Search "closed loop premise" and tell me what you find. A closed loop is entirely different depending on your context, and at no point in this conversational line - until now - did you define what that meant. I don't care if this is an article about PV and sustainable energy, your term for "closed loop premise" is not common jargon within this context, especially when Pixelpusher220 in fact mentions that he is aware of the "full loop" earlier in this comment line, and you completely ignore this moving foreward. You just dropped your own version of the jargon expecting people to know. Then you follow up your personal term for something by telling pixelpusher220 that their entire argument is a non-sequitur based on this term you have not yet defined. Because you ignored that Pixelpusher220 is aware of your version of the "closed loop premise", I had to ask for your definition.

Basically, that is just poor arguing.

Regardless though, thank you for providing me with the Wikipedia entry definition for sustainable energy. Now that sustainable energy is your definition for the "closed loop premise" as it relates to the world's energy, while admitting that fossil fuels do not fit within this definition, can you explain to me how pixelpusher220's argument doesn't follow in this particular comment line within this article thread? He seems to be arguing that solar is sustainable in the long run, while burning fossil fuels is not, and that fossil fuel industries should pay for PV R&D via government appropriations.

This most certainly seems to fit the definition of sustainable energy, now that you have actually defined your terms. Don't call out my logic when your's is absent throughout this article's comments. You don't even have a point, and aren't arguing in any direction. In fact, the argument you provide from here on out is almost literally the exact same argument put forth by PixelPusher220 , with minor deviations.

Pixelpusher220 is not arguing that we are just going to magically create PV (and very specifically states this within this comment reply line), much like fossil fuels don't just magically start producing energy. Everyone in this article's comments acknowledges there are emissions when creating the infrastructure for any energy program. In fact, he proposes that we should use current fossil fuel energy to make PV itself, and that taxing the fossil fuel industries for sustainable energy is a fair price for fossil fuel industries to pay in the short run.

The fuck does this have to do with anything.

Ah so now we see your intentions: You are trolling solar to talk about fusion. As long as there are security concerns, stable fusion being viable in the short run is almost irrelevant: Feel free to provide your sources though. But basically, as long as patriotism and countries (and people putting fusion in poor geographical locations) exist, it is not likely true that fusion is the answer any time soon.

Energy sources like wind and solar do not present these concerns, but do seem to be more expensive on a per unit basis than the alternatives in the short run (I will agree on that point).

Note: I am a full supporter of fusion energy, as well as wind and energy.

Extra note: I still don't know why you troll solar throughout this article's comments as though we should not attempt to make it a part of our energy mix.

Source please. Regardless of the source your provide, I feel like it will ignore all the possibilites of PV. It will most certainly ignore that we should be working to include solar as part of our energy mix, or that people should have the option to pursue PV, and that it is likely the fossil fuel industries that should pay for this.

Source please. (Note: in all honesty, what the fuck are you talking about here)

Which solar companies are dumping carbon into the crust? Disposing panel waste (like battery waste) is a different issue than whether or not we should attempt to use panels (or batteries). This also just seems like a total red herring as to whether or not Bosch solar company is competent, it most certainly does not address Pixelpusher220's argument, and really does not add much to your explanation.

You are merely starting to back track here, before you inevitably come to the same conclusion as Pixelpusher220:

You do realize that this is more or less the exact argument that Pixelpusher220 was making?

Once again, I ask you, why the fuck were/are you trolling solar all over this thread?

Are you even reading what people are writing?

If PixelPusher220's argument is a non-sequitur, what does this make yours? Again, just try to use basic logic (this was your insult for me, I felt like it was time to return it).

First of all, I apologize for using we, as you live in the USA. I am not a part of your "we".

I was arguing that in general (for human beings that are lucky enough to be able to vote for their public entity), some primary features that mark the difference between a public and private entity are exactly what I listed:

This is not to say a private entity won't do these things for the people they serve, just that they generally don't have to. There are empirical examples on both sides of this coin.

