Unless you can point to or create an objective set of criteria for those "negative externalities" and do so in a way that sets an objective price point for them? It's a nice way of saying that pollution sucks, but way too subjective to actually use fairly.
We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for.
If we decide that the market should choose the best solution for energy, wouldn't it be a "slippery slope" fallacy to automatically decide that the market should also choose the best solution for national defense and law enforcement?
Or maybe due to negative externalities that weren't properly internalized into the price of energy, energy prices have been artificially low all along, encouraging people to live energy-intensive lifestyles, and now all of a sudden they have to pay the piper.
1. Anticipate the need for higher fuel efficiency standards 2. Build your company around them 3. If they have not yet materialized, lobby for them 4. Profit!
When are those lazy anarchist pedestrians going to start paying sidewalk and crosswalk tax?
Sidewalks on a street benefit the property owners, so a property tax proportional to street frontage would be an equitable and practical way to pay for sidewalks. In fact, for the same reason it also ought to pay for the property owner's half of the street.
Of course, this assumes a distinction is made between streets, which are low-speed roads at destinations; and non-street roads, which are meant to move traffic efficiently between destinations. This is a distinction that not every country makes, and that's why those countries have so many street/road hybrids that have a high frequency of at-grade intersections like streets but also have high speed limits like non-street roads, making them neither good destinations nor efficient at moving traffic. They are the jack of all trades and master of none.
And when are they going to have registration plates so we can report jaywalkers?
Are you saying that because the problem already exists, it's okay to make it worse? Or are you saying that making crops resistant to pests won't make them more invasive?
Because of the uncertainty of how much power your solar panels will have available, the provider must maintain sufficient margin available to handle the instantaneous load of the entire system.
It was always true that the provider had to maintain sufficient margin between electrical supply and demand in order to prevent blackouts. And yes, now they have to look at weather reports to determine not just demand but also supply--although the two cancel each other out to a degree because people use less A/C on cloudy days.
But providers now have one additional tool to manage demand: smart meters. Conceptually, you can program your smart meter to raise your thermostat temperature in the summer during periods of high electrical demand, or lower your hot water temperature, or turn off lights, or tell your washer to refuse to start a load of laundry until the demand event has passed. As a result, providers can now reduce demand within seconds where it otherwise takes 10 minutes to bring a peaker plant online, and this reduces the margin providers need to maintain.
Except for our non-railroad roads, those represent socialism (government ownership of the means of production).
And parking lots that cities force developers to overbuild. That's private ownership but strong government control over the means of production which is dirigism which is closely associated with fascism.
The USA may have been a capitalist country in its early history, but it hasn't been that way for many decades.
But when the kids come out of the test and report that 1/2 the questions were on Greek and Roman history...would you think that the "American History" class the next year would follow the previous year's curriculum?
You have a good point. They would combine American and British history into one class in order to cover more questions on the test. If this is undesirable, then the test is faulty.
If it were a test on world history and had the same number of American questions as British, would it matter whether the student took American History or British History?
When I was taught to draw, I was told to put the eyes in the middle of the face. Do you think it would be difficult to test this knowledge in an objective way?
when you test specific things and tie an infividual's renumeration to trst results teachers will focus on what is on the trst to the detriment of other things that would be useful to know.
a kid who has a broad understanding of world history and why things happened, but who doesn't have dates memorized, could get high grades in essay assignments but tank on standardized tests.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's true, then why would they do it if they were privatized? How do you define "efficient"?
If it's inefficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town, then why would there be two if they were privatized?
If it did, would it produce too much energy from polluting sources?
Here's one example: The cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is more than $1,600 per person per year, or $6 billion to the region's economy, according to the researchers.
Even a market free of market failures such as negative externalities?
If we decide that the market should choose the best solution for energy, wouldn't it be a "slippery slope" fallacy to automatically decide that the market should also choose the best solution for national defense and law enforcement?
Or maybe due to negative externalities that weren't properly internalized into the price of energy, energy prices have been artificially low all along, encouraging people to live energy-intensive lifestyles, and now all of a sudden they have to pay the piper.
Nah, that couldn't possibly be true at all.
1. Anticipate the need for higher fuel efficiency standards
2. Build your company around them
3. If they have not yet materialized, lobby for them
4. Profit!
Sidewalks on a street benefit the property owners, so a property tax proportional to street frontage would be an equitable and practical way to pay for sidewalks. In fact, for the same reason it also ought to pay for the property owner's half of the street.
Of course, this assumes a distinction is made between streets, which are low-speed roads at destinations; and non-street roads, which are meant to move traffic efficiently between destinations. This is a distinction that not every country makes, and that's why those countries have so many street/road hybrids that have a high frequency of at-grade intersections like streets but also have high speed limits like non-street roads, making them neither good destinations nor efficient at moving traffic. They are the jack of all trades and master of none.
Are you aware that motorists violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the reverse?
Don't worry, your human rights are safe, because this is about person rights, not human rights.
I see. You're saying it's okay to do it because it has been our goal all along. That logic is circular.
Are you saying that because the problem already exists, it's okay to make it worse? Or are you saying that making crops resistant to pests won't make them more invasive?
It sounds like you want to give crop plants some of the attributes of invasive species. At what point would doing so start to become a bad thing?
It was always true that the provider had to maintain sufficient margin between electrical supply and demand in order to prevent blackouts. And yes, now they have to look at weather reports to determine not just demand but also supply--although the two cancel each other out to a degree because people use less A/C on cloudy days.
But providers now have one additional tool to manage demand: smart meters. Conceptually, you can program your smart meter to raise your thermostat temperature in the summer during periods of high electrical demand, or lower your hot water temperature, or turn off lights, or tell your washer to refuse to start a load of laundry until the demand event has passed. As a result, providers can now reduce demand within seconds where it otherwise takes 10 minutes to bring a peaker plant online, and this reduces the margin providers need to maintain.
Except for our non-railroad roads, those represent socialism (government ownership of the means of production).
And parking lots that cities force developers to overbuild. That's private ownership but strong government control over the means of production which is dirigism which is closely associated with fascism.
The USA may have been a capitalist country in its early history, but it hasn't been that way for many decades.
You have a good point. They would combine American and British history into one class in order to cover more questions on the test. If this is undesirable, then the test is faulty.
Please elaborate.
If it were a test on world history and had the same number of American questions as British, would it matter whether the student took American History or British History?
When I was taught to draw, I was told to put the eyes in the middle of the face. Do you think it would be difficult to test this knowledge in an objective way?
Can't critical thinking be demonstrated by identifying logical fallacies committed by a passage?
Shouldn't those things also be on the test?
Why can't the whys be tested?
Why can't the student's knowledge of logical fallacies be tested?
Some say creativity can in fact be tested.
Learning skills such as critical thinking and creativity? (See above.)
Could you provide an example of something that teachers should teach but that cannot be tested?
Should we also bill the person who started the fire?
If so, wouldn't it be double billing to bill that person and also the drone operators?
By that logic, a monitor also isn't an output device, unless you're using it to program a Timex Datalink.