Moving the goal posts I see. Like I said the government does not create wealth and you pointing out the subsidies only shows that it drains wealth from other areas to pay for the subsidy.
I see you ignored my other post's part on Opportunity cost. Same argument there applies here. Your argument that nuclear power is a bad example because it's privately run is not only ignorant but rather idiotic considering the history. You have
once again failed to show how starting the nuclear industry took jobs away. Especially when the nuclear birth was in the Manhattan project. Hint: I'm going to keep pointing out your failure until you admit you are wrong. So save yourself some grief and just admit you are wrong. And there is no goal post moving at all. Your use of fallacies suggests you do not understand what fallacies are.
Another moving of the goal post.
You really should learn what that means before using it.
First it was nuclear power now it's the actual construction.
It's the same thing.
Make up your mind on where you want the goal post to be.
Lack of any decipherable argument on your part does not mean I am using fallacies. The fact you don't understand the topic suggests I was right about your ignorance of the topic. The definition of fallacy is not "I don't like that."
The money for the construction came from taxpayers which isn't using capitol to create new wealth.
Once again you demonstrate ignorance of the topic. Rarely does the government actually finance construction. What the government does is guarantee the loans made by private banks to finance the construction. So taxpayers don't pony up the dough. Private banks do. And one again, your argument is reliant upon opportunity costs. My original point to that, the one you ignored still stands.
It's using already created wealth and transferring it to a drain.
How is creating new assets a "drain?"
How many of those power plants actually make a profit and provide the same amount of jobs as other industries?
Profit pre-subsidies is hard to determine as nuclear power has all sorts of variables that make actual proper accounting profit hard to determine. As for your second point, you are again relying upon opportunity cost.
I understand the industry just fine.
Said the guy who argued that the government finances the construction.
Really. You expect me to buy that line?
You don't understand the Broken Window Fallacy.
I'm sorry. I do not define fallacy as anything I don't like.
I don't have to show you the manufacturing jobs since I've already stated that other industries could have created wealth while the government does not. I've proven that point quite well.
Proven is subjective. Opportunity cost arguments are little more then subjective speculation. Actually proving them is another entirely different issue.
No, you're the one that brought up a private industry to show that the government creates jobs.
And that is a fallacy how in this context?
You used an invalid comparison logical fallacy. A private industry does not =/= government jobs.
Except that significant amounts of research was done in house. Not to mention that without the military demand which is government, there wouldn't be such products.
This is only a fallacy to you because you cannot refute it.
Let's make this real simple.
Government spending -> Military -> Demand for certain items -> Demand Filled -> Jobs and Wealth.
See how government created wealth?
The commercial product was the result of a private company using taxpayer funds to create items that have limited applications in the civilian market.
And that's a fallacy how here?
You're equating a private industry with the military which is an invalid comparison logical fallacy
Except that you
completely ignored where that commercial product came from.
It's amusing how you accuse me of fallacies when you are outright committing lies of omission. This is a discussion about how government can create jobs and you are deliberately eliminating the key part. Without the military, there would be nothing for that private industry to sell to civilians. You have
yet to even cite a single fallacy correctly. Once again, fallacy is
not defined as something you either have no argument against or do not like.
It is wealth since the bulk of the money came from the company's own capitol to create said it.
So government did create wealth! Since SOME of it came from the government, and the incentive to create it came from the government, and the demand came from the government, how did government not at least create part of the wealth? You can give up now.
Also, the military does not equal a private military contracting company.
Never said it was. But you are deliberately ignoring that part of the discussion of the origin.
The definition of an invalid comparison logical fallacy is comparing two or more unlike things.
But we aren't here. You just dislike how my argument blew holes in your ideology. So much so that you are now using lies of omission to ignore the gaping holes.
The government is not a private company and a private company is not the government. I suggest that you learn what a logical fallacy is before you lecture someone on their use.
Let's make this real simple.
Government spending -> Military -> Demand for certain items -> Demand Filled -> Jobs and Wealth.
LOL. Please learn what a fallacy is before using it. It is not as you are using it, defined as "anything I dislike/cannot refute"
