What's wrong with a global free market? Would my standard of living improve if such a thing were implemented in it's purest, unadulterated form?
>>375987
You would be exploited, poor and most likely sold as a slave. Because commoditization.
No.
The only people who seriously advocate for total laissez faire capitalism nowadays are Steffan Molyneux and other such worshipers of the Cult of the Invisible Hand
Give us one instance in history where there has been a totally laissez-faire economy OP, and I'll change my mind on it.
>>375987
That depends. What's your value? What are your skills? What leverage do you have when bargaining with your employer?
Global free market implies absolutely no restrictions on how one can perform. Assuming you are highly skilled and ambitious, you would most likely be very well off.
Essentially, it would look very similar to what we have today, just with a few extra countries populations mixed in. Compared to most of human history, the Global economy is u restrictive as fuck.
>>376013
yeah i meant if there were zero restrictions hypothetically
>>376013
The only thing I can think of was the Belgian Congo, which is really a textbook example as to why you shouldn't let one man monopolize economic progress.
>>376050
Right, but in what sense does it then differ from communism, i.e an ideal that will never happen?
>>375987
No, you would be paid very little, worked very hard and all around be miserable.
Be prepared to be sold into slavery, get addicted to heroin, and/or join the communist uprising.
>>375987
>in it's purest, unadulterated form
>>376081
Ironically what you described sounds exactly like Russia
>>376004
I thought Stefan Molyneux was some sort of Marxist - he always talks about how people use other people like cattle, and calling the freedom an illusion used by those in power to make people work better (because humans work better in freedom, or believed freedom).
>>376085
russia is no longer communist, and is now ultracapitalist iirc
>>376071
okay then what is the ideal state of a global free market that will never happen?
>>376094
The point is that a laissez-faire market will never happen, because states will always regulate.
>>376090
Nostalgia for Stalin and the good results of the CPRF would like to have a talk with you. Though they aren't communist anymore, they are pretty far from anyone's definition of free market capitalism.
>>376090
Really the end results of both were the same.
Just now, Russians are more aware of how shitty their existence is.
>>376062
>A dictator forces people off their farms, and murders dozens of people
>"Free market"
When did this board get so shit
>>376099
This, exactly. I think the "free" in free market is a solely hypothetical standard.
>>376099
then why do people bother advocating it?
>>376109
Even as a dirty leftist sympathizer, the conflagration of terms there pisses me off.
>>376112
I think the point here is that our ideologies never capture pure "reality" so our standards of judging their effectiveness are mostly arbitrary.
>>376090
are you insane? Russia ultracapitalist?
We need to teach economics to historians asap
>>376121
>assuming any significant number of /his/ posters are actual historians
>>376112
For the same reason people advocate communism. They are idealists.
>>376132
describe to me then the vision that these idealists have of their free market utopia
>>376110
Not only that, the examples that people use historically as proof of some free market, is somehow always the U.S, which has never even been close to a laissez-faire economy.
Without workers' rights, what bargaining power do you really have, OP? Companies could just hire union-busters to disrupt any collective strikes by violence and intimidation like they did in the olden days, not that they'll need to with open borders and Wang Chong willing to do your job for $2/hr.
>I could buy a gun
And the rich can afford better ones, along with advanced security systems and the money to hire paramilitary guards.
>>376140
The idea is that government is a negative influence on the economy, for a lot of economic reasons, such as inefficiency, price control creating problems with supply and demand etc.
And the fact that they associate government control with ethics, and consider government force immoral, regardless of the consequences, i.e taxes is the same as a mobster stealing from you etc.
So they want a world in which there is no force, essentially, depending on what kind of free market person you talk to. Some of them are anarchist free marketers, others recognize the necessity of the state such as minarchists, who want a night-watchman state.
They essentially want the state out of anything that has to do with the economy.
>>376147
You have the bargaining power of contracts, and like you mentioned, strikes.
