Capitalism sucks! Socialism (Government planned economy) is the best system!

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Hot
Total: 169
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
GDP is a sum of products sold in total in a country. 
GDP is the average annual salary * the number of salaries in a country.

as most people are living near poverty.
Depends on how you define, "near".

Do you really think everyone will sell their stocks to buy nuclear power plants?
Not entirely.  I think companies with excess cash and stocks might agree to sell a portion of them to get their hands on nuclear energy stock.

And to who would they sell them to if everyone is selling? To China?
Not to China; but to whoever wants to buy the stocks (usually, private Americans).
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
GDP is the average annual salary * the number of salaries in a country
No.

Gross Domestic Product is a sum of sold goods which were made in a country.

Average salary in the US is 3000, which when multiplied by 200 million employed and by 12, equals to about 8 trillions.

Depends on how you define, "near".
They cant afford to give you their income so that you can build nuclear power plants.

 I think companies with excess cash and stocks might agree to sell a portion of them to get their hands on nuclear energy stock.
It would not amount to 100 trillions, as you said that stock market is 45 trillion in total.

Not to China; but to whoever wants to buy the stocks (usually, private Americans).
No one in USA has 45 trillions to pay for all the stocks so that everyone else can invest in some nuclear power plants. USA doesnt even have 100 trillion dollars in economy in total, but you need 100 trillion now to build those nuclear power plants by 2035 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
The future is Fusion Power. A prototype of a fusion reactor (DEMO) is expected to be built by 2040. 
Well, lets hope that works, because a global war for oil in 2050 isnt something I desperately want to experience.

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
They cant afford to give you their income so that you can build nuclear power plants.
There are investors and venture capitalists that are willing to invest in the company.

It would not amount to 100 trillions, as you said that stock market is 45 trillion in total.
But the stock market rises, and it wouldn't cost $100 Trillion.

1 nuclear power plant costs $4 billion to build.  It would take 300 power plants to offset coal and fossil fuels.  This costs $1.2 trillion.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are investors and venture capitalists that are willing to invest in the company
They dont have 100 trillion.

But the stock market rises,
So does the price of a power plant.

and it wouldn't cost $100 Trillion.
1 nuclear power plant costs $4 billion to build.  It would take 300 power plants to offset coal and fossil fuels.  This costs $1.2 trillion.
1 nuclear power plant of 1 gigawatt costs 10 billions. You would need about 100 of them, so thats 1 trillion.

But thats under current consumption of electricity.

If all cars become electric and all military goes electric, that consumption rises 100 times, which is 100 trillions. And this is when not counting all the money used to replace fuel cars, fuel jets, fuel trucks, fuel tanks...ect.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
So does the price of a power plant.
On average, stock prices go up 10% per year; inflation is like 1-3%.

If all cars become electric and all military goes electric, that consumption rises 100 times, which is 100 trillions. 
What makes you think electricity demand would shoot up 100x if the whole world used electric cars?

And this is when not counting all the money used to replace fuel cars, fuel jets, fuel trucks, fuel tanks...ect.
These items would only get replaced when they are broken down, ie they would get replaced whether or not the next model is electric.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Lemming
Yeah.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
On average, stock prices go up 10% per year; inflation is like 1-3%.
Inflation for common items is 3%. Price of uranium sometimes increases by 90%.

Now, I may have exaggerated with 100 trillion expense, but here is my latest view.

Electric car buying: 6 trillion to 12 trillion dollars currently for 200 million cars, could double in 10 years, which means it could cost up to 24 trillion by the time nuclear power plants begin producing.

Electric car, current consumption and industry electricity use.
USA uses about 4000 terrawatts of energy.
Having all cars as electric cars would add another 4000 terrawatts to consumption, which means 10 trillion dollars would need to be payed for power plants currently, however, if people wait, the price of powerplant could go up.
Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats. Current total, you would need 500 large nuclear power plants of 1 gigawatt each, each costing 10 billions, to power current USA consumption, which is 4000 terrawats, so 5 trillions under current prices. Electric cars would add another 4000 terrawats, so you would need another 500. Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats, so you would need another 100.
So over 1000 nuclear power plants for these alone, would cost 10 billion each, which is over 10 trillion total. But expenses dont stop there.

