Economics makes assumptions about rational behavior, marginal value, scarcity, and other purely psychological characteristics.
It's still economics no matter what assumptions get used or not used in a particular application of economics. And these aren't purely psychological characteristics.
How does marginal value apply to gravity, for example? Will a star profit less by acquiring more mass per unit? Gravity doesn't work that way.
So are you claiming that economics because of my argument above, and unlike any other science, should be applicable to the entirety of all reality? I already specified the circumstances under which it applies.
As long as you have multiple parties with preferences, goods/services of value with respect to those preferences, and the ability to trade or seize, you have economics.
What parties with preference are there? There's just reality. There's no sense of goods and services to trade or seize.
Trying to apply such economic assumptions to biology results in a gross misinterpretation of nature.
The economic assumptions I mentioned earlier apply whether you consider them economic or not.
It'd be $400/mo since you're doubling the cost of the car.
I think it would come out basically even, especially if maintenance cost are lower or the car lasts longer than a comparable gas vehicle.
The big unknown with electric cars is that battery pack. I gather that's roughly a quarter to a third of the cost of the Tesla presently. Maybe the "Gigafactory" will knock that down a lot.
Sorry about that. I realized my mistake about a couple minutes after I posted, but I couldn't issue a correction at the time due to the "Cowboy" timeout.
Sorry about the reading comprehension fail in my previous reply. It's clear you've given this a great deal of thought and have ambitions beyond the normal horizons for a typical modern building.
I'm building a house now and am even looking to avoid steel in the concrete.
I'm not an expert, but the steel is protected from corrosion in most forms of concrete due to the mildly alkaline chemistry of the concrete. And if you throw on sacrificial metal, you can keep that steel corrosion-free indefinitely.
That's a lot of traveling. Ignoring time value, the $15k difference in price buys you about 160k miles of travel (at $3.75 per gallon).
I doubt most people put 160k miles on a car before they get rid of it. So for them, lifetime costs of the Hyundai would be cheaper than that of the Tesla even if the Tesla had zero energy cost per mile driven.
You can't selectively remove one subsidy from one end but not do the same to its competitors.
Tesla enjoys those subsidies as well. The problem here is that up to 25% of its revenue on this particular vehicle will be due to a single, not very well protected subsidy source.
Glancing here, I gather the new vehicle will probably be able to qualify for a $7500 subsidy from the US government. What bothers me is whether Tesla can produce that car in the absence of the subsidy? A reliance on temporary subsidies for profit would explain why there has been calls to turn Tesla into solely a battery manufacturer.
What will it be called? Thatâ(TM)s something we think itâ(TM)s impossible to say at the current time, but weâ(TM)d be keen to hear your nominations for suitable names nonetheless.
Since nobody outside of Tesla has a clue what this car will be called, "Model E" is better than nothing.
because not deleting would be complying with the law.
And how often should Google be willing to take that to court to find out? They know they'll be complying with the law by automatically blocking contested search results. They don't know they'll be complying with the law otherwise.
Here it works differently, we're based on a written law that needs to be read before applied, and the single sentence from the European Court does not rule anything in fact.
Ok, how is that relevant? Common law is written law too.
You have to cut out everyone else's corruption too. Coercion hierarchies fundamentally rely on coercion being a way to get stuff. That has to change first before the hierarchy changes. The usual way is by having other parties with the ability to apply force and coercion in response to an act of coercion or corruption.
Mental activity *is* physical activity according to the definition of "physical".
There is no "the" definition of physical. Your argument depends on substituting your choice of definition of "physical" for the other poster's definition of "physical". That makes it not a logical argument, but rather a semantics game.
They could also work within the law as interpreted by the courts to work out efficient procedures that everybody can live with, which is a better idea, long term.
No, I think the malicious compliance approach is more effective long term. I think when European politicians get their press and websites dropped, then we'll start seeing some fixing of this terrible law. While efficient procedures for compliance leads to no incentives for improving or eliminating the law in question.
So bottom line is that it's a lot cheaper to comply with the law even when an extensive, costly review (and possibly a subsequent costly lawsuit) would determine that you didn't have to.
The world is already doing something about climate change -- by contributing to it.
I don't think that contributes to the discussion at all. Even our non-existence wouldn't stabilize climate.
By "doing nothing", I mean that we don't try to restrain our activities and impose huge burdens on society just to stay within a narrow band centered on the climate of 1850. I still advocate monitoring the Earth's climate in case I happen to be wrong on the degree of effect of AGW as well as adapting to any climate changes that do happen.
A key problem which Keynesians fail to recognize is that economies naturally recover even when nothing is done.
I don't even have any undergraduate experience in economics, yet even I can see the nonsense in that statement.
What nonsense? Economic recessions are a well known phenomena in economies. And recovery means transitioning those economies to a non-recession state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Until Google does something that gets it bound by another court ruling.
Easy. For starters, I wouldn't bother with rockets. Just cut checks to the right people.
I had a to swap the anode on a 4 year old water heater for example because of the water composition here.
This. The anode can be replaced in certain situations. I know they do it for bridges (at least when the anodes aren't stolen for the metal content).
