Except for a growing number across the world, no, it isn't. Especially the American variant of Capitalism, where almost all basic necessities are more expensive then the rest of the world, healthcare being the most notable (but not only) example.
Counter-point: Both SpaceX and Tesla needed government funding during the recession. GM need an outright bailout. I think these all qualify as "viable products".
Which is why Wind/Solar are being backed up by battery backup, which store the excess production to cover down periods.
To be fair: Germany decommissioning it's nuclear infrastructure had more to do with Fukushima then any push toward renewables. And safe nuclear would be viable for baseline production, if anyone can ever get a plant off the ground without running into several billion dollars in debt; if only there were some entity out there who could cover the costs...
From where does this absurdity come? Food, housing, energy: all are cheaper in the US than most of Europe. The sole exception is healthcare -- and comparing US healthcare to the European variant is comparing apples to prunes.
False. SpaceX received NASA contracts to perform tasks; not subsidies. GM received a bailout it did not "need" -- had GM gone through a Chap 11 reorg instead, it would have remained in operation still producing cars. The bailout was a gift from Obama to his union backers; it allowed the union contracts to remain untouched, while the secured investors "took a haircut" instead.
Would you like a list of some of the hundreds of startups which have received billions in funding?
Sorry, but "battery backups" large enough to power even a single city overnight, much less an entire grid simply don't exist. And once you add in the exorbitant costs of such systems, wind and solar's true cost appears: several times that of conventional sources.
I won't speak for Germany, but in the US, the debt overruns from nuclear power are due to environmentalist lawsuits, which delay the construction time from 4-5 years up to two or three decades.
Capitalism is economic freedom. Forcing one person to work to give money to another is slavery, plain and simple.
... so capitalism is slavery with economic freedom?
Capitalism forces no one to work. Hunger, thirst, or the desire for shiny new cellphones may force you to work. But that's not capitalism's fault; that's the world we live in, capitalism or no.
There are so many puerile misconceptions in this statement that I don't know if it's profitable to continue. If you're alone on a desert island, you may be a slave to your own hunger and thirst, but you're enslaved to no other man. That doesn't change in an urban context: you must exert yourself to fill your needs and wants.
Really, and how much money was spend building roads for cars? How much is STILL spent today in subsidies and support for our petroleum industry? No waste - investment. And now it is paying off.
These look like simple things that could be stamped/formed with plastic, or even glass on top. Even a 5% increase would be incredible although this seems to be better. When it comes to mass productions fractions of a percent can make large differences. Half the hype to day for ICE engines and they still are terrible inefficient - less then 40%.
Except no "ism" is perfict - they are philosophies which much work with people - many people and their selfish, short sighted minds, families, groups dipped not only in their personal interests, but backed by any prejudice they can create and use to their benefit. Capitalism, Socialism even Communism could all work IF not easily corruptible.
1000 thumbs up!
