The Economist’s Solution To Clean Energy And Global Warming

[geko]

If anything you said in that post was true why have we moved away from it? Like i said, it's romanticism, people longing for the 'good ol days'... which never existed in the first place.

 

If you think an atomised village, villagetown whataever, will lead to anything but regression you are mistaken. Look around you, where do you think all of this 'stuff' has come from? Atomised villages working in isolation, making their own produce and securing their own jobs are a relic of the past. The world as we know it comes from BIG business aiming at MASS consumption. Granted statism holds it back but it is still the product of big business.

 

No public central planning is beneficial to the human race. It is arrogance to assume otherwise. It assumes omniscience and omnipotence, neither of which exist in any human. And yes it was an attack, an attack on our race. It stems from the belief in the superiority of central planning! Every central planner is a potential dictator, a supporter of slavery and lives by the philosophy of war. No one should support these people or anything of the childish utopias they come up with. They are worse than the religious because they have more power and cause more untold misery and suffering.

 

So where are the car-free town plans? I want to buy into one! Can you see how you've just contradicted yourself?

 

Contradicted nothing. You just haven't understood the point. If a product doesn't exist which you would like to buy it can be either because no one has thought of it or it's not economically viable. If you want now, rather than waiting for others to do it, if ever, you have to do it yourself.

 

Isolated, atomised villages are a marxist ideal, and insofar as they subscribe to the quasi, non-economical benefits of such a system, yes they are socialist, or communist if they are enacted by force.

 

To get people to move into these places you will have to give them benefits over and above what they have now. You will have to satisfy more of their wants. Since these benefits are fleeting only a small minority will move in, making it less economically viable than it already is.

[Eclipse Now]

If anything you said in that post was true why have we moved away from it? Like i said, it's romanticism, people longing for the 'good ol days'... which never existed in the first place.

 

You sound like you haven't studied the history of Town Planning and how we moved from cities to suburbs. During the Industrial Revolution cities were a terrible place to live, dark, dank, dirty and dangerous. So after WW2 with the invention of the mass produced and cheaper motor car, America (and much of Australia) decided to give their returning soldiers a 'place in the country'. Only it was a mockery of rural living. It was devised with the best of intentions, but it failed to offer the promised freedom of rural living. Everyone was going to be the lord of their own manor, and yet suburbia is a mockery or cartoon of country living. There is no manor with connections to the land, no rural landscape and no rural economy. Instead it is just a terribly inefficient, cold, hard to heat box on a weed infested block of dead land.

 

Now town planners are moving back in the other direction. So I'm a fan of ecocities, New Urbanism AND Village Towns. Village Towns are my favourite hobby of research at the moment, and I'm keen to see whether they work out or not, and how the multiple self-reinforcing local economy feedback loops help protect them from some of the economic shocks that are coming.

 

Because coming they are. There is no way of life that is more energy dependent than suburbia! When the average American and Australian are bleeding at the hip-pocket nerve as they struggle to fill up to get to work, Village Towners and New Urbanist's will just be walking to work.

 

The world as we know it comes from BIG business aiming at MASS consumption. Granted statism holds it back but it is still the product of big business.

I'll grant that with some goods, yes, only doing things in MASS consumer electronics is efficient (at this stage in our technology). I'm into the market (within reason). But the questions raised above in this thread are about how the broader marketplace will react to vastly higher oil prices, and oil scarcity? Local living could easily become a subset of the broader market. It's not 'either/or' the way you are painting it.

 

You also sound blind to some market mechanisms and cultural trends at play over the last few decades. While we see increased globalization in high tech and manufacturing, other sectors are becoming more local. What is one of the biggest growth sectors in food right now? That's right, CSA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_supported_agriculture

 

The idea started to take root in the United States in 1984 when Jan VanderTuin brought the concept of CSA to North America from Europe.[1] At the same time German Biodynamic farmer Trauger Groh and colleagues founded the Temple-Wilton Community Farm in Wilton, New Hampshire.[2] VanderTuin had co-founded a community-supported agricultural project named Topinambur located near Zurich, Switzerland. Coinage of the term "community-supported agriculture" stems from Vander Tuin and the Great Barrington CSA that he co-founded with its proprietor Robyn Van En.[3] Since that time community supported farms have been organized throughout North America — mainly in the Northeast, the Pacific coast, the Upper-Midwest and Canada. North America now has at least 13,000 CSA farms of which 12,549 are in the US according to the US Department of Agriculture in 2007.[4] Some examples of larger and well established CSAs in the US are Angelic Organics[5] and Roxbury Farm.[6] CSA's have even become popular in urban environments as proven by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger's own CSA program that maintains locations in all five boroughs of the city.[7] The largest subscription CSA with over 13,000 families is Farm Fresh To You in Capay Valley, California.[8]