Economics makes assumptions about rational behavior, marginal value, scarcity, and other purely psychological characteristics.
It's still economics no matter what assumptions get used or not used in a particular application of economics. And these aren't purely psychological characteristics.
How does marginal value apply to gravity, for example? Will a star profit less by acquiring more mass per unit? Gravity doesn't work that way.
So are you claiming that economics because of my argument above, and unlike any other science, should be applicable to the entirety of all reality? I already specified the circumstances under which it applies.
As long as you have multiple parties with preferences, goods/services of value with respect to those preferences, and the ability to trade or seize, you have economics.
What parties with preference are there? There's just reality. There's no sense of goods and services to trade or seize.
Trying to apply such economic assumptions to biology results in a gross misinterpretation of nature.
The economic assumptions I mentioned earlier apply whether you consider them economic or not.
I think it would come out basically even, especially if maintenance cost are lower or the car lasts longer than a comparable gas vehicle.
The big unknown with electric cars is that battery pack. I gather that's roughly a quarter to a third of the cost of the Tesla presently. Maybe the "Gigafactory" will knock that down a lot.
Sorry about that. I realized my mistake about a couple minutes after I posted, but I couldn't issue a correction at the time due to the "Cowboy" timeout.
Sorry about the reading comprehension fail in my previous reply. It's clear you've given this a great deal of thought and have ambitions beyond the normal horizons for a typical modern building.
I'm building a house now and am even looking to avoid steel in the concrete.
I'm not an expert, but the steel is protected from corrosion in most forms of concrete due to the mildly alkaline chemistry of the concrete. And if you throw on sacrificial metal, you can keep that steel corrosion-free indefinitely.
That's a lot of traveling. Ignoring time value, the $15k difference in price buys you about 160k miles of travel (at $3.75 per gallon).
I doubt most people put 160k miles on a car before they get rid of it. So for them, lifetime costs of the Hyundai would be cheaper than that of the Tesla even if the Tesla had zero energy cost per mile driven.
You can't selectively remove one subsidy from one end but not do the same to its competitors.
Tesla enjoys those subsidies as well. The problem here is that up to 25% of its revenue on this particular vehicle will be due to a single, not very well protected subsidy source.
Glancing here, I gather the new vehicle will probably be able to qualify for a $7500 subsidy from the US government. What bothers me is whether Tesla can produce that car in the absence of the subsidy? A reliance on temporary subsidies for profit would explain why there has been calls to turn Tesla into solely a battery manufacturer.
What will it be called? Thatâ(TM)s something we think itâ(TM)s impossible to say at the current time, but weâ(TM)d be keen to hear your nominations for suitable names nonetheless.
Since nobody outside of Tesla has a clue what this car will be called, "Model E" is better than nothing.
Well, can't speak for the original poster, but where there's woods, there's wood. Knives can do interesting things with wood.
because not deleting would be complying with the law.
And how often should Google be willing to take that to court to find out? They know they'll be complying with the law by automatically blocking contested search results. They don't know they'll be complying with the law otherwise.
And the end result of this is that Nature, along with other high profile journals, will continue to improve the peer review system.
Unless the amount of errors are below their threshold for action. Or they don't act to improve their peer review systems in response.
Google is not a court. They don't get to decide not to follow a court ruling.
Here it works differently, we're based on a written law that needs to be read before applied, and the single sentence from the European Court does not rule anything in fact.
Ok, how is that relevant? Common law is written law too.
You have to cut out everyone else's corruption too. Coercion hierarchies fundamentally rely on coercion being a way to get stuff. That has to change first before the hierarchy changes. The usual way is by having other parties with the ability to apply force and coercion in response to an act of coercion or corruption.
Mental activity *is* physical activity according to the definition of "physical".
There is no "the" definition of physical. Your argument depends on substituting your choice of definition of "physical" for the other poster's definition of "physical". That makes it not a logical argument, but rather a semantics game.
(Spoiler alert: usually, everything breaks.)
Damn. I was going to see that movie! :(
What is a "real sport" anyway?
They could also work within the law as interpreted by the courts to work out efficient procedures that everybody can live with, which is a better idea, long term.
No, I think the malicious compliance approach is more effective long term. I think when European politicians get their press and websites dropped, then we'll start seeing some fixing of this terrible law. While efficient procedures for compliance leads to no incentives for improving or eliminating the law in question.
So bottom line is that it's a lot cheaper to comply with the law even when an extensive, costly review (and possibly a subsequent costly lawsuit) would determine that you didn't have to.
The world is already doing something about climate change -- by contributing to it.
I don't think that contributes to the discussion at all. Even our non-existence wouldn't stabilize climate.
By "doing nothing", I mean that we don't try to restrain our activities and impose huge burdens on society just to stay within a narrow band centered on the climate of 1850. I still advocate monitoring the Earth's climate in case I happen to be wrong on the degree of effect of AGW as well as adapting to any climate changes that do happen.
A key problem which Keynesians fail to recognize is that economies naturally recover even when nothing is done.
I don't even have any undergraduate experience in economics, yet even I can see the nonsense in that statement.
What nonsense? Economic recessions are a well known phenomena in economies. And recovery means transitioning those economies to a non-recession state of affairs.