Slashdot Mirror

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...

Princeton study

https://scholar.princeton.edu/...

Here are billions of dollars in energy subsidies, aka when politicians are saying social services need to be cut, they are speaking out both sides of their mouths because they know most people don't look at what companies are getting free handouts from subsidies.

https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

Manufacturing consent:

Re:Consolidation of the Production of Value by blahplusplus · 2018-10-14 11:09 · Score: 1 · on Are Universal Basic Incomes 'A Tool For Our Further Enslavement'? (medium.com)

Other than envy, why should you care that someone is making more, a lot more, than you? If you are doing better than before, for the same effort, that's awesome! Absolute poverty is dropping like a stone, even without government help, because by specialization and trade, we're all incentivized to do what works best in our own individual circumstances. Relative poverty, which is what you're railing on about, will only seem to go away in communism, which of course it won't because everyone except the leaders will be poor (think USSR, GDR, Cuba, North Korea): putting in the effort to become much more productive than others without reward gets old fast.

Your whole post reads like an uneducated screed.... perhaps you should actually know how the world works before you open your mouth. The world you talk about has never existed. AKA the rich do not simply get rich by productivity, they buy politicians and get policies to favor themselves. They have power to reshape the political and economic environment in which everyone exists. I've watched for the last 20 years as big mega corporations (aka the rich) have stolen PC games out from under us because the internet undermines the publics ability to hold companies accountable. You're not going to hold a company accountable when they are 100 miles away from you.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/...

Testing theories of representative government

Billions in energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Manufacturing consent:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Re: Could have been structured differently... by mspohr · 2018-07-15 08:50 · Score: 1 · on Tesla Will Be First Automaker To Lose the Federal Tax Credit For Electric Cars (theverge.com)

For those whose Google skills are limited. This is from an IMF study in 2015... probably more now.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...

Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.
Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil-fuel emissions by over 50 percent and fossil-fuel related carbon emissions by over 20 percent. The revenue gain from eliminating energy subsidies is projected to be US$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP) in 2015. This offers huge potential for reducing other taxes or strengthening revenue bases in countries where large informal sector constrains broader fiscal instruments.

Advanced economies would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending (Chart 2). In emerging economies, the revenue is worth double their corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. In low-income countries, it is about one and half times corporate income tax revenues or public health spending.

The net gain from reform, after subtracting the cost of higher energy prices to consumers from the fiscal and environmental gains, is projected at US$1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP) and could be much larger if the fiscal gain is used for growth-enhancing tax cuts on labor and capital or badly needed investments in education, health, and infrastructure.

Re:Hahahahahaha why? by sit1963nz · 2018-04-12 14:06 · Score: 2 · on Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership (nytimes.com)

http://statisticstimes.com/eco...

https://www.focus-economics.co...

http://www.imf.org/external/da...

China growth 6.5% US growth 2.3%

http://fortune.com/2018/02/23/...
President Trump didn’t quite get the 3% GDP boost he was hoping for in 2017, but at 2.3%, the U.S. economy is chugging along. Meanwhile, India and China soared more than 6%, and overall global growth saw a 2.9% increase.

Re:Corporate lobby group by blahplusplus · 2017-12-21 23:22 · Score: 1 · on Apple's iPhone Throttling Will Reinvigorate the Push for Right To Repair Laws (vice.com)

he right to purchase a good, and thereby own it, is a fundamental aspect of a fair, open and free market.

It's too bad most right wingers are ignorant that the free market doesn't exist and is a myth preached to the stupid masses. The rich have never subscribed to the ideology they preach, your society has never worked how you believe it does.

Testing theories of representative government - shows the rich get whatever policies they want, the rest have no impact. AKA no rule of law for the average person.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

Science on reasoning:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Energy subsidies

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

US distribution of wealth

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Re:Socialism is an easy fix for cases like this. by blahplusplus · 2017-12-21 19:31 · Score: 1 · on US Drugmaker Raises Price of Vitamins By More Than 800% (ft.com)

Socialism is an easy fix for cases like this. In a socialist system this vitamin wouldn't even be available because it never would have been developed in the first place.

Because we all know companies would never take billions in state subsidies while morons like you fuck yourselves by believing that free market bullshit. Socialism for the rich, harsh reality for the free market fundies amongst the public.