People expect and legislate these things for a public entity, and generally work to ensure that a public entity displays these features prominently.

This is a completely different issue as to whether or not these systems exist, or work, or are used.

Second of all, you cannot argue that the current USA government does not have systems of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, unless you were home schooled and did not learn this material at any point in your high school education. In fact, it arguably has one of the best systems for all of these. This is a different issue as to whether or not these systems are abused.

Once again, this is a totally different argument as to whether or not people expect a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency out of their public entities. I submit that yes, in fact, most people do expect this.

Furthermore, this is still a totally different as to whether or not these systems exist within the USA, which I argue that they do.

This may be true of the generally under (and poorly) educated people that run the country you live in, but it is not true of all governments, nor all public entities. You have a vote and a voice to change the public entity you belong to, and can work to ensure you are getting more value out of what you are paying. In my current country, Canada, I am very active in ensuring our elected officials keep a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, all the while ensuring I am getting a better deal for each tax dollar I am paying. it takes effort, but contributions can be made by the individual.

Pragmatically, I agree with this point completely though. I used to live in the states for about 5 years, and it was pretty annoying knowing a lot of my federal taxes went to world policing and not much else that was visible to me. That being said, my local governments provided some of the best schools in the country, good policing and fire protection, as well as low cost clean water for those on the town well. All things being equal, I wanted the school, police, and fire system the town (and state) provided, and was able to get lower cost water through the town versus living in the outskirts of the town where I needed my own (or street) well. I am not suggesting that the town was more efficient at providing water to me, just that it was a lower cost than the alternative given my other criteria, mostly due to economies of scale.

More on that last point (total side-note though so disregard this as a trolling comment), it was pretty annoying knowing that there are huge disparities in education from region to region in the USA.

I feel as though you would find it tough to find anyone that can argue a government is more "efficient" at handling the money of other people, given the alternatives. There are many types of private entities that specialize in handling money in various ways. But in general, this is the point you are missing: Government is not about efficiency.

I have studied economics for a long time, and in general the whole point of welfare economics and public expenditure economics is to find ways to make the government more efficient when appropriating monies, and to mitigate risks around the tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem. It is acknowledged that is unlikely that the Government can ever eliminate these problems, much like a private entity is not perfect. Government is not meant to "do away with" efficiency all together, and at least the government's self serving interests are the voting constituents themselves, not the stakeholders within any particular private entity.

No kidding?

This is why Wikipedia has a system of accountability and the headers of many articles contain information about the validity of each article, or what needs to be done to improve them. Many article headers ask for academics and experts to review the information, and in the case of the articles on Communism and Capitalism, these entries on wikipedia read about as well as any textbook you could hope to buy regarding the theories.

Both the Capitalism and Communism articles on wikipedia are a part of a heavily edited series on the website, and there are no calls for action from Wikipedia to improve the quality of these articles - they are about as quality as you can get for human knowledge (and sound logic) on these topics. You can review the debates in the notes for the articles themselves. Arguing semantics and the finer points of each theory, like you are doing, is a totally different thing. I am willing to engage in said argument with you, because I have the freedom and right to do so.

This is also why instead of just reading a couple Wikipedia articles I studied economics and political science in school so that I can have these conversations with people like you.

In my previous comment I copied and pasted the first sentence word for word from the Wikipedia article so that you could interpret it. I have already interpreted it, and my initial comment in this thread was almost exactly the same. Allow me to post the first sentence from the Wikipedia article again (so that you can interpret it again ), since you clearly think my one sentence is/was totally off base:

Now, allow me to post my original comment (which I again re-posted in my last comment so that you could compare both), in order to tell whether or not I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia statement (I hate being repetitive, but don't tell me I am misinterpreting the english language when you aren't even reading my comments):

Are you really going to sit here and tell me I egregiously misinterpreted what was written on Wikipedia? Like, actually?