 

Tell us, are all these CSA's communists? ;-) No! They're just good old boys and girls doing their thing for their local community. They're in the main economy, but they're not 'big box'. They're not running some alternative currency or on a hippie commune. They are just growing local fruit and veg and selling through a more direct mechanism to consumers who value a hands on approach, and meeting the people that grow their food. It's all legitimate, and there isn't a communist in sight! ;)

 

Indeed, some CSA's grow top-of-the-line meat products that are so popular WalMart and big boys have tried to buy them out. They've REFUSED! Check out Polyface Farms. People drive hundreds of miles for this 'home grown' meat that they then freeze away for months. (Driving 200 miles defeats the purpose of a local market, but there you have the weirdness of the marketplace, and it is a good illustration of the sheer demand for this kind of small scale and more intimate industry.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyface_Farms

 

This is highly relevant to this thread. One of the most serious dangers of peak oil is the collapse of industrial farming. With a whole bunch of oil rationing we should be able to prioritise enough oil to enable industrial agriculture to continue a little longer, until peak phosphorus also begins to bite.

 

Village Towns supporting their own internal CSA's can help break the addiction to both oil and industrial fertilisers. Local people eating local food can easily develop sewer reclamation systems that collect the local phosphorus flushed down our toilets. VT's and New Urban districts and many other local systems will be that much better off economically than the oil dependent agricultural systems and oil dependent 3000 mile "Caesar salads" distributing those goods by oil dependent freight overnight.

 

No public central planning is beneficial to the human race.

You live in it right now buddy! You live in the UK don't you? You conveniently ignored the questions I put to you about Town Planners and became hysterical about "Central Planning".

 

Basically the Town Planners have all been hijacked by developers making a quick buck selling a housing package that works for them. When cultures and local economic systems change, they'll make a quick buck building to a different beat. That's all that is going on here, it's not communism but democratically decided alternative lifestyles, and YOU'RE the Totalitarian if you're going to tell these people they can't live like that. No one is forcing them to!

 

Isolated, atomised villages are a marxist ideal, and insofar as they subscribe to the quasi, non-economical benefits of such a system, yes they are socialist, or communist if they are enacted by force.

It just shows how little you understand the Village Town concept then doesn't it? They have about an 80% local, 20% global economy. They 'import' stuff into their economy, and export stuff back into the broader global economy. They're not completely cut off, but ARE more self-reliant and locally based which is only going to become MORE important as peak oil hits and localism becomes economic competitive again.

 

It assumes omniscience and omnipotence, neither of which exist in any human.

Please answer my questions about your local town planning authorities. That's all the planning I'm talking about here.

 

You need to stop speaking in flowery philosophical economic ideals, and start speaking about the real world of real costs, real products, real people, real town planning authorities, real histories of town planning and the ebb and flow of trends in town plans, and real developments in the economy. The fact that you are AVOIDING real concrete examples right now and resorted to flowery ivory tower navel gazing economic-speak shows you're empty. You've got no rounds left in the chamber, you're done.

 

If oil doubles in price as it easily could, then how competitive is the stupid suburban oil dependent mess we've built? How sustainable economically and energetically? It's a nightmare. It's "The greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the world!" (Quote from 3 minutes into following youtube clip).

This documentary is 52 minutes long and starts off with a retro perspective on suburbia. If you watch it, you'll get a sense of just how bleeding serious the 2 words "Peak Oil" are — and how they are up there with those other 2 words, "Global Warming".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug&feature=related

 

This is the CLASSIC New Urbanist TED talk by James Howard Kunstler. Check it out and then get back to us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ&feature=related

[geko]

My arguments were not about anything to do with oil. They were about the talk this guy gave (yes i watched it, the 20 min video). He started from a faulty premise then proceeded to explain a community based initiative that wasn't economically sustainable so therefore would require subsidy for various goods.

 

Let me rephrase that for you to highlight what i hear: I want us to build villages that farm their own stuff and supply their own employment. Of course, it doesn't work economically (which has been known for about a 100 years), so we'll need to point guns at people to force them to pay for the excess.