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.

Science on reasoning:

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be

Wikileaks

Manufacturing consent:

US distribution of wealth

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Re:Tell him it's bunk believed by people with powe by blahplusplus · 2017-12-07 09:05 · Score: 1 · on Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain Copyright To My Kids?

Copyright is an artificial monopoly enforced by the State. Nothing at all to do with capitalism

Capitalists have always needed a state and have always taken state subsidies and used the state to create monopolies, the jokes on you. Your thoughts on these matters are not even wrong.

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

Re:What about the $4.7B in fossil fuel subsidies? by mspohr · 2017-11-03 10:11 · Score: 1 · on Republican Tax Plan Kills Electric Vehicle Credit (arstechnica.com)

Just wrong.
Perhaps you read it wrong. Oil benefits from numerous tax subsidies.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...

Re:Amen ! by mspohr · 2017-11-03 10:08 · Score: 2 · on Republican Tax Plan Kills Electric Vehicle Credit (arstechnica.com)

Then we should also stop subsidies of fossil fuels ($5.3 trillion a year according to IMF).
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...
It's about time they competed on a level playing field.
Solar and wind (without subsidies) are cheaper than coal and natural gas.

Re:Because fuck you, that's why. by blahplusplus · 2017-10-29 11:20 · Score: 2 · on While Equifax Victims Sue, Congress Limits Financial Class Actions (marketwatch.com)

Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?

Because that's the way the elites have set it up, education is ignorance and science on human reasoning shows human reasoning is much poorer than thought. These links will take a while to digest.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

Education as ignorance

Manufacturing consent:

Crisis of democracy - PDF

Rd wolf on economics

http://www.rdwolff.com/

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK

Education as ignorance

Overthrowing other peoples governments

Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list

Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC

Wikileaks

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Education as ignorance

Manufacturing consent (book)

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Democracy Inc

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is

Re:No surprises by blahplusplus · 2017-09-14 06:28 · Score: 2 · on Union Power Is Putting Pressure on Silicon Valley's Tech Giants (bloomberg.com)

"This comes across as preemptively shouting down dissent, rather than engaging"

There's not much to engage, the business class preaches free market for the masses but secretly loves state subsidy.

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Science on reasoning, your brain does not see the world as it is, see the science:

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

Testing theories of representative government

US distribution of wealth

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Re:Fantastic! by mspohr · 2017-07-17 09:51 · Score: 1 · on Here's Elon Musk's Plan To Power the US on Solar Energy (inverse.com)

The IMF has a study showing that fossil fuels receive $5.3 trillion a year in subsidies.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...

Re:Alliance blah,blah,blah by blahplusplus · 2017-06-13 23:29 · Score: 1 · on HBO, Netflix, Other Hollywood Companies Join Forces To Fight Piracy (theverge.com)

" back before crony-capitalism passed the tipping-point and jumped the shark"

Ahh yes "That's not really real free market capitalism" argument. Sorry to tell you there crony capitalism doesn't exist because that's the way capitalism has always worked, the historical evidence is overwhelming. That rule of law can not exist within capitalism. Everytime copyright came up for review to protect the publics right it was expanded over 200 years long before you were even born.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.

Science on reasoning:

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Testing theories of representative government

Education as ignorance

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Re: No way! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-29 11:28 · Score: 0 · on Italian Police Say Amazon Has Evaded $142 Million of Taxes (reuters.com)

You read the chart the wrong way, and you don't even know when the EU was actually born. Firstly, the red lines mean that Italy is a net contributor, not taker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

According to your (unkonwn) source you need to go back to 1984 to see something different, except that the "European Union" didn't even exist, it was a simple trade deal called "European Economic Community", with a minuscule budget if compared to today. The EU was actually born in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty. So, yes: it is demonstrated that Italy has always been a net contributor to the EU (not that this is something to be proud of, it's actually silly).

Secondly, this is Germany in the '90s:
http://www.economist.com/node/...

And this is the german growth rate between 1995 and 1998, just before the eurozone was born. It's lower lower than Italy and France:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

And I'll tell you more, you didn't even make up for the private wealth gap: still today, the Italians, the French, and even the Spaniards have a higher median net worth per capita than the germans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Can you read those data? You're at the same level as the Greeks! Lol!

