal plants then the money may only cost 4%. This is a huge advantage that the fossil fuel industry and nuclear have enjoyed which is now being corrected to favor renewables. This is part of the "rebuilding the machine" strategy that I was referring to.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

Josh replies

You need to catch up on technology and learn some basic physics.
Posted by joshcryer

Energy isn't free.

See my sigline. Life relies upon it and thermodynamics dictate it. Energy is most certainly free. It is constructed man-made restrictions that put a 'price' on energy. If I build a wind turbine in my back yard, I can get free energy for the rest of my life.

Time isn't free.

Oh? So it costs me for time to pass? Nope. Time passes whether I want it to or not.

Materials aren't free.

Materials are essentially free, a carbon based technology infrastructure gets the materials from freaking air. I can build that wind turbine from the aluminum in the soil in my backyard, the carbon from the air that is in the atmosphere in my backyard, and so on.


I push a button. Out pops a wind turbine. A magical wind turbine with zero marginal cost, because all of the costs are bound up in the design and manufacture and perfection of the very first design. The rest are, yes, indeed, free. It comes from the environment, just like a seed dropping from a tree can grow to become another plant. It doesn't rely on some constructed system to do it, it just does.

Of course, this line of thinking is far beyond you, but it's clear you didn't read shit about free hardware when I mentioned it, because at least you might have showed some bit of understanding where I am coming from rather than being dismissive and ignorant.

Yes, I used "marginal cost" appropriately here.:

And more from Josh

I suspect you'll read up next time.
Posted by joshcryer


Google "RepRap" "Eben Moglen" "Open Source Hardware" "Free Software"