We were able absorb the costs associated with transmission loses in the past because power generation was artificially cheap and we didn't make the generators pay for the environmental impacts. The other problem with transmitting power over long distances is that it ultimately creates more points of failure and a more fragile system.
When you consider the amount of power the US (and other parts of the world) consume, 6 to 7% is huge.
You have to remember that it's tough for solar to beat out traditional sources of power on cost alone even when there are no losses. You don't want to be throwing away 6% or 7% of what's generated by transmitting it to another region.
I'm not sure I'd trust it vs taking a look over my shoulder. That would be my main issue. I've tried various rear view mirrors and never much liked them. Too small a field of vision. Too much moving my head around to see what I wanted to see.
And for the record I don't mind spending money on necessary defense. I do have trouble with the idea of propping up unpopular leaders of questionable ethics in exchange for short term stability and cheap gas prices. You can argue that it's necessary but either way we still pay for it. It's still an additional cost related to fossil fuels.
If you're implying that I'm part of the problem as a customer of a utility that primarily generates power via fossil fuels, I'll remind you that most of us don't have a say in where our utilities get their power from, - which is why it is good that states like California gives breaks to those who want to generate their own power using solar energy. I'm not even blaming the utilities entirely. Many of them are trying to generate electricity using cleaner sources of power and spend significant money on energy efficiency programs.
I'll also add that I'm typing this on a laptop provided by a non-profit energy efficiency organization (along with a salary) in exchange for my services. A laptop that I transport to and from work... on a bike.
What has it really cost us to keep the oil flowing out of the Middle East? What about the environmental and health impacts of burning fossil fuels? Who is paying for that?
In a system with no property tax, there would be no disincentive to hoard property.
So? I apologize in advance; there is no way to say this politely; you can take your loaded term "hoard" as well as your consensus and your bowing and scraping to government, and stuff them. You started the name-calling when you characterized real property ownership as "hoarding".
If you get off on seeing people's wealth seized by force and redistributed, fine; viewpoints and opinions are the most basic rights everyone has. But if you give support and comfort to those doing the seizing, expect a little blowback.
Now, if you want to get to basics and discuss the pros and cons of allowing private ownership of what is called "real property" (basically land) in the first place, that is fair game.
I don't think istartedi was characterizing property ownership as hoarding at all. Hoarding would be buying up a ton of property with no intent to do anything with it. This would drive up property costs for anyone else wanting to buy in the area. Without property taxes, one or two people with enough capital could buy up most of the land in a region and then charge of whatever they felt like to other potential buyers. Or they could basically price things out of anybody's reach and rent out the property instead, - again at inflated rates. Any land that sits idle costs them nothing anyway so there's no disincentive to hold on to it.
Where property taxes can be problematic are when people on living fixed incomes. Rising property taxes shouldn't be allowed to force anyone off a property that they've had for decades.
A community provides benefits to those who own property there, - whether its schools, police/fire service, or whatever. Those things need to be paid for somehow.
Unfortunately I've seen first hand all to many times that some people automatically just play the minority card each time to avoid ever having to make an effort to help themselves. The only reason they still do it is because it works thanks to most white men having already been programmed to feel socially guilty for everyone elses failures by a society with a screwed up socialist agenda like yours.
So some people playing the minority card means that there aren't any talented minorities out there that are being held back by their circumstances?
You know what I have seen first hand? A hiring manager rejecting a resume solely based on the ethnicity of the name of applicant. In fact they had rejected several resumes for exactly the same reason. I couldn't believe that this stuff still happens but it does. And that's just an overt case. I'm sure minorities are passed over for more subtle reasons that have little or nothing to do with their actual qualifications.
Once I was literally told to think long and hard before offering a job to a black candidate we were interviewing by somebody who wasn't even involved in the interview process. This was for a business unit of a larger organization that prided itself on its diversity record. When I first started working in that unit I'd actually been a little surprised at how lily white the staff was compared to my previous job in the company. After awhile it became very clear that it wasn't exactly an accident.
As to Facebook's concern those are legit as well. Don't you ever get spam from a non-english speaker trying to get you to do something or another and entirely missing the mark? They do so because they don't understand the language and the culture enough. Same with Facebook or anyone of these companies trying to appeal to a wide audience. It's not that I can't write software for any particular audience but I'm smart enough to know that what appeals to me and people like me may not appeal to people living under different circumstances or different cultures.
Have you ever considered that our whole approach to developing software has been largely created by white men? Perhaps that's part of the reason so few outside that group do it.