Basically your recent "growth" is based on 4 million, low-cost, 450-euro-per-month "minijobbers". You're basically the european version of China, what a fantastic place to live.

Re:Right, and then horse shit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-26 11:13 · Score: 0 · on The Cheap Energy Revolution Is Here, and Coal Won't Cut It (bloomberg.com)

Meanwhile, direct (pre-tax) subsidies to fossil fuels reach $492 billion globally per year - not counting any indirect (post-tax) subsidies from cleaning up pollution, public health costs, or climate damage. Just factoring in local pollution adds $2.73 trillion to the annual bill the public is paying on behalf of fossil fuel companies, which is estimated by the IMF to reach $5.3 trillion total, in 2015 alone.

So next time you complain about energy subsidies, maybe consider what you're really paying for.

Re:Enemy of the good by blahplusplus · 2017-03-25 11:44 · Score: 1, Interesting · on 'Why The US Senate's Vote To Throw Out ISP Privacy Laws Isn't All Bad' (technologyreview.com)

"So instead of repealing the law, how about extending to also apply to Google and Facebook?"

Not going to happen, I'll get to why in a moment... check out the links when you get the time. The brain doesn't see the world as it is, see the science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

This is former national security advisor of the united states Zbigniew Brezinski, worried about the political awakening of the masses, the rich and corporations fear the political awakening of the masses of the globe, so see what they really think behind closed doors here:

On social media -- social media are connected to intelligence agencies... if you think you are going to get privacy it's all bs and optics for the masses.

Reddit and intelligence agencies

Wikileaks -- Reddit and intelligence agencies

These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world.

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

Crisis of democracy - PDF

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK

Education as ignorance

Overthrowing other peoples governments

Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list

Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC

Wikileaks

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Manufacturing consent:

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Manufacturing consent (book)

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Democracy Inc

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil inter

Re:Interesting list by GPS+Pilot · 2017-03-11 18:11 · Score: 1 · on Norway Says Half of New Cars Now Electric Or Hybrid (phys.org)

That is interesting. It's because the source data also has only one Korea.

The source is the International Monetary Fund... a pretty weighty organization. I won't second-guess their list.

Re:India just tried to go almost completely cashle by jedZ · 2016-12-04 18:25 · Score: 2 · on South Korea To Kill the Coin in Path Towards 'Cashless Society' (cnbc.com)

Every assertion you have made is lacking the critical thinking 'Why?'

Why is a 97% cash based economy "just ridiculous?"

What is ridiculous and why is it bad?

It's bad because it facilitates corruption on multiple levels. Go to a store to buy something and inevitably the question pops up of whether you want a bill. The vendor offers you a discount if you pay cash and don't ask for a bill because that way he evades sales tax on that transaction. Most people would gladly pay cash and take the discount. With a card swipe the vendor has no choice but to account for the transaction and pay the tax on it. Multiply this across every store in the market, add gas stations, hospitals, basically anywhere money changes hands in cash and imagine the scale of tax evasion. Many people feel a sense of unfairness at the prospect of their income tax being deducted at source (@marginal 30%) when traders and business owners are getting by paying only a fraction of what they're supposed to.

Why should people not be allowed to purchase specific items with cash? Who decides that and why?

The majority of those paying cash aren't doing so just for the pleasure of it. They're doing it for a very specific purpose - to evade taxes. If the indirect tax net is broadened by discouraging these "off the books" transactions the government would be able (in theory at least) to rationalise direct taxes for the middle class who currently bear a good share of the income tax burden. Consider that over 50% of total tax revenues come from direct taxes (i.e. income tax) which are paid by less than 5% of the population. Note: this isn't the top 5% either.

Why is India an "annoying neighbor?" Why does that matter? Why is that relevant to what they do within their borders with their own currency system?

Okay, I'll count this one as a reading comprehension fail. My point was that India has an annoying neighbour that actively counterfeits Indian currency.

Why does it matter if people "can't be bothered to use the banking system?"

It matters because the promotion of a shadow economy has several drawbacks including rising tax rates, constraints on public sector spending and making econometric figures unreliable

Why is the banking system better? What does it provide that cash does not to the people that prefer cash?

How about security from theft and opportunities to earn interest?

Why do you believe interests rates dropping would be a good thing for people that can't take advantage of it?

