Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I take it then you wouldn't mind if the government increased taxes because it's their money, and they are so generous as to let you have it.

Talk about a non sequitur.

What if everyone driving a porsche were exempt from the metered rate, but the metered rate remained the same for everyone else? Would they be subsidising Porsches?

Why would they be subsidising Porsches? They would be subsidising the drivers of Porsches who happen to park at that particular meter.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does that make my tax refund into free money?

Did you get a tax refund because the government decided that you were special enough to qualify for a different tax rate than everyone else?

[Kuciwalker]

Of course tax cuts are subsidies. Why are we arguing this again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cause Ben said it wasn't... oh wait... why are we arguing this again?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We have greatly decreased our use of it though.

JM

I would have to see those figures.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nuclear's externality is the risk of a catastrophic meltdown. Nuclear plants don't have to get insurance - at least not private insurance - so basically the federal government is subsidizing each plant by as much as the insurance would cost.

It seems to me that insurance for a nuclear power plant is the ultimate case of moral hazard.

The safeguards should be sufficient that there is no chance of nuclear melt down.

If the insurance companies do not calculate a 0% chance of nuclear meltdown, then the nuclear plant safety is unacceptable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Did you get a tax refund because the government decided that you were special enough to qualify for a different tax rate than everyone else?

Isn't that typically how they are handed out?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Blake
The safeguards should be sufficient that there is no chance of nuclear melt down.

If the insurance companies do not calculate a 0% chance of nuclear meltdown, then the nuclear plant safety is unacceptable.

There is no such thing.

[Ramo]

O' this world is a at a tremble
With its strength and mighty power
They're sending up to heaven
To get the brimstone fire
Take warning my dear brother
Be careful how you plan
You're working with the power
Of God's own holy hand

CHORUS
Atomic power
Atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power
Atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God

You remember two great cities
In a distant foreign land
When scorched from the face of earth
The power of Japan
Be careful my dear brother
Don't take away the joy
But use it for the good of man
And never to destroy

CHORUS

Hiroshima, Nagasaki
Paid a big price for their sins
When scorched froom the face of earth
Their battle could not win
But on that day of judgment
When comes a greater power
We will not know the minute
And we will not know the hour

CHORUS

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Blake
The safeguards should be sufficient that there is no chance of nuclear melt down.

If the insurance companies do not calculate a 0% chance of nuclear meltdown, then the nuclear plant safety is unacceptable.

There is no such thing.

I disagree.

The kind of event required to make a nuclear plant meltdown should be outside the scope of insurance companies.

For example: Meteor or missile strike.

[Kuciwalker]

I disagree.

That's okay, you're allowed to be wrong

The kind of event required to make a nuclear plant meltdown should be outside the scope of insurance companies.

For example: Meteor or missile strike.

Try extraordinary human error.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would they be subsidising Porsches? They would be subsidising the drivers of Porsches who happen to park at that particular meter.

Ok, now what if they gave all the porsche drivers 50 dollars every time they parked, from the money they raised from everyone else. Isn't that different?

Wouldn't that be a bit different?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's not the existance of the subsidy that's the problem; it's the hidden, unquantified nature that makes it bad.

Oooh, the government will pick the cost of clean-up in a nuclear mess. SO WHAT?

If there is a nuclear accident of great magnitude, well, only the government would really have the resources to clean it up and compensate those negatively affected. That is a risk of nuclear power. So what? Nothing is risk free.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ok, now what if they gave all the porsche drivers 50 dollars every time they parked, from the money they raised from everyone else. Isn't that different?

Wouldn't that be a bit different?

What does that have to do with the fact that they are both subsidies?

In both cases the porsche driver who parks gains $50 over the non-porsche driver who parks (regardless of whether porsche driver gets +50 while non-porsche driver gets 0 or porsche driver gets 0 while non-porsche driver gets -50, porsche driver is +50).

Though, as Kuci said "Why are we arguing this again"? Its accepted in economic discourse that a tax cut is a subsidy; perhaps the incentives are a bit different than a direct transfer, but still the same thing. What do you think people mean when they talk about "corporate welfare"?

[GePap]

And as for your dumb fallacy argument:

I said I prefer my money going to nukes over ethanol. I did not say that I though that was an either-or proposition. My money goes both places, and will continue to do so. I am happy about the nuke money, not about the ethanol money. If I could get the government to spend all the money it spends on ethanol on nukes instead, great. If the government would end subsidies on corn ethanol, fine by me too.

But I know that simple statements like that are hard for you to decifer.