In your defense, in my follow up comment I offered a lengthy explanation as to how the second half of my comment regarding capitalism can only be implied by virtue of the existence for perfectly competitive markets within capitalist theory. I admitted that the second half of this comment was slightly off base, but offered an explanation for how each agent must be "free" to act in a perfectly competitive market.

You offer no such explanation as to how I have misinterpreted this information, but instead ramble on about the definition of capitalism, which is clearly stated within that one sentence pasted above, again .

But moving on to the argument where you supposedly debunk my misinterpretations:

Once again, no kidding? Hence why I asked you to elaborate on your point instead of just calling me wrong. Hence why I elaborated on my one sentence from my first comment, with a paragraph in my second comment, even though I should not have entertained you with a better explanation since all you did was say:

Literally, there are no other words in your comment. These are all five of your words addressing this incredibly complicated topic, in all their infamy and glory. You must frequent twitter or something.

But whatever, moving on to the rest of your ill-informed comments:

What on earth do you mean by "[Capitalism and Communism] don't exhaust all the possibilities by a long shot." I would counter this point by saying that, yes, any system that pursues the pure form of either of these theories has by definition exhausted all the other possibilites for other systems to exist. This is why in the real world we borrow from all theoretical systems, and maintain that there is the possibility for change towards one of many pure theoretical outcomes, depending on the context of said legislation and time.

In SQUIRREL-SOCIETYISM, the role of ACORNS are paramount.

Yet this ignores the rest of the paramount features the pure capitalist theory calls for: These include the right for a private entity to own said capital, the right for a private entity to produce said capital, and the right for a private entity to engage in a perfectly competitive market with said capital.

Furthermore as we will see from your comments below, you do not actually understand what capital is. Capital does not equal money.

At what point did I suggest that private property did not exist before capitalism? How does this prevent a theory from being created around said notion of private property?

For example, people bought and sold goods with each other before the notion of supply and demand (and economics) existed. Governments were formed before political science was studied formally. Human beings were capable of thinking before anyone thought to study the human mind. People created innovations before people felt the need to create copyright and patent laws. What is your point with this sentence?

This is factually incorrect about the capitalist theory. This is your interpretation of capitalism, and may be true of the perverted system people call Capitalism in the country in which you reside.

Why is this factually incorrect? In a purely capitalist system major industry, minor industry, and all industry is perfectly competitive.

What are the implications of perfect competition? This implies that there are an infinite number of buyers and sellers in every industry, and major industry is owned and controlled principally by nobody. Everybody is a price taker that has no undue influence on the market. No agent is powerful enough to influence the Pareto optimal outcome of any particular market. Yes, all this information is on Wikipedia as well.

Moreover, why is it a bad thing for people to contribute their capital in any particular market setting? What point are you trying to make here?

As an example to this in the real world in 2013, it is illegal for monopolies to exist in most markets. Huge legal restrictions are placed on oligopolies. Empirical evidence suggests that markets like Energy and Telecom inevitably concentrate production market share between a few agents, in large part due to geography. By default, markets involving monopolies and oligopolies are already not perfectly competitive, and we enact legislation to make them more competitive. This is true both in Canada and the Unites States of America, but in Canada we often turn our monopolies into crown corporations which can sometimes be owned by the people themselves. Once again, these were never perfectly competitive markets in the first place and represents a failure in the capitalist theory to be the absolute governing principle for all people, everywhere.

I have not once suggested that capitalism is The Answer, and that all legislation should be formed under the Capitalistic Dogma.

I am not a member of your perverted system that many like to call capitalism. I used to live in the USA for about 5 years. I am Canadian, and have always been. Don't even approach the notion of calling me American, or using connotation that might suggest I am a part of your "our." I find that offensive, and furthermore, just because your system is "like that" does not make it "capitalism".

Much like the capital to run that industry is not always the doing of the labourers. Not that it can't happen, just that it doesn't always happen. Capitalism at least allows the possibility for labourers to provide capital towards the means of production. In Communism, you have to be both.