It doesnt matter what I believe. The fact is lower interest rates are a significant factor in promoting and sustaining overall economic growth and economic growth leads to reduction in poverty levels

Why do you think that interest rates dropping would naturally lead to better infrastructure?

Not interest rates but increased tax revenues means more public funds available for infrastructure projects.

Why should someone that has cash let other people make money off of their work?

Oh I don't know - maybe because they benefit from public services like roads, sanitation and public healthcare?

Your post is

Re: he bet on the winner by khallow · 2016-11-18 03:02 · Score: 1 · on Peter Thiel Is Joining Donald Trump's Transition Team (theverge.com)

Every war ever fought in the middle east.

Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper. For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.

And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies? They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.

7 million deaths each and every year for free, pretty much a WW2 every decade.

Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.

Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.

You see this repeatedly in play. For example, the IMF estimated $5.3 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2015. They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess (air pollution and "other vehicle externalities"). Further, despite generating more CO2 than the US from energy production and vehicle use, the Chinese contribution to global warming is somehow an order of magnitude lower. And of course, positive externality of cheap energy is nowhere to be seen in their charts.

There's two paybacks from investing, dividends and capital gain. Apple shares, like the new energy industry has experienced massive capital gain.

Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?

Re:Check out the eGolf. Then consider. by mspohr · 2016-06-16 10:45 · Score: 3, Informative · on Volkswagen Bets Big On Electric Cars, Plans 30 Models By 2025 (usatoday.com)

The IMF is a reputable organization.
http://www.imf.org/external/pu...
You, on the other hand, are just some random person on the internet.

Re:And Brexit passes by a mile by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-09 22:50 · Score: 0 · on EU Exploring Idea of Using Government ID Cards As Mandatory Online Logins (softpedia.com)

Iceland also didn't "recover"

Hilarious crap. The comparison speaks for itself:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

And the size of the countries is meaningless, we're talking about GDP's percentage growth/decrease, not absolute numbers.

Your UK newspaper interpretation of an EU MORI poll is interesting - in that almost all the EU countries "would vote remain" if there was a referendum in their countries (2nd graph). Gosh, they must hate it.

Wait for a referendum campaign to happen, and you'll see whether a two-point gap isn't easily wiped out in Italy or France. Just ten years ago, 80-90% of the population were in favour of the EU in those countries. And the Greeks themselves voted against the agreement with the eurozone last year, because they realized that a default and an exit from the eurozone would be better that continuing austerity under EU rules. However, their prime minister disregarded the result of the referendum (after getting some kickbacks from the creditors, I guess).

And the rest of the countries waiting to join have been there forever. Look on a map. West to East, the only things left to join are former Soviet states, Turkey (looking to join the EU too) and a couple of countries who've never had any interest in it (highly independent countries, by tradition anyway, neutral in wars, etc.).

Yeah, and that "couple" happen to be the two richest countries in the west: Norway and Switzerland, plus Iceland that was mentioned before. Basically the EU is only attracting the third world.

Picking the two countries most affected by the crash (and not even mentioning, say, Italy)

... which in fact suddenly turned out to be the most Eurosceptic country in the EU, according to the IPSOS-MORI poll. And it didn't even need any "help" from the Troika, contrary to Greece (the word "help" is obviously ironic).

Brexit would probably be quite stupid.

Sure, especially if one got the UK citizenship after his/her parents migrated to the UK from the third world, hence he/she is in favour of mass immigration, maybe needs foreign relatives to have easy visas, and doesn't really feel bound to any national identity. Right...?

Re:It's a private business. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-02 22:13 · Score: 0 · on Twitter Ignites Censorship Debate After Removal Of Parody Putin Account (thenextweb.com)

"On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East. You think that helps?"

Sure it does, but not that much. The energy sector's contribution to Norway's GDP is 20%. What about the remaining 80%? Do they regularly win lotteries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

he Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state and social democracy country featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors

"Capitalist welfare state and social demoracy country". Very original expression, never heard before. If you call "capitalist" a system where the government controls the 5 largest companies, manages 50% of the GDP in public expenditure, and puts heavy tariffs on agricultural imports (free market?!), then I'm very capitalist too! I posted hard statistics to prove my point, not adjectives.