>>376088
>I thought Stefan Molyneux was some sort of Marxist
You've gone off the deep end. There's no hope for a libertarian this retarded ever recovering.
>>376140
Can you not read Atlas Shrugged or For a New Liberty? Jesus Christ. Stop being a lazy fuck.
David Friedman is the only anarcho-capitalist that comes off as rational whatsoever btw.
>>376159
>You have the bargaining power of contracts
Contracts require bargaining power in the first place in order to lever an agreement that doesn't leave you in poor conditions.
>like you mentioned, strikes.
I also mentioned union busting, which was quite effective before organized labor gained government concessions. The rich are always going to be better armed and probably have hired muscle on their side.
>>376176
If nation-wide (As a general idea of area) happened, it could be crippling enough to bring businessmen to the table.
>>376193
You're getting pretty close to anarcho-syndicalism there, pal. That your intention?
>>376197
No particularly. I'm not even an anarchist. But there's nothing that would stop the workers, and it would work in the context of capitalism.
>>376214
It's just that the general strike is pretty much the most powerful agent of change in most forms of syndicalism, especially the anarchist flavor. Just wondering senpai.
>>376239
What the fuck I meant to write senpai, not sempai. Freudian slip?
>>376193
What makes you think businessmen couldn't organize a nation-wide response? They could also just import foreign workers without loyalty to the unions and tolerance for shitty living conditions. That's assuming you even get the workers in a specific industry to strike for long enough, lots of people are stupid or just don't care and would see it as a chance to gain employment. Workers outside that industry will also be pissed off with the temporary lack of products/services from the strike and might not support them.
Nationwide collective bargaining is basically what some European nations do now iirc, but it's government mediated. Labor organization on that scale basically lead to the workers rights we have now, so you could just be eliminating hard-earned legislation for it to be enforced all over again.
>>375987
The thing wrong with a global free market is assuming that the people are capable of making rational decisions.
Any global free market will have everyone start with equal opportunities, provided a uniform distribution of resources everywhere.
This will last roughly one generation.
After this generation that will never happen again.
Any attempt at competition will be squashed because you can easily be undercut by people with more available capital.
Any attempt to innovate will be levered out by the oppositions marketing arm, forcing you to bleed capital until you can convince people that that f.ex. AC power doesn't kill kittens.
Any new creation will be easily copied as the lack of restrictions on the competition means having to buy up the means to produce your innovation entirely and production costs for something like a computer program are essentially 0.
And generally any supposed upside to free market tends to be portrayed as "Businessman act as if there was already a law for it in place because people won't accept less".
>>375987
>purest, unadulterated form
Don't wait up, you need anarchy to get a completely lassez faire economy.
However, freeing the market, that is, both reducing or eliminating restrictions on trade, as well as reducing or eliminating the portion of the economy that is occupied by the state would accelerate the improvement of the standard of living for the whole world.
This is because the market provides the incentives needed for long term economic growth, such as responsibility, resource efficiency, and the overall flexibility of the economy to ensure it can adapt and survive. Moreso, the private sector of the economy is were production is concentrated, whereas the public sector is almost solely consumption-based, and not even good consumption, like getting that car you need to get to work, but useless consumption like the millions of bureaucratic "jobs" that flood the public sector.
>>376242
*senpai
>>375987
free market is an utopia.
liberturdians are the new communists
>>376132
>>376140
>>376154
This idealism is much stronger than the communist's: it's understandable for someone to think that with enough control from a well-intending government you could manage a country's resources in a fair way. If the people in power aren't corrupt, then attemps to take advantage of the system by individuals can be systematically repressed.
But thinking that the *absence* of regulations does not breed undesirable economic practices requires a very special mind; this premise would require for *everyone* to be well intended and non-corrupt, not just government officials.
>>376193
So, it's better to have an unregulated labor market because you can solve problems by going on a nation-wide strike?
Even if it works, how is bringing production to a halt nation-wide until demands are met better than having regulations impose those conditions on the market on the first place?