 

Every time you hear 'subsidy' that is what's happening.

 

As with regard to central planning and other planning… of course i'm in favour of privatised suburban districts, and privatised other districts, too. But that is <i>not</i> what this is about. This is about <i>subsidised</i> atomised villages. Subsidised products and services are there due to one reason only, and that is force.

 

CSA's don't feed the world nor supply us with everything we want. They're cool for various produce, i actually buy from 1 myself with a local farmer, but i'd never assume that we should make it so everyone has it globally. If it would work globally and comes about through <i>voluntary exchange</i> then great, if not then no.

 

If you think you can make these villages work then all the best to you, I wish you luck. But please, before you start forgo any claims to any money from anywhere that isn't voluntary given. No subsidies. No protection tariffs. No favouritism. No grants. And no forcing the residents to give to the collective good, either.

 

If you do make it work please write a book detailing how it was done because you will have forevermore changed a central argument of economics. Maybe i'll even move into one myself if it works, although how it will satisfy me more than the suburbs do at the moment isn't yet clear.

 

As an aside, i don't know how it works where you are but in the uk 'town planning' is done at the state level, not private. Private individuals may build on plots of land that they've managed to secure by various means, but the location, the style of building, the size of building, what they can sell if they're a business and countless other regulations are decided at state level. Town planning, in the uk, is very much a state affair, so saying it's done without being controlled by force which you seem to be implying is a contradiction.

 

…and support the abolition of slavery if you would like people to no longer be "bleeding at the hip pocket". Honestly, talk about a complete confusion of the root causes of the issue. Please, do yourself (and everyone around you), a favour and learn some economics, especially if you're in politics as i think you are? Hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions only goes so far, start working towards balance.

[Eclipse Now]

Well, Geko, I take back any implication that you did not watch it. Well done on at least being willing to watch the video!

 

I saw that talk live, and met with him afterwards and had a good 20 minute interview.

 

If people buy into a Village Town, it is their choice isn't it? Just as if I buy into one of any other 'Intentional Community' which could be a flat with strata title, a retirement village, or even an Army barracks. If you live in the flat or retirement village or barracks, it was your responsibility to choose that accommodation or lifestyle. So you live with the consequences.

 

Let me rephrase that for you to highlight what i hear: I want us to build villages that farm their own stuff and supply their own employment. Of course, it doesn't work economically (which has been known for about a 100 years), so we'll need to point guns at people to force them to pay for the excess.

The system has nothing like that in it, and your argument of 'force' is ridiculous. There are contractual arrangements about as innocent as any strata title agreement or retirement village plan.

 

CSA's don't feed the world nor supply us with everything we want. They're cool for various produce, i actually buy from 1 myself with a local farmer, but i'd never assume that we should make it so everyone has it globally. If it would work globally and comes about through <i>voluntary exchange</i> then great, if not then no.

This is voluntary. Are we getting it yet?

 

As an aside, i don't know how it works where you are but in the uk 'town planning' is done at the state level, not private. Private individuals may build on plots of land that they've managed to secure by various means, but the location, the style of building, the size of building, what they can sell if they're a business and countless other regulations are decided at state level. Town planning, in the uk, is very much a state affair, so saying it's done without being controlled by force which you seem to be implying is a contradiction.

There's that word 'force' again? Got a problem with legitimate authorities that you're reacting to? Yes, there are State rules that guide where we build. Thank you, you've got my point. Is the UK "Communist" as a result? Is yours a Central Planning economy? If not, then please retract your rather absurd accusations about the Village Town.

 

EG:

"Each resident in the villagetown will be aiming toward a shared goal and common good"… straight out of the communist manifesto. Of course, when our motives get out of sync and need realigning we'll just ask the fairies for help, right? The arrogance of ideologues is astounding.

The problem for you is that the VillageTown concept does not do away with market principles or the profit motive or the other "collective" rubbish you accuse it of, but rather they ensure it will work by subsidising many of the things we subsidise. In other words, just as our public taxes go towards paying government teachers to teach people in government schools, the VillageTown has a method of helping teachers live in what will otherwise probably be PREMIUM accommodation and unaffordable to them. Just as governments often give their agricultural sectors various fuel subsidies and drought relief, the VillageTown helps farmers by cutting out the huge up-line channel of 'middlemen' all taking money out of the farmer's income. The VillageTown (VT) simply doesn't need all those middlemen.