But for every Norway there are countless failing socialist states

Like, for example: Finland (government expenditure: 58% of the GDP), Denmark (53%), France (57%) and Sweden (49%)? Sure, they must be so poor and sorry not to have tea party drunkards in power.
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Re:What about by Lucas123 · 2016-05-06 08:41 · Score: 1 · on Elon Musk: 'We Need a Revolt Against the Fossil Fuel Industry' (theguardian.com)

The problem with your suggestion is that we if allow a nascent and developing renewable energy industry to compete against an entrenched multi-billion fossil fuel industry that has been receiving trillions of dollars in subsidies worldwide for decades, it is not a fair fight. Just last year, the fossil fuel industry received $5.3 trillion in subsidies, or 6.5% of global GDP, according to a study by the International Monetary Fund.

So the playing field is already uneven, and renewables have to date received a tiny fraction of what the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for decades. At its peak, in 2011, the renewable energy industry worldwide received $88 billion in subsidies.

As we know, or as is obvious, renewables offer the greatest promise for the future of energy. Taking subsidies from the fossil fuel industry and "wisely" investing it in renewables only makes sense.

Re:pretty poor science by ShooterNeo · 2016-05-05 07:18 · Score: 1 · on Global Catastrophe, Even Human Extinction, Isn't All That Unlikely (theatlantic.com)

I know the concept of depreciating capital assets. I know that isn't really a tax break - capital assets do lose actual real value the moment they are purchased and with every year of service. I know that even when the depreciation formula is too fast for the asset's real value decline, if the company ever sells the asset they pay the difference, so yeah basically asset depreciation is cost of doing business and not evading taxes.

I'm not going to pretend to know where the trillions come from, except that I've heard it from numerous credible sources...including the IMF. http://www.imf.org/external/pu...

Any source can be biased but unless you can produce someone with similar credentials...not just "I see some of their taxes, trust me there's no special treatment", no rational person would believe you.

Re:30 years eh? by PopeRatzo · 2016-04-24 14:49 · Score: 1 · on US Suicide Rate Surges To Highest Level In Almost Three Decades, Says Report (bbc.com)

Any scientific evidence to back this up, or you just making up stuff that fits your ideology?
Something in peer-reviewed journals, please.

Certainly, my anonymous and cowardly friend.

https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Re:Solar is not cheaper than coal by ooloorie · 2016-04-20 12:43 · Score: 1 · on Solar Is Now Cheaper Than Coal, Says India Energy Minister (climatechangenews.com)

Enough to make up for the global warming they cause? The other pollution?

Yes. If you go by climate activist arguments about externalities, fossil fuel taxes are at least comparable to the claimed externalities. There are some papers on that; you can track them down.

No. Just no. Study basic microeconomics, or....If the Koch brothers are selling coal at a certain price, they can sell a certain amount. Raise the price and they sell less, lower and they sell more.

True, but the demand for fossil fuel is quite inelastic, as past price fluctuations have shown. That is, a doubling of fossil fuel prices only produces a modest reduction in fossil fuel usage. If you want to reduce fossil fuel by a large amount, you have to raise prices to astronomical levels through taxes, far beyond anything you could possibly justify through "externalities".

Passing costs on to consumers is a myth.

That is completely unrelated to your elasticity of demand argument. In fact, price is roughly profit plus cost and taxes. Profit is largely determined by an annual return on investment and risk; if profits fall below that, investors will leave the market, if profits go above that, competition will drive them down. So, yes, any taxes or cost increases will be passed on to consumers, in the sense that taxes will just get added to prices.

...

What you have still failed to address is what motivation a couple of MIT-educated 70 something libertarian philanthropist billionaire engineers would possibly have to worry about profit margins ten years from now anyway, or why they would pick fights with politicians that can only hurt their businesses. If they wanted to lobby and corrupt the process, they'd simply shift their investment to "green energy" and then corrupt the political process like Tom Steyer and George Soros are doing. You may not like what the Koch brothers are saying and doing, but the idea that it is motivated by greed or self-interest is completely unreasonable and inconsistent with facts.

