4 ms·
That's just one of few reasons why nuclear power plants shouldn't be owned by private corporations. They should be owned and ran by national operators, so then
by gambiting 5y ago
That's just one of few reasons why nuclear power plants shouldn't be owned by private corporations. They should be owned and ran by national operators, so then you don't have the issue of insurable events or worry about private operators not paying for decommissioning the plants at the end of their livespan. Power generation is a matter of national security, so nations should be paying for those plants from the national budget.
- Arnt 5y agoWorry about insurable events doesn't go away — the central bank can only print money as long as trust in the currency stays, and that trust isn't infinite.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> the central bank can only print money as long as trust in the currency stays, and that trust isn't infinite. The central bank can print money without bound. Some of the effects of money printing changes with confidence in the currency, but the core effects that it targets don't really change until people radically change behavior to reduce use of the currency as a medium or even measuring stick for routine transactions.
- Arnt 5y agoIf people stop treating it as money, then is the thing the central bank prints still money? It can print more of the thing, sure. Anyway, this isn't relevant to my argument upstream — it just changes the reason why nuclear reactors aren't properly pricable in our market economy, from "can't be insured due to worst case" to "worst case can destroy the currency". (It also doesn't rule out other argumens, pro or contra.)