 

And just as residents of a retirement village might all buy in to create a certain style and set of values, so does the VillageTown. The idea is to move into a Village and style it yourself with your friends and family. The people moving in will determine the look and zoning rules, NOT the State. Does your family want to live in a Hobbit-like bungalow arrangement? Fine, done! A whole village could look a bit like something out of Lord of the Rings. Does the next group of 500 or so people want to live French Provincial? Tudor? Australian Federation? Arty Industrial Park? New Urbanist? Anakin Skywalker Tatooine slave quarters? Whatever. That's what the "shared goal and common good" is about. Also, a clever economic model that is 80% local and 20% global.

 

Hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions only goes so far, start working towards balance.

You have no idea how close we are to peak oil and how utterly devastating it could be to the suburban, globalised economy we live in today, do you? Good luck with that. Part of me even hopes you are right, and that there is nothing to worry about. But sadly, there is nothing 'hypothetical' about peak oil. It's here. The terminal decline sets in by 2015, with the American Joint Forces Command declaring we could be down 1/8th of world oil production that soon!

 

Do us all a favour and learn about the energy systems that underpin the modern economic world, and try visualizing that world with 5% less oil per year!

[geko]

Inventing silly arguments about the mindset i'm in proves nothing.

 

The speaker mentions the need for subsidy, it's where i got the argument from. If something needs subsidy to work it is NOT economically viable. That's the end of the matter.

 

Since subsidy comes from government, and since governments don't produce anything, that money comes from the population. Governments don't ask nicely, they take whether you like it or not. Ergo, a subsidy is value that's been extracted by force from a third party.

 

The problem you are having is you don't see the difference between voluntary exchange and coercion. You seem to think that coercing people to do what you bid is somehow the correct way to do things, and you are now getting up tight because i'm pointing out the stark reality of your claims.

 

Like i said, go ahead and do it if you think it will work. If it works awesome, you've benefited the human race... but only if you don't use money that has been taken from elsewhere involuntary, in which case you have harmed our race.

[Eclipse Now]

Inventing silly arguments about the mindset i'm in proves nothing.

No, it's an accurate portrayal of what is happening here.

 

The speaker mentions the need for subsidy, it's where i got the argument from. If something needs subsidy to work it is NOT economically viable. That's the end of the matter.

I think I missed it. At what point does he mention the word 'subsidy' or 'government assistance' or anything like it? I heard about parallel real estate contracts and market based contracts and private enterprise agreements and all the other contracts you might hear about in a retirement village or private suburban village. I just listened to it again to try and hear the word subsidy and honestly didn't hear it. Maybe my kids (who are home on winter holidays) distracted me for a moment. Could you please tell me roughly where the word subsidy comes up? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

 

Since subsidy comes from government, and since governments don't produce anything, that money comes from the population. Governments don't ask nicely, they take whether you like it or not. Ergo, a subsidy is value that's been extracted by force from a third party.

See above. I haven't heard the word used in the talk.

 

The problem you are having is you don't see the difference between voluntary exchange and coercion. You seem to think that coercing people to do what you bid is somehow the correct way to do things, and you are now getting up tight because i'm pointing out the stark reality of your claims.

The problem you have is you can't seem to understand that market mechanisms involve private contracts and agreements to shape a market segment outcome, with a variety of market channels and distribution systems. This is a lifestyle contract with various distribution systems. Can't you recognize it? Did you miss marketing 101?

 

 

Let's try one more time...

 

1. Where is the word subsidy used in the talk?

 

2. Do you agree that there are already existing authorities in western democratic market based societies that decide on town planning matters? If so, is this a good thing or bad thing? In other words, is the government allowed to have any say on how society runs, or in your worldview is any such intervention "Central Planning"?

 

3. Do you have any thing to say about how governments in western democratic market based societies should intervene in certain ways to prepare for peak oil, peak phosphorus, climate change, ecosystem destruction, air pollution, quality of life issues in town planning, children's safety, better, safer education outcomes for the young, and care for the elderly? Village Towns cater for all these issues.

 

4. Do you understand that Village Towns don't ELIMINATE interaction with the outside world but by having cutting-edge fiber optic internet access, encourage cyberspace interactions with the outside economy? Do you understand that this is merely a replacement for suburbia and shopping malls and the car based economy, not the whole fabric of western civilization and technology and capitalism and philosophy and private enterprise and democracy and freedom and all the other good things we value? In fact, it is the opposite. It reclaims those things from the greedy developers having too much power over State politicians. It enables more meaningful interaction between the market players.