And in a purely capitalist system, the labour has the ability to choose which market said labour will participate in. This is because there are no barriers to entry or exit in a perfectly competitive market, and all factors of production are perfectly mobile in the long run. If the labour does not enjoy the labour said labour is providing, this labour can provide said labour for another market which requires a labour input.

Or in more simpleton terms for yourself: If you were actually living in a purely capitalist system and didn't like what you were doing, you would simply do something else. In the short run, in theory, you should expect some frictional transitional period. Moving on:

Who is "they"? In capitalism, the labourer can also own the means of production. Think of your local carpenter (many of which are unionized in an attempt to exert undue influence in the labour supply markets, different argument/story), many of whom are labourers and owners of the means of production.

And what is wrong with a producer of a good in any particular market hiring labour inputs? How is this a bad thing? How else do you expect 'things' to get made, other than for basic survival purposes?

I would rather be freely approached for contract work rather than having some management class/role-type (in a Communist society) tell me what contracts I am able to pursue. I enjoy the ability to remain perfectly mobile with my labour.

Once again, this is not true of a purely capitalist system. Just because someone chooses to be a labour input does not mean that they cannot choose to own the means of production. Generally speaking, yes, one must accumulate capital in order to own the means of production in a market setting. Yet the labourer still owns the most important means of production: the labourer's body.

Skills and time are examples of capital that can be accumulated, and this statement implies that you clearly do not undersand the definition of capital.

Furthermore, when people are born in a purely capitalist society they own 0 capital: This statement does not include the notion of estate legacy laws which provide for endowment effects within a perfectly competitive market, (and pragmatically provides newborns with more than 0 capital, though an estate can inherit debt as well). But estate legacy laws have nothing to do with pure capitalist theory as private ownership should not theoretically extend to your seed as this would imply one owns his/her children. The children own themselves, and have the right to their own private property (like their body), not the private property of their parents (unless said private property was properly transfered before death, for example).

Thus, in a purely capitalist system, you can't ever have less than 0 capital in the present tense unless you, the agent in a particular market, choose to exchange future capital for present capital, at which point you would technically (in terms of accounting) have negative capital in the present tense. Most Americans do this in the real world, and most americans are in debt (not necessarily a bad thing, just a thing).

As another pragmatic example in the real world in 2013, even if you have only pennies to your name you can own a small percentage of any major market producer across the world. You can buy fractions of a company and reap the benefits of their productions, and in a perfectly competitive market there are theoretically no information frictions preventing people from having the knowledge to make a choice such as this (that may or may not be best for them).

Are the economic systems contained within every sovereign country on the planet earth.....

How on earth is subsistence farming similar to the theoretical forms of Capitalism/Communism?

Subsistence farming seems more like anarchy that Capitalism/Communism to me: Do not engage in the laws of those not on my farm (and generally have no law structure on said farm - only the laws that govern the livestock and plants and nature), make only what helps me, make no excess for those that can't make things for themselves, look out for me and my family above and beyond humanity, do not engage with the "government" (whatever that "government" would theoretically look like if everyone was theoretically a subsistence farmer) as our farm will provide all the medical and fire services we need. I will also be able to specialize in knowing everything about ploughs, livestock, plants, and growing techniques needed to make my life as good as those "average" people that live in "the system" until the age of 70 and beyond in 2013.

While you can contrast subsistence farming with sharecropping, you cannot contrast them in terms of Communism and Capitalism. Your argument and evidence are terribly flawed. Sharecropping is as close to feudalism as it gets, though sharecropping still maintains the labourer's right to mobility.

Sharecropping is not analogous to capitalism, but capitalism does allow for sharecropping within its theoretical framework. Once again, can you please explain how this is a bad thing? How is choice to engage in sharecropping a bad thing? The labourer chooses to do so, as well as the production inputs, how is this bad?