Also, remember that unions can be infiltrated, it's political direction twisted, gain enemies through false-flag actions, and fracture ideologically; you cannot depend on thousands of people reaching an agreement.
>>376913
>this premise would require for *everyone* to be well intended and non-corrupt, not just government officials.
Not entirely true, as long as you don't steal, defraud or anything along those lines (violations of laissez faire even when not commited by the state), the only way you can get rich is by voluntary trade, and there is literally nothing wrong with trade. The idea is that self interest, or even greed can work in favor of society as a whole, as long as the methods used to satiate said greed are not against basic property and human rights.
>>375987
>if such a thing were implemented in it's purest, unadulterated form?
Almost any system becomes retarded if you focus on "ideological purity" rather than "practical results."
>>377134
>as long as you don't steal, defraud
>the only way you can get rich is by voluntary trade
My very problem is with legal, voluntary trade. You underestimate how much you can fuck up completely unregulated markets.
The premise that both sides are rational individuals acting in their best interests is groundless. People who make a living by moving large quantities of money know a lot better the ramifications of their actions than the average Joe going down the store to buy a can of tuna.
Joe doesn't know wher the tuna comes from, and is not going to think about the ramifications of the price it has and how it influences the local market every time he wants to make a tuna salad. But someone who lives from selling tuna knows that just by lowering the price a bit and baring a little short-lived loss, you can dump a foreign market, causing the local fishing industry to shut down, all because there were no taxes for Brazilian tuna in Singapore.
You don't need a convoluted conspiracy for businessmen to lower wages colectively: without minimum wage laws, they'll just do it, and no amount of strikes is going to feed them.
>as long as the methods used to satiate said greed are not against basic property and human rights.
The only realistic way is to expand greatly the current laws on property and human rights to take into account the far-reaching ramifications of all possible business practices.
You be asking to replace government intervention with a large, intricate set of regulations that will have exploits anyways.
>>377550
Regarding your first example, you are only focusing on the visible effects of tuna dumping. The market, just like the material world, has a reaction to every action. Take in account the "invisible" effects, and you'll find that more often than not, the result of free enterprise is an increase in the quality of life for all parties.
This short text by Friedman touches on the subject:
http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/newsweek/NW.02.20.1978.pdf
Regarding the second point, I don't see how you interpret that as a need for more regulation.
1. Don't steal
2. Don't commit fraud
3. Don't murder
4. Don't kidnap
5. Don't enslave
etc.
These are all very simple conditions that don't need books upon books of regulation to be established.
>>378151
Interesting read. You are right, the US benefits greatly with open markets, but that is due to the state of the dollar.
My country's currency is not an international asset, and it's an overwhelming history lesson that free market rapes us. The whole idea of "let each country produce what it produces the best" only applies whenever a country has any capability of producing the product.
My country has a lot of potential for industrialization, and we've seen lightweight industry flourish in times of need, but it requires so much time to train professionals and encourage local investment, that whenever the market is "opened up" we go back to living from the earth.
Your rules are worthless, now it's you who can't see the invisible consequences. Even "playing by the rules" you can bend the market to its knees.
I don't know what to quote on this, go look up all the stuff the Rockefeller did to the workers, or how through "fair play" the banks caused the 30's crisis.
>>378346
I'll look on that.
Let me tell you that I'm not an americlap. My country's currency isn't worth shit. And free international trade benefits us greatly, and has done so specially since the late 80's.
>>378371
Free market does have a constructive power, and it's true that it's most efficient to have people produce what they are best at. Also, I've lived first hand the mistake of too much protectionism. But complete lack of regulations can lead to very unfortunate situations for some.
Also, by traditional "don't steal, don't kill" rules, you can still move money around to put somebody in office in a foreign power, a political puppet, and have him introduce the politics that maximize your profits.