[geko]

No, it's an accurate portrayal of what is happening here.

 

Of course it is.

 

At what point does he mention the word 'subsidy' or 'government assistance' or anything like it?

 

Subsidy is mentioned at 15 mins when he talks about 'affordable housing'. This, the same as 'affordable housing' in the world now, is subsidised. He mentions the need to subsidise teacher housing, housing for the under 25, the elderly and, would you believe it, artists. Although he doesn't mention subsidy will be needed for the agriculture and technology plant but i'd be surprised if they don't need it either.

 

Someone such as yourself who is a self-confessed enthusiast of this stuff shouldn't need someone like me to point out these things. Why don't you know every word of this? How could you miss it, especially as you watched it a 2nd time for the purpose of finding it? You rushed through it in a mood, yes? All huffed up trying to prove me wrong no doubt.

 

There's also a couple of other problems i've noticed, especially with regard to the 80% local to local assumption. This needs qualification. When i look around me the progressive, innovative and high want satisfaction businesses are mostly national, if not international.

 

 

Is the government allowed to have any say on how society runs?

 

No. The one concession is defense.

 

Do you have any thing to say about how governments in western democratic market based societies should intervene in certain ways to prepare for peak oil, peak phosphorus, climate change, ecosystem destruction, air pollution, quality of life issues in town planning, children's safety, better, safer education outcomes for the young, and care for the elderly? Village Towns cater for all these issues.

 

Nope. Government destroys whatever it touches. Everything, excluding the above concession, can be provided better, more efficiently and more in-tune with the values of the world's population in the private sector. All of which is done in a voluntary manner; every party in every exchange is a winner.

 

Children's safety, education and care for the elderly can all be provided for better in the private sector. Governments hinder, not help.

 

It is not my place to force an arbitrary ecosystem higher up the value scale of an individual.

 

All 'quality of life' issues are better served in the private sector.

 

As with regard to this 'peak oil' problem; why not let it run out so we'll no longer be sticking the stuff up in the atmosphere polluting everything? Why do we need to protect it for future use? It is not clear what methods future generations will develop, use and want to.

 

Do you understand that Village Towns don't ELIMINATE interaction with the outside world but by having cutting-edge fiber optic internet access, encourage cyberspace interactions with the outside economy? Do you understand that this is merely a replacement for suburbia and shopping malls and the car based economy

 

I understand the idea of the villagetown, yes. I'm not arguing against the idea. It's the methods. Take away the subsidy. Stop thinking that power and market are the same thing.

[Eclipse Now]

Subsidy is mentioned at 15 mins when he talks about 'affordable housing'. This, the same as 'affordable housing' in the world now, is subsidised. He mentions the need to subsidise teacher housing, housing for the under 25, the elderly and, would you believe it, artists. Although he doesn't mention subsidy will be needed for the agriculture and technology plant but i'd be surprised if they don't need it either.

 

Let's get this subsidy issue out of the way. OK, he said it so fast I missed it. I can almost understand your fears, but that is only because you're not used to the Village Town concept and he rushed past that section very fast. The words themselves don't allow your interpretation though, but it was very fast. (As I said, I missed it until you pointed it out).

 

Let me type it word for word from about 14:40. It's all about guild halls and artists and teachers, not government subsidies!

 

"The next is the cultural aspect of well being and this has to do with the artists. And on every plaza THE DEVELOPMENT will fund the guild hall"

 

(... definition of artists and actors and engineers....)

 

"We want to have a guild hall and so the DEVELOPMENT pays for that so they don't have a mortgage. It also provides affordable housing, what we call parallel real estate market, which means we sell to the first starters at a substantially lower price, a subsidized house, but it has to be another artist."

 

Just as I might choose to live in a retirement village that has a nice garden and gardener, and various economic arrangements for that village to pay the gardener, the Village Town that has a cultural aspiration to it. They want artists and actors and creative guilds in their village, adding culture and vitality to their quality of life.

The Village Town pays for it, NOT the government! Part of the purchase price of my home would be buying and maintaining the Guild Hall.

 

It's like giving the Retirement Village gardener a permanent home on site because he's such a favourite of the Village. Settled? You can go back and check my text matches his words if you wish.

 

There's also a couple of other problems i've noticed, especially with regard to the 80% local to local assumption. This needs qualification. When i look around me the progressive, innovative and high want satisfaction businesses are mostly national, if not international.

