WolfeNotes.com

Okay. Just like any event in the course of all human history, when something becomes scarce, people adjust and look for a cheaper substitute. We saw it happen this summer when the price rose (and has subsequently drifted down again).

YoungNJ – what you spout is blind faith – in technology and markets.
Go check your economic text books and read up on price inelasticity and finite resources. Oil is on the depletion curve – google “peak oil”
There are limited substitutes for oil – which is unique as an energy source (energy density, low cost, et al).
Logical fallacy to always extrapolate from past to future.
BTW, Julian Simon was wrong.

YoungNJ – forgot to add that in all of human history, many civilizations have collapsed as a result of exhausting finite resources or ignoring environmental constraints.

nohesitation-
Please point out which of these civilizations were free-markets, and not kings stubbornly refusing people to make economic decisions for themselves.

Also, I know what price inelasticity is, and any rational person can understand the concept of finite resources.
The thing is, demand for gasoline is not inelastic. Driving statistics showed that Americans drove less, were more interested in alternative energy and hybrid cars than ever. SUV production has taken a virtual halt. But oh wait, a market is a blind and blundering thing (jk, that’s government).
If the demand for gas was truly inelastic, and our finite supply runs out, then I guess people will be sitting at the boarded up gas stations with old $100/gal signs still lingering, honking their SUV horns waiting for a gas attendant in the year 2070.
Why don’t you go back to your economic textbooks and look up the definition of “substitute goods.”
So, nohesitation, do you want to make a friendly wager about the cost of travel in 10 years? 20 years?

The population of the world is growing at a rapid pace. More people will need more energy, food, housing, clothing and other products of life.
Will energy increase, no matter what the source keep up with the population growth. For example China is developing and along with it comes more automobiles, housing, and energy needs including oil.
Asia and the middle east have been growing at a rapid pace, South America and Africa are developing. Will we have enough energy to sustain this growth.
It is not just oli, new sources of fresh water needed for crops and people are not being developed.
It is not just about oil.

YoungNJ – yes, as price recently has risen gasoline has been elastic – frivolous consumption has gone down. But at some point, gasoline is not elastic for essential uses – will people stop driving to get to work?
Agriculture is dependent on oil. You think farmers will go back to horse plows? What about fertilizers and pesticides? Wagons for crops to market?
All trucking etc.
There are no readily available substitutes for oil – and transition will impose huge costs and be extremely disruptive.
Go back and read Garrett Hardin’s classic: “Tragedy of the Commons” (or “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss).

TomTallTree – there are” Limits to Growth”. (Donella Meadows)
It is logically impossible to have growth with finite resources.
Current population growth trend is not sustainable and will not always increase (Malthus).

Nohesitation, in response to your comment “frivolous consumption has gone down” I offer another economic concept:
Everything happens at the margin.
So, what you’re saying is, the market mechanism of pricing has pruned unnecessary use of a limited resource while maintaining its more critical functions in society, like the use for growing food or for jobs. Or maybe I’m just spouting blind faith in markets after all.
Clearly there are limits to growth. There is only so much land on the planet, which means there’s only so much land to devote to houses, streets, offices, factories, farms, schools, etc. on Planet Earth. So, what does a market do in response to this fact? Prices that reflect supply and demand will reflect the relative scarcity and value to society. As the supply of land runs out, its price goes up, and “frivolous” uses will have to give way to that which is necessary and vital.
But, once again, I’m blinded by my faith in markets and technology. Maybe I should reinvest it in Congress or Corzine?

YoungNJ – what you call marginal analysis I call rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
Marginal analysis merely slows the rate of depletion of a finite resource.
AS I said, perfect substitutes do not exist.
And given the rate of depletion compared to the rate of transition, we have major dislocations on the near term horizon.
This reminds me of the folks who dismiss man made global warming by noting the geological history of the planet (there have been warmer periods naturally induced).
But this completely ignores the RATE of change and the ability of human society to manage that change.
Yes, you are engaging in an exercise of blind faith – markets can’t resolve the dilemma – strong government intervention is required.

YoungNJ – sorry, I forgot to respond to you question about historical societies that failed.
You should read: “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” –
per Wiki: a 2005 book by Jared M. Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at University of California, Los Angeles. Diamond’s book deals with “societal collapses involving an environmental component, and in some cases also contributions of climate change, hostile neighbors, and trade partners, plus questions of societal responses” (p. 15). In writing the book Diamond intended that its readers should learn from history (p. 23).

Well, at least I could count on you answering my last question–“But, once again, I’m blinded by my faith in markets and technology. Maybe I should reinvest it in Congress or Corzine?”
Predictably with “markets can’t resolve the dilemma – strong government intervention is required.”
So, you’re willing to trust the fate of humanity in the able hands of Jon Corzine, or perhaps the US Congress?
Let them know I want a deck chair with a cupholder, please.