Maintaining nuclear power plants is where the new problem rises. Nuclear power plant employs at least 500 workers, which means it spends 50,000,000 per year on wages alone, which is about 2 billions in 40 years per plant. For 1000 plants, that would cost 2 trillions during 40 years. This is just for wages, assuming same prices of goods as they are now. However, with inflation, this would likely be far greater after 40 years.
But then there is the cost of uranium which could add another 300 billion over 40 years, assuming prices of uranium dont go up due to high demand.

Converting planes to electric: This is right now probably even impossible with huge planes, but big airplanes would require huge batteries which would cost a lot to make. They would also add a lot to electricity consumption. Air planes in USA probably use over 100 billion liters of fuel. This likely means electric planes would add over 1000 terrawats to consumption, which would require 100 more power plants.

Converting ships to electric: Ships would also require large batteries like planes, and they use lots of fuel too, so likewise would use lots of electricity too.

Converting trucks to electric: Trucks require bigger batteries than cars do, and trucks would consume more electricity. Trucks would likely add around 1000 terrawats to electricity consumption, so another 100 nuclear plants would have to be built for them.

Converting industry to electric: Lots of money would need to be payed to replace machines powered by fuel with machines powered by electricity.

Converting military planes, tanks and transport and other vehicles to electric: USA has thousands of military planes, military trucks, transporters, tanks, battle vehicles...ect. All these would have to be adjusted to work on battery power. US military spends lots of fuel: 16,000,000,000 liters of fuel per year. But if tanks and airplanes were converted to be powered by batteries, they would not only require much more expensive batteries than the ones in cars, but they would use more electricity. With over 30,000 vehicles and planes, and price of battery being at least ten times that of a car, about 80,000, it could cost 2,400,000,000 dollars and with other parts being replaced and with cost of replacement and workforce, it could cost up to 50 billions.
It will also be necessary to invest in battery research, as current batteries arent good enough to power tanks or military aircraft.
Further, US military uses about 5% of total US fuel, but it would likely use more than 5% of total electric energy if it went full electric, which would be about 500 terrawats, so 50 more nuclear power plants would be required for military alone.

Resource shortage is another problem. If there is shortage of any raw material needed for batteries or power plants, their price will go up. But with 100 times increased demand for batteries in case of cars, and with expensive batteries needed for planes and ships, it is very likely demand would drive the price up.

Factories for batteries would also have to be built, as increase in demand by 100 times means much more battery factories have to be payed for than what we have now. Those factories would also use electicity, adding to expense and would add to demand as well.

So between 1400 to 2000 nuclear power plants of 1 gigawatt would have to be built to power a completely electric USA.

With 10 billion per power plant, that costs 14,000,000,000,000 or 14 trillions. Add to that the wages for workers at power plants, thats additional 2,5 trillions.

Buying 200 million electric cars would likely cost over 20 trillion in 10 years.

So thats 36 trillion in total.

Now, the price to convert military vehicles and aircraft to electrical, and the price to convert commercial planes to electrical, is a bit unknown, because I dont know if they have to take them apart and build them from start or not.

However, there is one more problem, especially in USA. The population doesnt want electric cars. So anyone investing 14 trillions to build 1400 nuclear power plants would have no guarantee that there will be buyers for his electricity, as there is no guarantee that all or even majority of people will switch to electric cars. So in case someone invests 14 trillions and people dont switch to electric after 10 years, he would be at the huge loss with no market for electricity he produces. This would stop people from investing in nuclear power plants.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
1 nuclear power plant costs $4 billion to build.
Maybe for the government to build. Modular fission reactors are not that expensive. And even if it were, it's still lots cheaper than the current green energy subsidies over the years. If the same amount of propaganda directed at saying the world is going to end was instead directed at promoting the nuclear power industry, there would be nowhere near the amount of costly regulation in place, and we can once again be allowed to build nuclear energy cheaply like we did back in 1970.