Here in Argentina during the 90's, behind the premise that government-owned services were a loss of money, lots of state enterprises were virtually given away. For example, public railways went to shit, because it's most profitable for the owner to lower the quality of service, while in fact transportation has a GREAT impact on a nation's ability to export goods and make everyone go to work. So you had a situation where across the nation railways were closed, and even in urban areas the service went downhil. It was a huge cost for the nation, even when the owners were maximazing gains.
Also, our nuclear program went to shit, because there are shills everywhere for gas and oil. Forming nuclear scientists would benefit the country greatly, but there is nobody other than the state in a position to foster research. Because, you know, it's a free market, and there aren't ways to regulate that oil companies don't give money to green movements to speak against nuclear.
>>378454
Surely senpai, you must see all the government meddling inherent on what you say.
>lots of state enterprises were virtually given away
Doomed from the start, state enterprises are forceful monopolies, there was no pretty way out of that mess
>our nuclear program went to shit, because there are shills everywhere for gas and oil.
And who did the shills shilled to? Was it not to the state?
> there aren't ways to regulate that oil companies don't give money to green movements to speak against nuclear.
they only do so because they know they can influence the state, if the state had no power to fuck up nuclear, there would be no sense in shilling
>>375987
>Would my standard of living improve if such a thing were implemented in it's purest, unadulterated form?
No, unregulated speculation would start causing arbitrary shortages.
>>378637
how so?
>>378649
It's been happening to food supplies in the middle east since commodities speculation was deregulated in 2000, if you want a current example.
Look a freemarket is good at certain points but, you need to balance it with isolationism at times and you have to realize a lot of people will be culled for it.
eventually the freemarket would cause a global system meritocracy, which is what we all want no? But it is the Job of the government to serve and protect the interests of the Corporations and the citizens.
>>376147
>implying a people's militia won't be formed to prevent just that
>>378680
>isolationism
do you think the economy ends in a country's borders? If New York were to isolate itself from trade with California, would it really benefit?
>>375987
If you mean getting rid of regulation, then standards of living from quality of product to the rights of workers would certainly go down. And no, the market wouldn't fix it, we had to create laws to fix those problems in the first place.
>>378700
Isolationism would be for protection's sake, for the sake of building the country up to the point where it doesn't need foreign deals to function.
The USA for example would be isolated from other countries but the states would be allowed to go to their fullest forms, the private sector having full reign.
My point is the freemarket can't work by itself, it needs to be propped up and the people need to be prepared for it.
>>378741
When you say "protect", you are not actually protecting the entire economy, or society, but instead a handful for producing sectors, at the expense of consumers as a whole, and even other producing sectors, specially those in manufacturing that needed the cheap resource imports.
>My point is the freemarket can't work by itself, it needs to be propped up
Every attempt to "prop up" the market, save from the basic requirements of property rights has counterproductive hidden consequences.
>>375987
>purest, unadulterated form
Government has a role in the economy because pic related. Though I agree that we lean too heavily towards government control due to corruption and misinformed voters.
Protectionism only benefits a country in the short term.
Foreign competition puts people out of business because consumers in the same country prefer the foreign competitors. Jobs don't exist to provide people with welfare, they have to be economically productive, so change ought to occur eventually, at a pace that ensures people can adapt to new economic circumstances.
Protectionism can ensure that it is more economical for industrial centers to be located on the nation's soil, but a country is not its territory, it is its people. If people were free to migrate to industrial centers elsewhere then protectionism would have no benefit.
Free markets are not always practical but they are something to work towards. The goal should not be to achieve ideological perfection but rather to remove clear tangible barriers to economic efficiency.
>>378612
>forceful monopolies
>there was no pretty way out of that mess
Please be joking. I just explained how much worse was under private control. I'm not even entirely against free markets, but things as vital as transport and energy are too delicate not to watch over. American children die in the middle east because of your dependency on oil.
>And who did the shills shilled to? Was it not to the state?
to the people. People do not support nuclear power here, and neither private companies nor politicians can put forward projects because of that. This also invalidates your last point, which was based on thinking the shills were for the government.