Does anyone know if Easter Island was a free market society?!

YoungNJ – something tells me you’re not so young.
I said government intervention – as in democratic (small d) – as opposed to corporate – control of decision-making that affects all our lives and the planet.
When are the american people going to wake up to the fact that corporations and right wing republicans have used corruption as a means of discrediting government to pursue a greed agenda (tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, free trade, et al).
Same way they have used social issues (guns, gays, and abortion).
This is their only trick in the playbook to manipulate and divert attention from economic fairness issues and other policy of concern to the middle and working classes.
Unproviincal – what we now call “free markets” (not even Adam Smith advocated for or called them that) are a radical and recent social development. Historically, capitalism is very young.
Do some reading on economic histroy – one of the best books in history/political economy:
Karl Polanyi: “The Great transformation”
(Irish potato famine is a recent example)

Actually, I was just trying to be funny. I saw a show (Discovery Channel probably) regarding Easter Island. The fairly advanced society that built the statues in prehistoric times died out because they used all the trees on the island. In the end, they may have even resorted to cannabilism!

FYI – I’m 20 years old, I like studying economics. I also read the newspaper, so therein is my distrust of government.
In terms of corruption… when politicians hand out money to their cronies, I have no choice in paying the taxes that go into it. When a corporation is corrupt, I can chose not to give them my patronage.

And what about those corporations that have large contracts with the government? The example that immediately comes to mind is Halliburton or Brown & Root with the billions of dollars they are earning in Iraq. In NJ we have others. You think everything in NJ state gov’t is done by NJ state workers? Wrong! And there is so much funny business in big business that you have no idea whose products to buy. Back when I was 20yrs old, there was a move to boycott Nestle because they were pushing baby formula in 3rd countries as being modern and better than mother’s milk. Then there is Exxon, whose gas I won’t buy, who probably spent more money fighting the Exxon Valdez decision than they paid in settlements to fishermen and Alaska (and eventually getting their way in the form of a huge reduction in the settlement). Did either of these corporations go out of business? No! And that is only the stuff we know about. CEOs from various corporations sit on the boards of each other’s firms, giving each other raises and golden parachutes and then, when the money gets tight, they declare bankruptcy and leave the working stiff without a pension (I’m thinking about Bethlehem Steel and Enron) or don’t give retirees a cost of living raise for DECADES (U.S. Steel just one example). You like to study economics? Why don’t you read Homestead by William Serrin and find out why Big Steel fell apart (lack of investment in their own factories). The unions were only a part of the story.

YoungNJ writes:
FYI – I’m 20 years old, I like studying economics. I also read the newspaper, so therein is my distrust of government.
I was an economics major too 20 years ago. That and $4.50 will buy you a double mocha at Starbucks.
Have you ever read the works of Milton Friedman? Your postings sound like your professors have been preaching John Maynard Keynes ad nauseum.
You worship the STATE.
You are gleeful that high gas prices have coerced the sheeple to drive less. You sound like you wish that there would be a $2 federal gas tax to control the behavior of the unwashed masses in the proletariet.
Look, it’s been said that if you are not a liberal progressive at age 20 you have no heart…if you are not a libertarian conservative at age 40 you have no brain.
I trust you’ve read Friedman. Where in your enlightened opinion was he wrong about free markets?

PS: You are right for distrusting Gubmint.
Why is it that in the next breath you want to give more power to your very inept neighbors (Gubmint) that you correctly distrust?
We need to have a long talk. 🙂

PSS: I like the fact that the unwashed masses are driving less.
I made it from East Brunswick to Long Island in an hour and half. It usually took me 3 hours.
But that’s just selfish.

nohesitation:
I have a feeling that explaining things to you is going to be more fun than cable TV!

DrEricBlair – I am running out the door this morning so no time to respond in detail.
Friedman (adn all market fundamentalists) are wrong on “externalities” – go back to your econ text book and read up on them.
When dealing with “public goods”, finite resources, and ecological systems, externalities are not an anomoly but are systemic and pervasive.
Also ignored distributive effects and power, both of which violate market model assumptions.
Take home test for you:
List all market model assumptions, then try to validate them with evidence.

DrEWricBlair – one more short reply:
You seem ashamed of that slefishness. Why is that?
“Free market” model says greed and selfishnes (self interest) are good and are necessary for the model to work.
The economic model has profoundly flawed assumptions about human nature and motivation. Oops, just gave you a hint on your take home!

