4 ms·
If the argument is completely flawed, then that would mean there is an infinite amount of money to spend reducing very small risks. That doesn't seem right. We
by Factfull 6y ago
If the argument is completely flawed, then that would mean there is an infinite amount of money to spend reducing very small risks. That doesn't seem right. We can't, for example, spend infinite amounts on making cars safer, because they would become unaffordable and more polluting (heavier) very quickly. We would end up with no cars. Ironically, this kind of is the path that nuclear is on: the things are made so safe that no one can afford them anymore. The opportunity cost of no nuclear is seldom brought into the argument.
- neilwilson 6y ago"hen that would mean there is an infinite amount of money to spend reducing very small risks." There is. But there isn't an infinite amount of stuff. And since to spend you have to have something to buy the spending stops when the real resource runs out. That's the actual limit - until you use some sort of power dynamics to start moving physical resources from their current uses. Hence the shortage of PPE at the start of the Covid crisis. All the money in the world; not enough masks to go around. There was "demand", but no "effective demand". Money is essentially inductively connected to the real economy, not directly connected. As an analogy in electrical terms money is apparent power, and the stuff it buys is real power.