Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

gao.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#181

Post by roenxi »

IanCal wrote: post #179
roenxi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If wealth getting concentrated is so good, why not only allow one person to have everything? See how odd that seems? Isn't that fairly close to what we have now? I don't see any theoretical issues. Obviously if we literally mean one person I don't think the market would pick that as an optimum outcome, but there isn't an issue with the idea in principle. Besides, the alternative is to have a relative small committe…

> Isn't that fairly close to what we have now? I don't see any theoretical issues. Massive concentration of wealth has a few outcomes you may find disagreeable or sub-optimal * Huge concentration of power in smaller numbers of people, chosen for unrelated skills, heavily tied to luck * People with huge amounts of power being able to make extremely sub-optimal decisions and still be entirely fine. Elon can buy and run…

While I have no objection to long ranty posts - I write enough of them myself - as a matter of practicality I'm going to ignore most of it and stick to the questions to keep the walls of text under control.

> You can look at that and say "this is optimal" but I am very unsure as to what you're then measuring.

Well, we started back in ~1,000AD with 0 people who own such a boat. Now in ~2,000AD we have >1 person with such a boat. Ideally we'd like to be as close as possible to a world where everyone has such a boat. So 1 person isn't ideal but, y'know it is a start and we're going to need to have 1 person before we get to 2. Probably it is about as good as we can manage right now. Bezos is a good candidate for the 1st person, he's done some pretty amazing things.

> Why would anyone go hungry and uneducated if Taylor Swift is angry? What is the process by which you see that happening?

She might not donate the money. She's choosing to give money away because it won't impact her lifestyle, so if you take money from her on the theory that it doesn't impact her lifestyle maybe she stops. And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives.

> Let's take TS as an example. What is it she is being rewarded for, is it efficient allocation of capital? Is that why people buy her songs? Is that what's made her so incredibly wealthy? Do you think that if she was rewarded somewhat less, that she'd stop making music? Stop touring? In fact, imagine she never got more money. Do you think she's making music because she's saving up for something she cannot currently afford? Does she have a lifestyle that's unsustainable without earning even more money?

Yes to all of the above. I assume. I don't know much about Taylor Swift except she's got a lot of money and she sings.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#182

Post by IanCal »

roenxi wrote: post #181
IanCal wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that fairly close to what we have now? I don't see any theoretical issues. Massive concentration of wealth has a few outcomes you may find disagreeable or sub-optimal * Huge concentration of power in smaller numbers of people, chosen for unrelated skills, heavily tied to luck * People with huge amounts of power being able to make extremely sub-optimal decisions and still be entirely fine. Elon can buy and run…

While I have no objection to long ranty posts - I write enough of them myself - as a matter of practicality I'm going to ignore most of it and stick to the questions to keep the walls of text under control. > You can look at that and say "this is optimal" but I am very unsure as to what you're then measuring. Well, we started back in ~1,000AD with 0 people who own such a boat. Now in ~2,000AD we have >1 person with s…

If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run".

> And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives.

Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts?

> Yes to all of the above. I assume.

I have to point out that you are likely looking at the world in a drastically different way to most.

You think that

1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources

2. Taylor Swift is being rewarded for efficient allocation of capital and not her songwriting, singing, etc.

3. Taylor Swift, who has been singing for many years at lower amounts of wealth, would stop if her fortune dropped and she had to release songs in order to gain more wealth

4. Taylor Swift is making music because there is something she wishes to purchase that she is saving up for. She does not wish to make music, and is putting up with it to finally afford something.