What's more, people have the idea the Argentina should NOT get into anything high-tech at all. That a backwards way of thinking was put forward by people who benefited from it, and I don't see any realistic situation where the free market will prove them wrong. Historically, it's been shown that lack of government incentive for research in Argentina only results in all decent scientists moving abroad, stagnating the nation. The free market does work, but not for us.
And the government isn't "shilled". The last administration supported nuclear development, but our next president outright has the ex CEO of Shell as the secretary of energy.
You must be tempted here to say again that the problem is government meddling, but you are stupid if you think that even on "free markets", governments can't take decisions that affect the economy. Everything affects the economy. You cannot even control the borders without affecting the labor market one way or the other. You cannot imprison drug dealers nor cartel leaders without affecting the economy.
"Free market" only means the influence will be undercover, but those who are the best at networking will profit.
Just answer me this: How can this country rely on fosil fuel? How is the free market going to foster nuclear research? It's too much of a long term commitment for investors
>>375987
>free market
>ctrl+f smith
>not found
Confirmed for /his/ not even knowing what a free market actually is and thinking free market = deregulated market.
>>375987
The problem with international free trade is that you, the skilled first-worlder who wants a decent wage, has to compete with billions of unskilled third-worlders who will work for pennies.
Guess who finds it easier to get a job in an international free market?
>>379140
I'm telling you, it was worse under private control because the state handed over a monopoly, if the enterprise had emerged from market competition you wouldnt be complaining.
>the people
What are the people going to do by themselves? Nothing really, its because the people can appeal to the state by voting that they are shilled towards. Remove the power to decide who wins and who loses, and you remove the reason for shilling.
>What's more, people have the idea the Argentina should NOT get into anything high-tech at all.
The only way they can achieve that is by State intervention. Moreso, a country does not need its own scientific research, that too can be imported.
>Just answer me this: How can this country rely on fosil fuel? How is the free market going to foster nuclear research? It's too much of a long term commitment for investors.
Yes, RIGHT NOW, it doesnt make sense, because petroleum is dirt cheap, while nuclear isnt. As petroleum starts to run out, its price will rise, when it rises above the costs of developing nuclear energy, then you'll see the investment, meanwhile it makes no economic sense.
>>379157
>billions of unskilled third-worlders who will work for pennies
Ever wonder why and how telephones went from being a costly and cumbersome luxury to affordable mini computers? Its not because the iPhone is made with honest american union jobs.
>>375987
Free markets don't remain free.
Eventually and inevitably, larger and larger conglomerates form and collect more money and power to control the market, in order to collect more money and power still, and this continues until... You get the corporatism you see today.
If this wasn't the case, all markets today would be free. It's not so much that the government is interfering in the markets, that the market is interfering with the government, to make it do so on its behalf. When there is no such central entity through which the top dogs of the market have to bargain through, they simply create one - and one can see this, on a small scale, on any black market, where the various cartels and mafias conspire to regulate the trade.
It's simply the inevitable evolution of capitalism, or any other form of free trade.
>>379330
Actually, in the US at least, that happened while the phone company was still a monopoly, and they phones were made here, oddly enough.
Sometimes, monopoly works.
>>379390
I'm sorry, what?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/01/25/the-real-reason-the-u-s-doesnt-make-iphones-we-wouldnt-want-to/
>>379355
>You get the corporatism you see today.
We've had a government intervening in the market since it's creation, so your argument is flawed.
>>379418
I'm sorry, you said "telephones" not "cell phones".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
I have to remember the bulk of folks here aren't old enough to know how to use one of these, and likely aren't referring to them when they say "telephone".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkuirEweZvM
>>379427
Not everywhere, and the result has been the same, everywhere, and everytime. Indeed, even when a corporation moves into a nation with insufficient government for its needs, it tends to create one, as is often seen throughout the developing world, and in many cases, governments have been literally born from markets, rather than the reverse. Certain elements of the market will always seek to regulate the market to their advantage.