DrEric – last word:
“fairness”.
Read Arthur Okun: “Equality and Eficiency – the Big trade-off”.
That is the liberal model of political economy. So no need to invoke Marx to find fairness in economic theory.
And need I remind you that (the much misunderstood) Adam Smith was a a moral philosopher?

lol Dr. Eric A. Blair:
Time and time again, I’ve proven I’m not a progressive liberal at all! I do read the works of Friedman, where did you get the impression that I’m a statist-loving, big gub’mint lib-uhr-all?
My comments about Corzine are clearly sarcastic. Please reread all of my comments before you accuse me of being the opposite of what I am!

lol Dr. Eric A. Blair:
Time and time again, I’ve proven I’m not a progressive liberal at all! I do read the works of Friedman, where did you get the impression that I’m a statist-loving, big gub’mint lib-uhr-all?
My comments about Corzine are clearly sarcastic. Please reread all of my comments before you accuse me of being the opposite of what I am!
nohesitation–I’m aware of Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” Yes, we are all pleased when we see our neighbor doing well. But, remember how he also stated that, roughly, it’s not out of the benevolence of the butcher that we have our dinners.

You guys are giving me a headache. But I did wonder why DrEricBlair didn’t pick up on the obvious sarcasm. Thought maybe he meant to respond to Bill or needed to slow down his speed reading.
But you three have lost the majority of readers and need your own website!

YoungNJ
Boy do I feel embarrassed that I didn’t get the sarcasm. I write it and people don’t get it sometimes. In this crazy world life sometimes imitates the Onion and it’s hard to know the difference.
nohesitation
I have a BA (it wasn’t a BS at our University) in Economics. Like I told YoungNJ, that and 50 cents will buy me a newspaper :-).
The great thing about Milton Friedman was that he was great at taking economics from the abstract and making it understandable. Little gems like this are my favorite…he had a million of them. EnviroMarxists would love to take America and it’s economy back to the 18th century. Don’t believe me?…see their reaction when you bring up carbon capture technology. They hate it. It would allow people to live their lives without sacrificing their standard of living.
“What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated. It essentially requires a system of checks and balances, like that explicitly incorporated in our Constitution…”
— Milton Friedman, The New Liberal’s Creed: Individual Freedom, Preserving Dissent Are Ultimate Goals,” May 18, 1961

PS YoungNJ:
1. After re-reading your posts I don’t know how I could have missed the sarcasm. I’ll have to plead my 21st Amendment rights….that last beer was probably too much for me.
2. It’s great to know that our country’s future is not totally lost and there are people like you out there.

DRBalair – you claim envrio’s hate carbon capture:
“They hate it. It would allow people to live their lives without sacrificing their standard of living.”
1. Can you cite an operating commercial energy production facility where CC is installed and working as designed? (i.e. “capturing” 100% of carbon emissions);
2. I’ve read (sorry no source right now, could have been Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute) that even if CC were installed on all coal plants that it would merely slow the ate of increase of emissions and not come close to achieving required atmospheric CO2 concentrations or emissions reductions.
At best, CC can only be a band aid transitional strategy, not a solution.
At worst, a scam.
3. Freedman was echoing Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.
If capitalistic markets promote freedom, what’s going on in China?
There are basic disintiction between types of freedopm (“freedom from” v. “freedom to”)
So called “Free market” economists don’t seem to recognize the distinctions, nor the fact that their model is theoretical and not real (I asked for identification of model assumptions and validation data, you didn’t provide that)..
One observed made it simple: capitalism provides freedom to sleep under a bridge.

I like you nohesitation. I disagree with everything you say and your false liberal pretenses, but I like you. It’s nice to spend my free time debating with somebody who is diametrically opposed philosophically who can articulate their point intelligently. I spend a lot of time in an echo chamber.
Let me cut to the chase:
1 and 2: I don’t know what these carbon capture companies offer in the way of technology nor do I care. Much like algore and his Carbon Offset companies, I know a scam when I see it. This idea that you can control the temperature of this little planet in the Milky Way galaxy with the car you drive doesn’t even pass the laugh test. I (and 31,000 scientists) don’t buy into your liberal premise of man made global warning. Period.
3. China…The mistake that many people make is they think “communism” is a political theory. It’s not a political theory, it’s an economic theory.
You can have Democratic Communism….see Venezuela, NJ, CA, NY, MA. The people freely voted for Socialism.
You can also have Authoritarian Capitalism…see China.

Drericblair: – Thanks for the kind words, but let’s stick to the issues.
How can you smear “environmentalists” on the basis that the “hate” a specific technology, and then know nothing about the issue or the technology?
It is exactly his kind of fact free literally ignorant attack that is detroying our democracy by poisoning the well of dialogue.
Man induced global warming is no “liberal premise” – it is solid scientific theory back by overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists. Google the “IPCC Report” and do some reading before you attack.
I call BS on you and your “arguments”.

I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change my mind that Global Warning is hoax.
Consensus is not science. I know that a lot of AGW alarmists call skeptics “flat earthers”. I find that ironic since the theory of the flat earth was also a common scientific “consensus”.
I would encourage any of the 3 people who actually read this besides us to go to petitionproject.org for a list of 31,000 scientists who disagree and are muzzled.