Yeah the Energy Poverty people want to spend billions of dollars building centralized plants and transmission lines instead of spending the money the cheaper solar + storage.
Some Greens are worried about climate change and others are worried about animals. When those two groups get together you get statements like 'Wind farms chop up eagles' or ''concentrating solar cooks birds.'
I am not sure if it does require state ownership of productive assets, only state ownership of some of the profits(which then goes back to the people).
Sales tax is regressive because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income and pay a higher percentage of the income on the sales tax as a result.
A flat income tax is neither progressive or regressive as you pay the same percentage no matter what you earn.
While with capitalism. The business want to reduce wages , which reduced demand , leading to less people needing to be employed. Less people employed means wages are driven down further. Eventually you end up with not enough work for people to do.
And I think you are talking communism.
For a real example of socialism vs capitalism compare the health system of Australia vs USA.
The only way ocean extraction does not become economical is if the demand is met by existing sources. Should it not be met be existing sources then ocean mining becomes economical.
> Therefore if this thing starts getting any actual sales traction, then the price of lithium will skyrocket, affecting any chance of the price of the PowerWall coming down.
The cost of lithium from the ocean
>That is about 3 times the current price
So if the demand actually drives the price of lithium up so much then the ocean extraction becomes viable. And as shown elsewhere this does not increase the cost of the battery compared with the cost of the product.
So in conclusion on current demand ocean extraction is uneconomical. However if this product takes off then ocean extraction does become viable and does not affect the cost by a significant amount.
Slashdot Mirror
basic income is X.
workplace offers Y.
X+Y is greater then X alone, even if Y is less then X.
Sure, but what makes the general population more entitled to your hard-earned wealth than your family?
Sure but what makes you family more entitled to your hard-earned wealth than the general population?
Don't mind the fact the kids are working hard in your restaurant, preparing to take it over when you retire.
Don't mind the fact that all the other workers are also working hard. (Or you could pay them in shares of the company)
Under the same rules. FedEx is a leach of the national highway system.
Just because someone provides a service to government they are now no longer private? I didn't think the government was that big.
Renamed by the Republicans to sound less scary.
Regarding net emissions, our contribution surely isn't 3%. Your accounting is off somewhere.
For net emissions our contribution is over 100%.
Natural net emissions are actually negative.
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%.
So lets hear your plan to reduce the 97% of natural emissions.
Total emissions are 100%. You remove any 3%(man made or natural) of that and the system is back in balance.
Yeah the Energy Poverty people want to spend billions of dollars building centralized plants and transmission lines instead of spending the money the cheaper solar + storage.
The national highway system vs the national railway system.
Which was centrally planned and which was not?
So what you are saying is ownership(whether high or low) of guns does not correspond with murder rates? But poverty is the main driver?
For the Australian election most likely 2016, The last possible date is only 14 January 2017.
And most microsats are in an orbit that will last only a few weeks. (below LEO)
Most microsats are lower then LEO. But for this to work they will have to be in LEO.
And how do you handle an employee who does not follow the deleting emails.
Consider a group harming animals bad but do not believe in climate change. They would call themselves Greens but are not part of the carbon-free meme.
I think it is a case of different Greens .
Some Greens are worried about climate change and others are worried about animals. When those two groups get together you get statements like 'Wind farms chop up eagles' or ''concentrating solar cooks birds.'
I am not sure if it does require state ownership of productive assets, only state ownership of some of the profits(which then goes back to the people).
Only if they sold each item to you individually.
All they need to do is when they do it again the next month, fine them again. 3.6%/year.
Sales tax is regressive because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income and pay a higher percentage of the income on the sales tax as a result.
A flat income tax is neither progressive or regressive as you pay the same percentage no matter what you earn.
Wind and solar are semi-controllable in that you can reduce their output.
While with capitalism. The business want to reduce wages , which reduced demand , leading to less people needing to be employed. Less people employed means wages are driven down further. Eventually you end up with not enough work for people to do.
And I think you are talking communism.
For a real example of socialism vs capitalism compare the health system of Australia vs USA.
So making people currently on minimum wage poorer.
The main problem I see with this is area of wind captured.
Let me try again in a simple form.
The only way ocean extraction does not become economical is if the demand is met by existing sources. Should it not be met be existing sources then ocean mining becomes economical.
The first post in the thread.
> Therefore if this thing starts getting any actual sales traction, then the price of lithium will skyrocket, affecting any chance of the price of the PowerWall coming down.
The cost of lithium from the ocean
>That is about 3 times the current price
So if the demand actually drives the price of lithium up so much then the ocean extraction becomes viable. And as shown elsewhere this does not increase the cost of the battery compared with the cost of the product.
So in conclusion on current demand ocean extraction is uneconomical. However if this product takes off then ocean extraction does become viable and does not affect the cost by a significant amount.