I think most people believe that musicians who are extremely popular for their music would continue to make music if they could live an extremely lavish lifestyle without a care in the world for money but their net worth didn't increase. I think that most people would prefer some measure of how well things are going that look at their own life, or how many people have food.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#183

Post by iso1631 »

scottlamb wrote: post #103
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A wealth tax will yield revenue for the next thirty years at 30 times what it will yield this year. Isn't this the opposite of how a wealth tax works? The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers. The negative effect on the price is outsized because most people hold long-term rather than buying or selling in any given y…

> The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers. Is that assuming the tax money is going into the void? I agree it might force roughly 0.8% of shares to be sold in a given year. But as to not adding any new buyers: no one's being forced to buy stock in the same way, but shouldn't someone be getting the money and potentiall…

> Most of them may waste it on silly things like food and rent,

Which then goes to the owners. I believe this is called "trickle up economics", and unlike trickle down actually has evidence in reality.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#184

Post by chris_va »

jjk166 wrote: post #168
chris_va wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I don't think the conclusion is necessarily wrong or that they shouldn't have investigated, but I also think the cost to the taxpayers might increase due to the underlying nuance. The report implies that the guidelines are correct, but doesn't really quantify the counterfactual. Again, devil's advocate

It is not the Auditor's job to determine that the rules are optimal, it is only to determine whether they are being followed. Presumably when the rule was instated someone had good reason to believe it would be beneficial; and if someone makes a compelling argument that following the rule is not beneficial, it should be repealed, not ignored.

GAO's task is a bit broader, no?

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#185

Post by roenxi »

IanCal wrote: post #182
roenxi wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I have no objection to long ranty posts - I write enough of them myself - as a matter of practicality I'm going to ignore most of it and stick to the questions to keep the walls of text under control. > You can look at that and say "this is optimal" but I am very unsure as to what you're then measuring. Well, we started back in ~1,000AD with 0 people who own such a boat. Now in ~2,000AD we have >1 person with s…

If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run". > And she's probably more efficient in spending it than the practical alternatives. Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts? > Yes to all of the above. I assume. I have to point out that you ar…

> If you're measuring it as "how many people own superyachts" that's probably different from how most people want to measure "how well is the planet being run".

A disturbing number of people are financially incapable to the point where they struggle with concepts like spending less money than they earn. There is a significant tension between what they want to measure and what economic optimal looks like. The economy is there to maximise peace and prosperity, the people who think otherwise should be kept well away from the levers of power.

> Why? This seems like an odd statement. Why is a singer more efficient at doing this than a team of analysts?

I assume she's got a team of analysts working on it. I doubt she manages her own money directly. They're probably pretty good.

> You think that

> 1. We should be pushing for more superyachts, as an immediate measure of efficient allocation of resources

I think that a world where one person has a superyacht is better than a world where nobody does. In much the same way that a world in the 60s someone probably owned a really expensive mainframe and there'd be people moaning about how outrageous it was that someone could spend so much money on a big calculator. The market doesn't seem to want to give everyone a superyacht, and I doubt it would be efficient to jump right in to it. For obvious reasons

Points 2 to 4 though seem like an accurate restatement. With the caveat that my knowledge of Swift is patchy and distant.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#186

Post by __float »

iamnothere wrote: post #43
__float wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the fuel constraints the French have that we don't? Is it geographic (we have a lot more unused/undesirable than France, for example), regulatory, etc?

They had access to uranium sourced cheaply from former North African colonies, but now they no longer have that access. We have ample deposits and (for now) easy access to Canadian deposits. I imagine that there are deals in place to secure that access at an efficient price given the national security angle at play.

Ah, you meant differences in access to fuel, not differences in storing the waste.

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#187

Post by inigyou »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159
inigyou wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides, modern market forces are central planning. Bezos central plans. So does Musk. So does whoever is in charge of Microsoft right now. To avoid this you need a wide variety of small to medium sized businesses instead of a few large ones. A wealth tax may help this happen.

What budget incentive does a wealth tax create for Congress when considering a non-tax policy that would reduce the wealth of billionaires by allowing more small and medium businesses to compete with them in their industries?

What is that non-tax policy?

Re: GAO: DOE Is Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Nuclear Cleanup

#188

Post by butvacuum »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #63
butvacuum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine

Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people. In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil. With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3

I think it's probably because- even with a trivially verifyable source- the 300x lethal dose for 9 billion people is a knee jerk "no way!"
Post reply on HN