At no point did I suggest that Communism cannot exist on an extremely small scale. I have cousins that have lived in communes in British Columbia. Yet even these people must engage the dirty Capitalists every once in a while (much like subsistence farmers), and they must exchange the goods that the farming enterprise has produced (and privately owns within the larger system that protects their right to pursue this lifestyle) for other goods/services - a definably non Communist ideal and process. Collective farming may be one of the closer things to pure communism we have on this planet, but in no way shape or form is it pure communism. Who manages the farm? How does the farm get fire and medical services? How do they protect human rights and basic levels of security/living? Answer: they don't, and if they do, they don't do it as well as an amalgamation of other systems.

Furthermore, why did you ignore my comment about the most pure capitalist system on earth (not to say it is an example of pure capitalism, just that it is likely the most pure), the Internet? Can you please explain to me how the internet, and the capitalistic ideals represented therein, is a bad thing?

As a general argument, based off of empirical evidence, Capitalism is a much more scaleable system than Communism. Neither is perfect, and neither can reign supreme over humanity in their purest forms.

If you believe that Communism, or Capitalism, is the absolute answer you are wrong and have ignored the spectrum of possibilites.

Actually, in this particular conversational line you make no initial point. Your first comment in this particular conversational/comment thread (and is indicative of your other comments on this article) is a troll's comment to say "fuck solar, because neither solar nor coal can bootstrap (irregardless to questions of sustainability), thus solar people are hypocritical" even though the other commenters are clearly stating that both coal AND solar have start up and maintenance costs, and are all potentially harmful to the green person soul. Your only other comment in this line is your response to my comment.

Allow me to quote pixelpusher220, who you take an issue with:

Did pixelpusher220 really ignore this?

And are you sure that your theories regarding bootstrapping are correct? Can you please be more specific about the point at which certain things, like bootstrapping, "cease" in your mind?

This particular comment line hardly references the point at which these things cease to exist. But feel free to elaborate about the scientific processes after this point, as my education is simply limited to the economics of natural resources and energy. Call me stupid, or something.

You have missed the point. Here is your ribbon.

Read a book.

Not to mention the comments of the previous user "chill" were logically sound on every basis....

While I laughed at your joke, it is generally missing the point in how the Chinese government operates in order to exert undue influence in certain markets, especially via international trade law. It helps when your labour is mostly free, and has few rights. After that, we can start getting into the nitty gritties of the details, but we don't really need to since as the previous commenter alluded to: The Chinese game the international trade system quite well.

In fact, it is often amusing to see how creatively they game our systems, much like it was amusing to see your joke.

That being said ....... #freesolar ........

What the christ are you even saying here?

It is quite clear in this thread that the above commenters were making the point that all energy sources (solar and coal specifically) create emissions when the infrastructure for both is being built. I don't think anyone in this thread feels either of these processes leads to bootstrapping.

You come in here on your high horse and start trolling solar left, right, and centre all over this thread.

Who's paying you? Knowledge with a capital K?

Can you please explain to me your version of the "closed loop premise" in regards to energy sustainability? I have been following this thread and I am totally lost as to what your point is.

User pixelpusher220 (529617) actually makes a point and argues it, while you shout out "closed loop" a couple times, then call him out on a non-sequitur that you haven't established.

Should be fun to pay for emergency surgery when you need it.

We don't treat the government as a private entity because it is NOT a private entity. Hence why we have a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency. These are not things a private entity HAS to afford its constituents.

Uh. No?

Cutting government spending on projects with no present or future value does not imply an investment into future generations. It merely implies a shift in the metrics that compose the current GDP.

With less money controlled by the government and more by private agents it is POSSIBLE that this newly reallocated government spending might be re-invested by the private sector.

Yet with natural resources and energy, we find that when left to human nature and our own devices we experience two major problems: The Tragedy of the Commons and the Race to the Bottom.

This is generally why the government is involved with Solar, as it should be.

Ratio ruined.