Again, no. If Joe and Bob sell solar panels, and there's an increase in demand, they make more money. Now, suppose Bob invests some money in more efficient panels, and then he can make panels of a given power for 10% less than Joe can. Bob can capture most of the market, and it's a bigger market now,

It doesn't matter whether Bob invests in more efficient panels or not; improvements in solar cell efficiency depend on many advances across broad industries and are unaffected by such investments. Your "kick the engineers in the nuts" theory of innovation just doesn't work. Bob knows this (it's obvious from the cost curve that I pointed you at), which is why he won't even bother. Bob isn't even going to ramp up solar cell production much in response to government policies because Bob isn't going to make large multiyear investments subject to the vagaries of political support for such subsidies, so the usual market mechanisms won't work either. Instead, Joe and Bob will enjoy the windfall from the scarcity of solar panels for as long as it lasts and donate heavily to the politicians who make it all happen.

If you subsidize solar cells directly or by taxing the alternatives, the price of solar cells will go up until you stop the subsidies. That's not theory, it's what actually happened if you look at the effects at past subsidies on solar cell cost curves.

Re: Very Simple Explanation by FlyHelicopters · 2016-04-16 09:55 · Score: 1 · on Fossil Fuels Could Be Phased Out Worldwide In a Decade, Says Study (phys.org)

I keep repeating it. It's very well documented in this 42 page paper:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Point me to the spot in the 42 page paper where direct payments are made from government to oil, gas, and coal companies to make their products cheaper.

Seriously, because I did skim it and I found a lot of words that said very little. But if it is in there, I'm all ears.

Tax breaks for writing off capital investments and direct operating expenses don't count, all industries get those.

---

The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

Yea, this is it right here. These "subsidies" are in fact not anything of the sort... They are made up numbers for a carbon tax that doesn't exist.

Re: Very Simple Explanation by mspohr · 2016-04-16 07:33 · Score: 1 · on Fossil Fuels Could Be Phased Out Worldwide In a Decade, Says Study (phys.org)

I keep repeating it. It's very well documented in this 42 page paper:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.

Re: Very Simple Explanation by mspohr · 2016-04-16 07:32 · Score: 1 · on Fossil Fuels Could Be Phased Out Worldwide In a Decade, Says Study (phys.org)

No, not tax credits. It would be good if you would read the paper first:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

News article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
"Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

Energy subsidies are sizable in nearly all countries, advanced and developing economies alike.
The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic energy prices below their supply cost.

Re:Iceland by Rei · 2016-04-04 05:01 · Score: 0 · on Panama Papers: Data Leak Exposes Massive Official Corruption (theguardian.com)

1) Iceland and Greece where basically on the same boat 6 years ago

There was essentially nothing in common between the economies of the two countries.

they were going bankrupt

Iceland was not going bankrupt 6 years ago.

The Icelandic banks were nationalized

The banks were not nationalized, any more than the US automakers were "nationalized". In fact, to make clear to the markets that they weren't nationalized the government sold off the stake they got at fire sale prices, losing us a ton of money.

hence markets considered their debt equivalent to government debt.

The markets have never considered the banks' debts to be government debts.

2) Iceland has stayed out of the EU

Iceland is in the EFTA and thus subject to most EU legislation either way.

and defaulted on its

The Icelandic government has NEVER DEFAULTED ON ANY DEBT. There is not a single court or ratings agency in the world who will tell you otherwise.

(state-owned banks')

They were not state-owned banks. They were private banks. With assets backed by a private fund. As fully confirmed by the EFTA court. You are asserting things that are in direct contradiction to the established legal facts of the situation.

you think you "bowed"?
Yes.

Iceland is doing great
We never had any fundamental economic or structural problems - just a cleptocratic government (reelected last term, hopefully about to get kicked out of office) and some massive private company failures. That said, the current government is doing their damndest to funnel as much of our economic output as they can into their and their friends' pockets. Trust me, almost nobody here thinks that things are "great". All of you foreigners who don't live here have no grounds to stand on when describing how "wonderful" the situation is here, with our crumbling healthcare system and cutbacks all across the welfare system to pay for policies to enrich the wealthy.

None of these facts depend on one's home address or country of residence
None of what you wrote is actually facts.
Get out of fantasyland and stop telling someone about what the facts arein a place where they live and you don't.

Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-03 22:07 · Score: 2, Informative · on Panama Papers: Data Leak Exposes Massive Official Corruption (theguardian.com)

Your rant doesn't change these three elementary facts, no matter whether one lives in Iceland or not:

1) Iceland and Greece where basically on the same boat 6 years ago: they were going bankrupt, although for different reasons. The Icelandic banks were nationalized, hence markets considered their debt equivalent to government debt. It doesn't matter that Greece's crisis depended on the general budget while yours on your banks, the macroeconomic result was the same (government bonds' yields skyrocketing and liquidity freeze)

2) Iceland has stayed out of the EU and defaulted on its (state-owned banks') foreign debts, while Greece did not default, remained in the EU and in the eurozone, and enforced the Troika-mandated reforms that Iceland Did_Not_Do (you think you "bowed"? Really? Then, by comparison, what did the Greeks do? They transformed themselves into human carpets?!)

3) These are the self-speaking macroeconomic results (y/y GDP growth) of the two different strategies:
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Iceland is doing great, at least for a country that 6 years ago was almost bankrupt, while Greece is now basically a second-world country. And I'm really sorry for its citizens, that I love (I'm Italian, I consider the Greeks my brothers).

None of these facts depend on one's home address or country of residence, no matter how many caps locks you use in your writing.

Re: Regardless of the reasons... by mspohr · 2016-03-29 15:43 · Score: 5, Informative · on The World's Largest Renewable Energy Developer Could Go Broke (huffingtonpost.com)

Fossil fuels receive $5.3 Trillion in subsidies annually.
Subsidies for fossil fuels amount to $1,000 a year for every citizen living in the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, despite the group’s pledge in 2009 to phase out support for coal, oil and gas.
https://www.imf.org/external/p...

Fossil fuel subsidies by sjbe · 2016-03-15 00:28 · Score: 1 · on US Projected To Lead the World In New Solar Installations This Year (computerworld.com)

So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.

To some degree you could say the same about fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are hugely subsidized by governments to the tune of something like $5 trillion worldwide. Solar is just a small percentage of that.

The only difference is that you don't notice the subsidies for oil and gas but there is no question that they are there and substantial.

So solar works, assuming you can count on the government money to keep flowing.

That's to be expected for an emerging technology. You subsidize a technology like this until it can scale up to the point where it can compete on its own merits. Solar is getting there but without some continued support the technology will not advance sufficiently rapidly. What doesn't make sense is subsidizing fossil fuels which are a mature technology and one we wish to deprecate the use of.

Re:And my monthy electric bill... by mspohr · 2016-03-09 08:56 · Score: 1 · on 2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)

The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n...
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."

Re:And my monthy electric bill... by mspohr · 2016-03-09 08:54 · Score: 1 · on 2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)

The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n...
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."

Re:And my monthy electric bill... by mspohr · 2016-03-09 08:53 · Score: 1 · on 2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)

The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n...
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."

Re:Less Obama by Guy+Harris · 2016-02-15 20:57 · Score: 0 · on Iranian App Helps Users Avoid Morality Police (reuters.com)

Well, 2% of nothing is still not much. I probably spent 2% of Greece's GDP on toast last year...

About 5.7 billion dollars buys a lot of toast.

Or did you mean "2% of Greece's per capita GDP"? That would be about USD 430 or so spent on toast.

Re:Do you own your property or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 03:46 · Score: 0 · on Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have To Fix Copyright Law (slate.com)

"So if these people are against personal ownership then they can't be capitalist."

You're historically illiterate if you believe this, capitalism has always not followed its own rules. The history of capitalism is confiscating the commons from the people. Copyright and IP law is just another form of enclosure that has been going on a long time historically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Energy subsidies

http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

Re:Free market, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-21 08:06 · Score: 0 · on Western Digital To Buy SanDisk (reuters.com)

"The idea behind free market has always been that whenever there is a buck to be made somebody will endeavor to make it"

The free market is a myth that never existed, people who believe it don't know any history at all behind war and empire.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Trillions in energy subsidies

Propaganda in democratic societies

Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 04:15 · Score: 0 · on British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

"That government spent $15 BILLIONS on a patient records system for the national health services before giving up.

A lot more then that.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Study on energy subsidies by the IMF

http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/

Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 04:15 · Score: 0 · on British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

"That government spent $15 BILLIONS on a patient records system for the national health services before giving up.

A lot more then that.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.