Trade inevitably has winners and losers, and most of the time, the winners will want to rig the game, to win even more. It's just human nature and ambition.
The "true capitalism hasn't never been tried!" is even more erroneous than the communist claim - it's exactly how we got to where we are today.
>>379475
But this is why corporations usually don't move into nations in the first place if they don't absolutely have to. Corporations buy materials from shady mining companies instead of doing it themselves because it's easier and cheaper that way.
>>379471
Well, someone is better off. But the question of who is kind of the whole question of trade economics
>>379496
Families of the lost manufacturing jobs are worse off.
Everyone that bought an iPhone, plus the families of the people that got a new iPhone-related job (both local and foreign) are better off.
>>379493
Yes, and what do corporations do when the mining thugs start screwing them over? That's right, they bribe and prop up the ineffective government, until it has military or law enforcement sufficient to crack down on the mining thugs and enforce their will. Same deal when the infrastructure is insufficient for their needs. They bring the inept government into debt, building more infrastructure, and redirect that government's resources to building more still, promising it'll allow them to come out of debt, the government either not realizing (or bribed well enough not to care), that in the end, it's all simply being used to extract their nation's resources more efficiently on the corporation's behalf.
...or, going further back in time, just look at all the free trade cities throughout history that eventually formed city states, as a direct result of the heavy commerce that passed through their gates. Inevitably, such governments were founded either by locally successful merchants, or by whichever economic conglomerate had the most interest in controlling the city. In a lot of cases, government is just what happens when the market gets organized. There's a reason the line between the two often gets so painfully blurred.
>>379310
>if the enterprise had emerged from market competition
point taken, I'll think about it. But if we really want to go to the source of the problem, the railroads were originally built and owned by the british government, whose best interest was for raw products to arrive to port. Their power went unchecked for a long time, and the deals were outrageously one.sided (the brits got lots of land sorounding the railroads). Again, it's very common for Argentina to be sold to foreign powers. In this case it was the governement who sold it, but at the time most of the country was mostly empty, so if anything the government's initiave was to put it on hands of the private sector, which I assume is what you'd do. Idk how they endede up being owned by the state though, but I think it was some monopoly shenanigans from the brits.
>What are the people going to do by themselves?
People actively choose their careers based on public opinion. i've seen computer scientists disbelieve that Argentina had sent satelites to space. People don't follow the market when they choose careers, and you have to put the option loudly in front of them for more people to choose it. Public opinion of science in Argentina changed dramatically simply because of how it is encoursged now.
>a country does not need its own scientific research, that too can be imported.
I'm talking mostly about forming professionals, but even so, no, it's not viable to import all research. Research is bound to copyright laws, and there is not a "healthy" rivalry on many subjects: Owners will charge a lot to the poor fuckers who cannot get organized to do it themselves.
How is that free market? You'd have a country limit their investing possibilities because at every stage of developement there is already technology fully available elsewhere, so you never learn to do anything other than grow potatoes.
>meanwhile it makes no economic sense.
Yes, it does, by a landslide. Nobody wants to invest
>Would my standard of living improve
No free trade benefits poor undeveloped countries who do not have good worker conditions.
>inb4 communist
No, Communists are fucking retarded.
The country needs free trade within its borders and restricted trade on imports. The main duty of the government in economy is to ensure a favorable balance of trade.
>>379631
>The main duty of the government in economy is to ensure a favorable balance of trade.
>Your country imposes tariff
>Neighbor country is pissed off
>Neighbor country imposes other tariff
>You're both worse off
Good job
>>379330
We'd be able to afford more expensive things if our wages were higher.
>>379355
You're thinking of corporatocracy, not corporatism.
>>379631
If free markets only work internally, why doesn't it work on a global scale? Then everyone is on the inside of the system, are they not?
>>375987
You could argue that everything is free market in the world and that countries are just groups who cater to the free market on a larger scale with socialism. But I guess that would really be anarchism with super large groups, which is how it is and will be forever.
