NortonH

Meanwhile Ethiopia had mass starvation during the drought in the 1980's and as reported above is in a rather improved state despite a (serious! worst!) drought in 2018. So that tells me that the problem was the Mengistu government, not the weather.

Yes you can. The question is very simple and makes no reference to anything outside of what it contains. Let me make it even simpler: If you earn as income X and I tax you Y% (Y>0) are you being subsidized? If you earn as income X and I tax you Y%+$1 (Y>0) are you being subsidized? If you earn as income X and I tax you Y%+$1 (Y>0) and then give you back $1 are you being subsidized? Perhaps you could stop playing games and grow up a bit.

People with resources and money achieved nothing other than to prolong the war. The situation improved only when Mengistu lost power and escaped to Zimbabwe. The weather has nothing to do with it. The problem was the Mengistu government. Of course if you want to pat yourself on the back for whatever you think you achieved with your money then knock yourself out.

My little scenario is very simple. I want to test whether YOUR definition of 'subsidy' gives a conserved quantity. It is ridiculous that you have gone to such lengths to avoid answering such simple questions. The replies I have received have all been evasive and not a single one has dared give a straight answer. What are you all so scared of??? If you answer the question then we finally nail down a solid definition of one of the terms I want to use to make my point. So far we have not even left the starting blocks because people such as your self are, basically, obstructing (to put it mildly). You have the three little questions above so I will not repeat them here. If you want to engage in serious debate then give simple straight answers and we can proceed. If you do not want to answer them for whatever reason then just say so and I will excuse you any further attention. (I do not believe that if I had acted as you are it would have been tolerated this long.) Your post is unchanged. You have a great day!!

Hahahahaaa! Good one! Thanks for playing, John. You have a great day, Y'hear!!

Really John? The question is not clear enough? Sure. It is not as if people are just desperate to avoid answering it because they can already see exactly what the point is. In any other context you would have answered it in an instant but now, all of a sudden, everyone is utterly stumped! LOL. Any minute now one of the elite will close the thread because it is "not going anywhere". If you cannot answer then you are under no obligation to stay and clog things up (and basically ruin it for anyone who may want to enter the discussion in good faith)

Uh huh? I guess that depends upon what you mean by the word "be".

And was that because the Western do-gooders went in with their 'aid' or was it, as i suggest above, because the LOCALS sorted out their own problems? I suggest you read up on the 1980's 'aid' epidemic that we inflicted on the country and you will see that all we did was sustain a war. Just we did in Somalia a decade later and in Biafra a couple of decades earlier.

I have not received a single straight answer. Remember in this question we are using YOUR definiton of subsidy. Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized? Are you capable of giving three simple Yes/No answers to these questions? If so then please do so. If not then please indicate that you will not and that will be the end of the matter. Thanks for that great response John. You are excused further attention.

There is no confusion because I gave a definition. In any case I created a new word, skidka, Feel free to use it.

I am happy to do so as soon as you have the common courtesy to answer the question I asked first.

No. You have prevented me from being allowed to define the concept I need to use. It is my example to illustrate a simple point. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss what you would prefer to discuss. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. A straight answer would be along the lines of "yes" or "no".

No. It does not. We have had over twenty responses and so far nobody dares to give a straight answer to a very simple question. Is there any subsidy/skidka in any of the above three scenarios? A simple Yes or No against each answer is all that is required. I suspect that in a moment one of the main obstructors is going to declare that "this thread is going nowhere" and close it. My definition is quite correct but in deference to your sensitivity I borrowed a word and gave it a definition which is clear. You refuse to use it. So in short you are refusing to debate me because you will not allow any word to be used which can represent a conserved quantity which nets off tax against payments known loosely as 'subsidies'. Twenty five responses and all you have done is escape and evade! Utterly gutless, if you don't mind me saying so. And if you do mind me saying so you have the power to reprimand me. Please make it public this time so others can take note.