But propaganda isn't created by the people. It's created by the ultra rich controlling a socialist government, and nuclear power isn't nearly as profitable at any construction cost compared to  the ongoing "renewable" green energy scam.

As bad as you guys think Capitalism is, Socialism is simply giving a loaded gun (authority to kill) to ultra rich Capitalists. This is why we can't have nice things like nuclear power.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Controlled nuclear fusion is God's first choice for energy because: It is the epitome of God's wisdom as he created the Creation.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Some sources say it takes 2000 to 7000 workers to construct a nuclear power plant.

Even assuming minimum number and minimum wage in 10 years, it adds up to big number.

2000 x 800,000 = 1,600,000,000

Plus the costs of materials.

So yeah, I can see it going easily as high as 10 billion under current prices.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
This is what socialism costs.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, Socialism drives prices up, and capitalism is a race to deplete resources through greed.

There is no perfect way, since if things are cheaper, then they will be depleted quickly, and if things are expensive, then life standards are low.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I'd rather deplete resources through greed than socialist incompetency. At least people will get some very good use out of it. 

Besides, to live is greed. Only suicidal people are not greedy.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, capitalism is like those people who waste all money buying themselves things and then hope some miracle will save them once they run out of money. Thats why socialism is unavoidable in democracy. Government is the miracle which greedy people want to make use of, and there is plenty of greedy people in capitalism.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
You mean corruption via Socialism is unavoidable. Yes. The government is greedy and wants to survive just like the rest of us.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Capitalism fails, because it teaches people to be greedy, and then as a result you have a greedy government. So yeah, Capitalism is a path to Socialism.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Socialism is a death cult. If you don't take care of yourself, you will die.
Greed = Life.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Will Socialism win?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It's a death cult. Of course it can't win. Look at Russia.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So who will win?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Capitalism has the best chance t creating AI and turning us all into immortal machines.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So capitalism is Borg and we cannot resist.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Price of uranium sometimes increases by 90%.
Where is your source for this?

Electric car buying: 6 trillion to 12 trillion dollars currently for 200 million cars, could double in 10 years, which means it could cost up to 24 trillion by the time nuclear power plants begin producing.
I don't know where you got these numbers, but it's not like people would buy electric cars all at once and How Many Vehicles Are There in the US? | Bankrate states there are only 100 million electric cars in the US.  But people would merely have the next car they buy be electric; so they would spend the $30K on a car regardless of if it was electric or gas powered.

USA uses about 4000 terrawatts of energy.

Having all cars as electric cars would add another 4000 terrawatts to consumption, which means 10 trillion dollars would need to be payed for power plants currently, however, if people wait, the price of powerplant could go up.
how much energy does one electric car use per mile? - Search (bing.com) states that the average car uses 394 kwh/month.  100 million cars is 39.4 tw/month for the nation.  Per year, that is 472.8 terrawatts/year.  It's not a radical increase.

Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats.
Industry is already mostly electric.  When was the last time you went into work and saw gasoline powered lights?  Lights are already electric.

Maintaining nuclear power plants is where the new problem rises. 
After nuclear power matenience (including workers) companies still get a 14% of their investment back every year.  If someone wanted $100 from you and in exchange, they would pay you $14 every year for the rest of your life, then you would be a fool to pass that up.

Converting planes to electric: This is right now probably even impossible with huge planes, but big airplanes would require huge batteries which would cost a lot to make. They would also add a lot to electricity consumption. 
Planes do use a lot of fuel, but they are incredibly rare compared to cars; so much so that for every 100 liters of gasoline the collective of cars uses, the collective of planes uses only 16.  The collective of ships (which you mention) uses about 8 on this scale.

Converting trucks to electric: Trucks require bigger batteries than cars do
The collective of HD trucks are about 36 liters on the same scale.

 But if tanks and airplanes were converted to be powered by batteries, they would not only require much more expensive batteries than the ones in cars
Right now, battery cost is a huge issue; but that's why cheaper batteries inevitably will be produced.  The computer you are typing on used to be a lot worse and a lot more expensive.  But technology makes leaps.

