The only exception on the government side is law enforcement, and the
This cuts to the heart of the issue. Other countries have excellent civil services because they take governing seriously. Good government departments are corporatized, and look a lot like large businesses.
Regarding unions -- again the incentive structures are wrong in this country. When unions and businesses see each other as partners, then it works out fine. This is the case in Australia, where unions were by law forbidden to demand a pay rise unless they could demonstrate increased productivity in their workers. Business owners then were forced to pass on some of the increased revenue from this productivity. If you study the labor market in Australia, you'll see that working class people are both unionized, and far more productive than minimum-wage workers in this country.
Notice how you just dropped the issue on carbon pollution? It is not the only externality that businesses create. In fact, businesses have an active incentive to find and exploit externalities, and then manipulate the rules to product their malfeasance. Notice how you believe that businesses will just do the right thing, but unions and politicians simply won't. My view is that it comes down to the incentive structures that they operate under.
I think forcing people to buy insurance (in a free market) is a good incentive structure, because insurance companies can set premiums at a rate based on the risk of their clients behavior. So, for example, if someone wants to work at a bar were smoking is allowed, then the medical insurance should cost more, and the worker should in turn demand more money to cover this insurance. The cost should ultimately be passed on to the patrons who want to smoke, and then the externalities are owned. So regulations don't *require* the government. (Except here that government is mandating insurance do deal with the irrationalties of risk taking.)
If your *really* believe that people only run for office chasing vanity and power (I'd say only 25-50% do), then disabuse yourself of this adolescent notion by spending some real time getting to know some politicians (I find them at my local church).
If a wind turbine gives you cheap electricity when the wind is blowing, it doesn't make it cheaper than natural gas, because gas will produce when you want it to produce.
The levelized cost of energy takes this into account. Read about it. It's very complex. There are grid stability issues, and nuclear must surely be part of a complete zero-carbon energy system.
So I have some serious doubt Germany will ever build another nuclear power plant until "they feel the shit has hit the fan".
True, but they may be able to figure it out anyway. We are talking about one of the best engineering cultures ever, and a society with great institutions.
The nuclear crowd like to paint renewables as expensive, but it is a lie. Wind is cheaper than every other source of electricity except natural gas. (Look up levelized cost of energy by source.) Solar is only twice as expensive as nuclear. But the kicker is when you realize that renewables are coming down in price *fast*, and 20 years from now, even solar easily be half the price of the next best technology. Material science really is progressing that fast. Renewables have other advantages, like small capital costs, which make them better investments. The third world is building coal for now, but not too much longer. It is simply economics.
The idea that "However, we *must* make sure that businesses aren't pushing their costs onto the powerless and onto the commons" flies in the face of business reality. This was a problem at the turn of the century, but not today. Even the lowliest customer has access to social media, and Google - both of which have a long tail.
Carbon pollution.
If this was true, then why does a million dollar X-Prize result in solutions to problems that the government has shelled out millions and millions of dollars over years and years to solve?
Anecdote.
Government invests - and expects loyalty and quid pro quo.
Government follows rules -- and that is taken very seriously. Been there.
There are very few people in government working for the "common good" - but there a lot of folks in business trying to get rich.
Not everyone in government is there for vanity and power. That is a trendy but adolescent view of politics. The scary politicians are the ideologues who really believe that they are on some great moral quest.
You are still an annoying person with your snarky little insults, but that is what passes for intelligent conversation online.
Snark is a method to highjack someone's cognitive systems. Sure it wins you no friends, but I'm not a businessman like yourself. Still, I think I got you wrong before. Sure you dressed up the truth a bit, but you're also capable of reading, so point taken.
And you most certainly *do* consume conservative media. (Or consume little-to-no media, and speak primarily to people who consume conservative media.) This is obvious from the memes that you use. (Obama thinks the rich are evil, rotfl!) I'll take evidence like that over protestations to the contrary. You could have proven me wrong by using different memes. I'm willing to bet that even if you aped it at this point, it would still be obvious where you get your information.
Fyi, science based environmentalism creates jobs, and is good for the economy, because it means negative externalities are owned by the culprits, which makes markets more efficient. Did you know that wind power is (on average) cheaper than coal/nuclear? And that's even when you put aside the cost of the carbon pollution, which the best science says will cost us big.
I do have a degree in economics.
Oh yes, and that leads you to believe rumors from europeans you know about the "green cause" of Spain's financial troubles. You don't need a degree to believe word of mouth rumors, so why did you bother bother with school?
You're one of those people who just has to have the last word, aren't you?
Projection.
Okay if you MUST know, my OPINION that is MINE is based on what friends in Europe have told me.
Oh, well, you were just stating before that you have authority on this issue because you have a degree in economics. What's with the intellectual dishonesty?
And for your information I am not even a registered Republican, so terribly sorry.
They don't check you're a registered republican when you read Breitbart. I know, because I'm not a registered republican either.
Humanity lacks capability to "confirm" cause of radiation caused cancers.
A mathematical model is used to estimate how much additional cancer comes from radiation leaks. It is plausible, but not without controversy. If you want to learn something about estimating the human cost of a reactor accident, then read the TORCH report on chernobyl. (Unlike the WHO report, the TORCH report actually explains the underlying science and uncertainties with estimating cancers caused from radiation leaks.)
Every extra solar panel and wind turbine added to the grid increases grid instability a little more.
This is true, but Germany has a *lot* of renewables right now. I think they need some modern nuclear as well. But don't think that they won't try and solve the grid problems.
Oh I see. It's a classic case of, it doesn't fit my tidy little view of the world therefore I won't read it.
A smart person like you should know that newspapers and blogs are full of misinformation and plain bullsh*t. Obviously the GP doesn't know that Lomborg is an academic (albeit, a rather crazy one), but if he claims that newspaper articles are insufficient to change his mind, then that is fair enough. Provide some links to peer-reviewed literature, and if you're intellectually honest, provide links to *both* sides of a controversial debate, and trust that the truth will shine through.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.