Nice statistical reference there. ;) High satisfaction for whom exactly? Remember the CSA's, small scale and local. Yep, I like Apple-Mac products. Yep, I also like to eat. How's all that going to work after peak oil?

 

Then you go off on a 'government for defense only' rant, which I totally disagree with. My political preference is "Social Liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy". The government can royally stuff some things up, but in other circumstances provides hope for the hopeless and an important safety net that adds security for all of us! I don't want to live in as desperate a society as America.

 

Australian's just laugh when Obama is called a communist because of his health care plan. What plan? Our medicare is pretty much universal health care for most of the life-saving important things. We do this on only 1% more tax / GDP. 1%! And our health bill is actually 1% LESS as a fraction of overall Government spending.

 

Some poorer Americans are sitting around incapacitated by BLINDNESS when they could be more useful citizens for want of a mere $15k. $15k! How miserly is that! But Noooooooo, America has to have a 'free market' health care system. Wow, so free it costs them 1% more of their government revenue while delivering less comprehensive services. Even the unemployed street-bum should be given his sight back, because it's the right thing to do and because being able to see might save him from further injury, help him save someone's life, who knows? Imagine poor mothers and grandparents all out of the workforce and BLIND — yet the unmeasurable economic value of their babysitting and educational input and craft input into the local community can be staggering!

 

So I'm firmly in the Social Liberal camp. I love the free market, and the solutions that it comes up with. I also love having a bit of a welfare State. I'm not a Communist! Learn the difference. Not everything to the Left of you is RED — I'm only light pink. ;) I admit it is a balancing act. Just like War. There will be 'collateral damage' in a War, but does that mean we shut down the Defense force? No! Will there be some 'dole bludgers' sponging off the Australian welfare system who should and could be out in the workforce. You bet there will be! It's not a perfect system, but I think those lazy thieves are part of the price we pay for being a bit fairer and having a safety net that — who knows — some street-bum can use rather than holding a knife to my family and asking for my wallet! And, God forbid — I might need to use that safety net sometime.

 

Nope. Government destroys whatever it touches. Everything, excluding the above concession, can be provided better, more efficiently and more in-tune with the values of the world's population in the private sector. All of which is done in a voluntary manner; every party in every exchange is a winner.

Crap — police and health and emergency services and education and basic welfare are all good things for the government to administer as best it can. Sometimes this might involve sub-contracting to the private sector, and that's fine. But I don't mind paying a little extra tax to help society as a whole achieve certain basic benchmarks of fairness that I want to be there for what I call civilization.

 

Children's safety, education and care for the elderly can all be provided for better in the private sector. Governments hinder, not help.

Crap! Child Protection is an area I used to work in. It's an area of legislative control, not market preferences. I used to be a "Child abuse cop" and I cannot imagine some private firm doing the things I had to do. I cannot imagine them having the right to do it! (Unless as a government-subcontractor private welfare agency? But sometimes — for issues of political accountability — it's better to prevent the government hiding from their involvement behind a "private corporation smokescreen".)

 

All 'quality of life' issues are better served in the private sector.

Yeah, great, lets have more middle men and insurance agencies eating into our medical services and budget shall we? Governments should just provide the basic, lifesaving medical services. I'm not against private, but I am against removing public health. That's just wrong. I had a boy with Leukemia years ago. If I had been poor and in America, on top of trying to help my kid survive cancer and support him in hospital all those horrible months in there on chemo, I would also probably have had to conduct a $200 thousand dollar fund raiser! Great! That's compassion for ya! ;)

As with regard to this 'peak oil' problem; why not let it run out so we'll no longer be sticking the stuff up in the atmosphere polluting everything? Why do we need to protect it for future use? It is not clear what methods future generations will develop, use and want to.

Well that just shows what an utter failure trusting in the market has been for ya!

 

The Australian Federal Senate inquiry into peak oil concluded:

4.64 The committee notes concerns that markets will not respond in time to provide a smooth transition to a post peak oil world without government action. Given the uncertainty about much of the information on world oil supplies and the geopolitical instability of some key oil bearing regions, it is possible that there may be a risk that markets will under invest in oil and energy technologies, resulting in economic and social hardship when supply of conventional oil falls below demand.