You are now just quibbling and this is the last time i will engage with insincere debate. You understand perfectly well what the question means. Please answer it. (it is funny that after about a dozen comments from the illuminati, (including a mod!!) we still have no answer to a question that most people could answer in a flash)

Has anyone noticed that as soon as science encroaches on an area touched by politics it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational debate? Instead of parties united in a common search for truth and a quest to separate fact from falsehood there is, instead, a mad scramble to avoid answering questions, evade questions with distractions and diversions, deliberate pretence to misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent etc. Although it is a bit annoying I think it only reflects upon those who are obviously squirming and fools nobody. My solution is just to stick to cold calm logical progress and not to be too concerned about people trying to slow it down. A bit like hippies lying in front of a bulldozer, if they don't move with the flow they just get rolled over. In short, I suggest that this is the best solution to the infection of politics into a scientific debate.

That depends on what you mean by the word 'subsidy'. Please answer the following question so we can fix on a definition. Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

I don't know. But I got a reprimand yesterday for doing what you did. Of course, it is clear that I was in their sights because i have killed a few sacred cows recently. Just by the bye.

Really John? How did that turn out in Ethiopia? See what Geldoff said, above. Are you planning on going to Somalia to teach? Paying someone else to do so? And you think your contraception is going to be used? That somehow the locals will dump thousands of years of tradition and be quite fine with a wife who produces no kids? SURE!!!!!! Too funny for words!!!!

Here is a clue Ten Oz, you actually quoted the questions in your initial response but here they are again: Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized? OK? Got it? It is my question. Answer it and we can progress. When someone has the gumption to actually engage and answer the very simple $10 question we can define a subsidy/skidka and we can use that to progress further and answer precisely your question. So far we are stuck because everyone is too scared to answer a simple question. This is like politicians in CYA mode, not science. Pathetic. My definition of subsidy/skidka allows us to discuss a conserved quantity. You can prevaricate and divert as much as you like but it will not change that fact. Cheaper than what? Give me an example. So why do they need skidkas? Until you answer the first questions I asked you are just going to go around in circles. I suspect that is what you want because it is clear you do NOT want to engage in any debate. Do you have a point to make or are you just posting empty quotes?

I asked you to give a very simple answer to a little scenario. I asked you that question so that i could demonstrate a point about the definition I chose. Why can you not give me a simple answer? Oh I see! So you don't like the definition I used because it was not the one you wanted.I was instructed to use a new word and when I used a new word I was told i should not make up new words when one already exists, even though I am not allowed to use it. And you are a Mod on a science forum!?!?! I would hate to meet a nitpicking evasive troll on a language forum! Why do you not act like a responsible mod and actually answer the very simple question I asked about the three scenarios? Why the evasion? Trying to save face or some such non-scientific motive? Yes, But I can only do that once we have covered the ground so far. You are refusing to engage in any serious debate.

If they are going to starve then we cannot stop them. In the mid-80s all the world virtue signallers got involved in Ethiopia. The huge effort changed nothing. In the end Geldoff said that all he felt he had done was create more starving people. In any case Somalia is responsible for itself. Have you spent any time in Africa? I suspect not. I suggest you take a look one day and you might realise that half of Africas problems are CAUSED by pampered wealthy western do-gooders virtue signalling and pouring in the welfare drug. Your little Oxfam donation might make you feel warm and fuzzy but it is just contributing to destroying a continent. I can understand people naively donating twenty years ago but today there is no excuse.