>>379606
>People actively choose their careers based on public opinion.
Some others do it for money, which there should be plenty in a position where the labor supply is dimished from bad public opinion.
>copyright laws
Many people, myself included, would tell you that copyright laws are not an example of a free market, as the State actively supresses free enterprise over one's propery, in order to "reward" the reasearcher with monopolistic control over his invention.
Some may say that without copyright, there would be no incentive to innovate, but every invention that happened before copyright laws came to exist is evidence of the contrary.
>Yes, it does, by a landslide. Nobody wants to invest
That's what I meant, it makes little sense to invest in something that will result in no profit, but that doesn't mean that the situation wont change, when oil is no longer as cheap, alternative sources of energy will become more attractive to investors.
>>379759
No matter how much you earn, you need a product to exist in order to be able to buy it. The Forbes article on the iPhone explains this. If the iPhone were manufactured in America, it wouldn't just be more expensive, it would cease to exist, it would be so expensive that Apple would go bankrupt, no raise in salary can cover that.
>>376275
Unless, of course, it threatens your bottomline or your monopoly.
With no restrictions, then the worker is exploited and the customer duped into buying only one product from one service.
Example: Living in fucking Montana. We have one ISP because they bought the other guy. They provide quality service when there's another game in town like in say Washington or Oregon, but out here it's "We promise 60, but you'll be happy with 6. What are you gonna do, switch?"
>>380721
Have you ever thought that goverment regulations are behind said monopoly?
I doubt its easy and cheap to get the necessary permits for the providence of internet services, even worse for the building of necessary infrastructure.
You live in Montana, next to Canada, you think its easy for a Canadian ISP to set up shop in Montana just like that?
>dfw this thread is almost 100% shitpost and ad hominem free
not coincidentally, nobody is discussing marxist theory. Truly the best of feels
>>380503
I'll go straight to the last point, point taken for the others.
>it makes little sense to invest in something that will result in no profit
No, I meant that it DOES make economic sense, but only for the country as a whole, and not at all for private investors, it's a stalemate.
To build power plants in Argentina you need to either import the components entirely, or replace some of them with local production. So investors should either figure out how to buy components abroad with worthless pesos, or start whole industries from the ground up. These industries are profitable investments themselves, but too long-term. In fact, nuclear development in Arentina is what spawned our most succesful companies, but this initiative would not come from any investor.
You also need special personel to build it (even welders must go through special training), and even more people to operate it. And everything is even more expensive if you factor language: you either pay extra for having Spanish speaking engineers, or bare the productions costs that will arise from people not speaking the local language. Also, there's extra money involved in making someone go live to another country. Now let's factor in curency conversion: Although some people decide to live here after working a while, most will still send money to their families abroad. A decent salary in euros for an european engineer is four times what an Argentine needs. The energy produced that earnes in pesos is not profitable enough, and even so you'd still need to buy euros with pesos, in a country with very low reserves. It's unrealistic anything other than using local workfore for the most part, but you'd need to also train those.
cont. (yeah, fuck you, read it)
>>380503
>>381284
cont.
Then, why are carbon power plants profitable? Because that level of engineering already exists here.
The training of local personnel, devolopment of all stages of industry is too much for any single investor to chew. And mostly because it's not worth it if you build only ONE power plant; once the construction ends, all the moeny that went to training specialised builders and welders was not worth it at all. You need to create a whole new market, and the only entitiy that can and will profit from it, is Argentina as a whole.
Bottom line: Why would any particular come and build nuclear here, when it's far easier, stable, chepear and even more profitable to go build nuclear in another country?
Nucler development is what created the technical personnel that now runs our space program.
And stuff like forest fire prevention is done with it, when it's a subject that is not profitable for single investors, but it's a great public service.
There are so many things where I want to tell the gov to fuck off, but historically, the main problem with gov-owned high tech in Argentina, is the lack of political consistency, and their ability to destroy it. But again, nobody else is willling to take the torch, it's not worth it
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/57932671