 

4.65 The information required to make a clear determination on whether peak oil will occur before the market can provide mitigating action is not available. The following chapters discuss possible mitigation actions. These offer options for a prudent approach to managing the possibility of peak oil and associated issues contributing to oil vulnerability, resulting in substantially higher oil prices and a constraint on liquid fuel availability.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/oil_supply/report/c04.htm

 

Private corporations are more interested in this year's profit, and always maximizing the longevity of their product. In other words, many oil companies have been in active denial over both global warming and peak oil. Not many have the global picture in mind anyway, and are more concerned about pumping their oil from their fields as fast and as profitable as possible. And if they cut some corners and spew some oil into some poor African wetlands or agricultural area, oh well. They're only poor. There's something like 300 "Deepwater Horizon" spills in Africa every year. America's outraged because they are rich people who deserve better, but the poor African's hardly get a say in the matter. And the corporations get away with murder. Literally.

 

Now I'm glad SOME oil companies ARE future sighted enough to start thinking about biodiesel for jets etc. Really it's the electric car designers and town planners and fast rail builders and GenIV nuclear designers that are going to get us out of this one.

 

I understand the idea of the villagetown, yes. I'm not arguing against the idea. It's the methods. Take away the subsidy. Stop thinking that power and market are the same thing.

Try to listen in context next time. B)

[geko]

Wow that's embarrassing. Apologies for missing that. Sounds like a cool idea maybe.

 

As for the political side of your thread i don't agree. The emotive anecdotes presented are a consequence of the system. They are arguments for privatisation, not against it.

 

It's the satisfaction of each and every one of us on a moment by moment basis based on the scale of value they choose for themselves.

 

Statistics or other historical evidence is not a valid reference or measurement of human value in the present or for the future.

 

America is not a good example of privatisation.

[Eclipse Now]

Wow that's embarrassing. Apologies for missing that. Sounds like a cool idea maybe.

Thank you! I now officially retract any suggestion that you were an internet troll. That's big of you. (I'll go back and edit out my rhetoric to that effect).

 

As for the political side of your thread i don't agree. The emotive anecdotes presented are a consequence of the system. They are arguments for privatisation, not against it.

 

It's the satisfaction of each and every one of us on a moment by moment basis based on the scale of value they choose for themselves.

 

Statistics or other historical evidence is not a valid reference or measurement of human value in the present or for the future.

 

America is not a good example of privatisation.

 

This is not really what this topic is about, so I guess we could thrash our political wings against each other some other time. My problem (with my career and everything, not just in internet forums and blogging!) is that I'm a little bit interested in everything, but master of none. (Comes from having a welfare / sociology sort of background).

 

What would you call a good example of your purer form of capitalism? It sounds to me like you're longing for a pure form of capitalism just as the Communists are longing for a 'pure' form of Democratic Communism that has never existed, and probably never will.

 

But — I'm still fascinated. Ever read any Sci-Fi like "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson? Brilliant glimpse of a post-State America, where the Federal government is slowly collapsing and 'Corporate suburbs' are taking over. Couriers have bar-coded passports & visa's all over them telling scanners whether or not they are permitted to enter that 'Burbclave'. The sort of sequel, the "Diamond Age", is all about nano-tech and is pretty-much post-government. Corporate States totally rule the future.

 

Then there's Distraction by Bruce Sterling. It has millions of American's unemployed, but they don't really need a job to get by. New technologies enable them to go 'feral' and off-grid, and they live off the land with massive trucks running on solar power and grass that's been fed through biodigesters to give them a little fuel, and protein laced noodles. Even their computers are home grown,and have keyboards that are not QWERTY! (If the world moved to some new standard I'd have to keep QWERTY as 20 years of muscle memory is NOT going to be retrained! I don't even know where the keys are, I just type by sheer instinct.)

 

 

OK, now to edit the personal attacks out of this thread! I had you all wrong. Thanks for your patience in this conversation, I'm known to get a little cranky at times. ;) Can you please edit out the bit in post 24 where you quoted my criticism of you and responded? I'm totally retracting that accusation.

[geko]

What would you call a good example of your purer form of capitalism? It sounds to me like you're longing for a pure form of capitalism just as the Communists are longing for a 'pure' form of Democratic Communism that has never existed, and probably never will.

 

As far as i know a pure form of capitalism has never existed in the modern world, although there are many examples of purely free markets. Ireland is a good example up until about the 1700's. It was eventually invaded by… england i think, which put a stop to that.

 

You can choose to view it like the communists do if you wish, however this is a mistake for two reasons. First is that capitalist / free market economies work, whereas communist economies can't work because they have no feedback or reference of human value and therefore no indicators of where to direct resources appropriately. And secondly is that free markets are not a pie in the sky idea, they would be here now if not prevented by law (paraphrasing rothbard there i think, or someone).