My use of the word is not uncommon and quite applicable. I defined it clearly so there was no ambiguity. All you are doing now is pointess nitpicking. We are not here to discuss linguistics but to debate science. That is why I carefully defined a conserved quantity. In any case I HAVE created a new word for us to use. Skidka. See above. If my definition is not the same as a negative tax then please say why not. It is almost as if you are just here to automatically contradict anything I say and I could speculate as to why you might feel the urge to do something so daft. Oh. So I said 'net subsidy' and I should have said 'net flow'. Gee. Sorry. Is that REALLY the biggest nit you could pick? If you really want to engage in debate (IF!) then I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down and actually read what I have written rather than just feel the need to contradict anything that bad old Norton writes. That question has been answered and I am reluctant to repeat myself but will do so one more time if you really cannot grasp it. If you cannot come up with something relevant and constructive then it is not a problem for me. You could start with a simple straight answer to the $10 question. That has been answered above. It is pretty much the point of the thread and why I chose a conserved quantity. If your energy costs of fabrication are a dollar then you obviously need to charge more than a dollar to make a profit. Do you really need me to answer that?!?! Iodine, I think is is fair to say that the definition I gave a lot more precise than the rather vague one you provided. In addition I threw in the word 'net' to make it extra clear. I was not randomly giving it a new meaning I was giving it a precise meaning and the example i give illustrates that. That sounds a bit like evasion to me. Sorry but it does. All I asked for was a very simple answer to my little scenario question. Why could you not provide one? Any sensible person would immediately recognise that situation 3 is the same as situation 1 and would immediately grasp why I needed to define the word precisely at the start. Not the case on this forum... I guess it is lucky that you have mod power and i do not because i would be tempted to give you a reprimand for deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Coal plants pretty obviously burn coal for energy. They release so much energy that they can run themselves AND produce surplus to power the society we live in. By the way, I have defined the word 'skidka' specifically for use by people on this thread. No longer use the word subsidy if it cause so much grief.

Do I take it that you are not going to answer the question but will rather prefer to go off on a tangent? Sorry. I no longer play those games. Fooled once and all that.

Correct. And if we know N and we assume (IF!) that the leftover matter is the result of a chance imbalance after a binary matter/antimatter producing process then the most likely estimate of the original number of particles in the universe is N^2. We know what N is hence we know what N^2 is hence we know how many we expect to have been annihilated (N^2-N) and this gives us an estimate of how much non-matter energy should be out there. It does not seem to be there.

I defined the word for this post precisely because I wanted a single defintion. You can define it how you like but then you have to use it consistently. If you want to use the Collins dictionary definition then you have to ask yourself whether you have defined a conserved quantity. My defintion produces a conserved quantity. What goes to a recipient has to equally match what is taken as tax from someone else. My definition of subsidy is identical to a negative tax and is conserved. Is the definition you gave us conserved? Here is a test: You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized? You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized? You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized? If you think that you are being subsidized in case 3 but not in case 1 then you are admitting that your subsidy is not a conserved quantity. That is why I used the concept of Net flow. If you don't like me using the word 'subsidy' then I will use the word 'skidka'. It is what I defined initially and is a conserved quantity. OK? Are you happy with that? No words have been harmed. So let me state my post again with this new word. Renewables recieve skidkas and fossil fuels do not. The reason I chose to define a conserved quantity is because it is a measure of the energy which is flowing. Fossil pays tax and receives no skidka. Renewables are recipients of skidka because they get more back as (what we used to call subsidies) than they pay in tax. That is why I say that they are net energy absorbers. If you still think that fossil fuels recieve net subsidies then please tell me where the energy is coming from to provide them. If C(t) is the coal price and R(t) is the Renewables price then C'(t)>0 and R'(t)<0 does not imply that R(t)<C(t) or likely to be anytime soon. It is clearly true. If it cannot survive without a subsidy and it is in the business of producing energy then clearly it is not producing enough energy to keep itself going. That is why it NEEDS a subsidy to keep going. I didn't say it got one just as a gift or a rort, said it NEEDS one. It can only be in that position if it is not producing enough energy. Hence the need for a subsidy is an indicator that it is not producing more energy than it consumes. OK, Then forget I ever used the word subsidy, we will use my new word 'skidka' which I defined above. It is a conserved quantity and ideal for this discussion. The phrase I used, 'net subsidy', could also work but, you know, if people find a reason to quibble rather than just debate they often do. No it is not a tautology. It distinguishes my definition from the some other definitions (like Collins above) which covers flow one way but takes no account of any flow the other way. Please see my example above and tell me whether there is a $1 subsidy in case 3.