 The population doesnt want electric cars.
They won't consume them immediately, but as time goes on, they will become more common.

But what's your solution?  You don't want oil, coal, or nuclear.  We need energy in this society.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
average car uses 394 kwh/month.  100 million cars is 39.4 tw/month for the nation.  Per year, that is 472.8 terrawatts/year.  It's not a radical increase.
There are over 270 million vehicles in USA, so 100 million cars is not the only factor. Small electric car maybe uses 394 kwh/month. But trucks, vans, tractors and any larger vehicle uses much more. So you would probably have to multiply your number by 10.

Industry is already mostly electric
27% of the fuel in USA is used by industry.

I don't know where you got these numbers
Average electric car costs 30k to 50k. Multiply that by 100 million and thats 3,000,000,000,000, which is 3 trillions. However, there are 260 million vehicles in USA, and the ones such as trucks would be much more expensive. So it would amount to at least 6 to 12 trillions under current prices, assuming that price doesnt go up due do demand.

Planes do use a lot of fuel, but they are incredibly rare compared to cars; so much so that for every 100 liters of gasoline the collective of cars uses, the collective of planes uses only 16.  The collective of ships (which you mention) uses about 8 on this scale.
Yes, but average car uses 5 liters of fuel per day, multiplied by 100 million is 500 million liters of fuel per day. So planes which use 16 per 100 would still use a lot.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Right now, battery cost is a huge issue; but that's why cheaper batteries inevitably will be produced.  The computer you are typing on used to be a lot worse and a lot more expensive.  But technology makes leaps.
Battery cost is indeed a huge issue, but the idea that cheaper batteries will be produced is nonsense. Things become more expensive in capitalism over time as resources are depleted. However, they can become cheaper if technology makes cost of production lower. But that wont happen in case of batteries, as raw materials needed to make them are expensive.

But what's your solution?  You don't want oil, coal, or nuclear.  We need energy in this society.
As I said, North Korea already solved it with plan economy. Apparently, not letting your population waste fuel comes with its advantages.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, in North Korea you can lower prices by demanding a lower standard of living (AKA limiting the size of your shopping cart)
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, Socialism means consume less now so everyone has more later. Capitalism is the other way around.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
There are over 270 million vehicles in USA
There aren't even 270 million people in the US with driver's licenses.  Some things you read on the internet are just wrong.

Average electric car costs 30k to 50k. Multiply that by 100 million and thats 3,000,000,000,000, which is 3 trillions. However, there are 260 million vehicles in USA, and the ones such as trucks would be much more expensive. So it would amount to at least 6 to 12 trillions under current prices, assuming that price doesnt go up due do demand.
The only time people would replace their cars is if they have too due to their current car being too old.  If they have to replace their car, then they are spending $40K roughly if it's a new car, whether it's electric or gasoline.  If demand goes up, then price goes up, but this leads to supply going up (because more cars would get produced) leading to the price per car decreasing by roughly the same amount that demand caused it to increase, leading to the price being about the same.

Yes, but average car uses 5 liters of fuel per day, multiplied by 100 million is 500 million liters of fuel per day. So planes which use 16 per 100 would still use a lot.
It wouldn't be a significent increase to the vehicle production needs for energy if all cars eventually become electric.

However, they can become cheaper if technology makes cost of production lower. But that wont happen in case of batteries, as raw materials needed to make them are expensive.
How much are the raw materials for batteries?  It's basicly a bunch of metals and alloys.  It's like your computer (which has an electric battery).  It used to be very expensive, but things became cheaper as the technology production gets better.

As I said, North Korea already solved it with plan economy. Apparently, not letting your population waste fuel comes with its advantages.
I think you have lost this exchange by saying the US population should use the energy levels of North Korea.  But if that's really what you believe, then never go to DART again; you are using too much energy.  I'm merely wanting my computer's energy supply to eventually come from nuclear sources.  You want to basicly abolish energy consumption.