 

Nah i haven't read those books. Scott sigler and that's about it (horror). I haven't even read rand's books, which people seem surprised at.

 

As for any emotive content don't worry about it. People are allowed to be emotional and it's perfectly ok… as long as they don't end up as physical aggression towards anyone ;)

[Eclipse Now]

As far as i know a pure form of capitalism has never existed in the modern world, although there are many examples of purely free markets. Ireland is a good example up until about the 1700's. It was eventually invaded by… england i think, which put a stop to that.

 

You can choose to view it like the communists do if you wish, however this is a mistake for two reasons. First is that capitalist / free market economies work, whereas communist economies can't work because they have no feedback or reference of human value and therefore no indicators of where to direct resources appropriately. And secondly is that free markets are not a pie in the sky idea, they would be here now if not prevented by law (paraphrasing rothbard there i think, or someone).

Without governments and laws and anti-trust agencies and cops — with pure unadulterated capitalism — we'd have monopolies and become serfs. There's your "free market"! Serfdom! I see the 'marketplace' as a creature that is immensely powerful, like a giant Camel, but it needs strong reigns. Corporations need to know what is legal and what isn't. We need the power to vote about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. We need some figurehead to express the feelings and policies of a nation — and then be sacked when they get those ideals wrong. I would not want to live in a country without government corruption bodies watching both the government and the media and judiciary and the corporations. I would not want to live in a country without scientific bodies monitoring our water and air and food and climate. I simply would not want to live in your hypothetical free-market country — as it would soon be as much a form of slavery as the Communist Tyrant.

 

We need both. We need government and a marketplace. The marketplace is a fantastic resource, like a herd of buffalo. The government should let them roam freely and grow strong — to a certain extent. But homes and livelihoods and precious ecosystems should be protected from the buffalo.

 

There you go. I topped Political Economy of the Welfare State, and now I'm talking about buffalo! Time for bed. :D

[geko]

There's nothing wrong with monopoly when it isn't backed by coercion, only coercive monopoly is something to avoid, and it's the only type of monopoly that can remain in place. Coercive monopolies are only available under governmental restrictions.

 

Your opinion about how the free market / businesses regulate themselves is mistaken. Businesses are run under the profit motive. You don't make profit by giving consumers what they don't want and supplying them with polluted water, air, food and climate. You go bust and your competitors become rich.

 

The "feeling of nations" becomes evident when you let the citizens direct their resources into areas that they value, not by redirecting their resources (under coercion), into areas that a board/committee, or worse, a particular individual, has decided that people should value. Like parks, and bridges, and fountains, and libraries, and laser guided missiles, and ad nauseum. Honestly…

 

It seems like an argument from a vested interest in equality to me, unbeknown to you that equality is not something to strive for, and it's not clear whether it's even possible. Inequality is the reason we have abundance. It is why people do things and work towards a higher want satisfaction.

[Eclipse Now]

Your opinion about how the free market / businesses regulate themselves is mistaken. Businesses are run under the profit motive. You don't make profit by giving consumers what they don't want and supplying them with polluted water, air, food and climate. You go bust and your competitors become rich.

I find this amazing — how's that working out in practice so far?

 

Don't get me wrong — I'm all for the free market as long as there are strong anti-monopoly laws in place and strong democratic governments able to watch these beasts. For beast they are — mostly driven by the bottom line. Occasionally a CEO develops a conscience, and the documentary above highlights one of my absolute corporate heroes. But he is the exception, not the rule.

 

So basically I find your "Corporations are nice people who don't pollute because it might hurt their bottom line" statement incredibly naive — like something from an idealistic 14 year old. There's a scene in The Corporation where Corporate pollution fines scroll up the screen for over a minute. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. And yet they still do it! Why? The bean counters have explained that it costs far less to pollute or "externalize costs" than not to pollute, even with the occasional fine thrown in.

 

The "feeling of nations" becomes evident when you let the citizens direct their resources into areas that they value, not by redirecting their resources (under coercion), into areas that a board/committee, or worse, a particular individual, has decided that people should value. Like parks, and bridges, and fountains, and libraries, and laser guided missiles, and ad nauseum. Honestly…

That's just the problem, right there! "Citizens" aren't worth diddly squat when a multi-billion dollar corporation decides they want to mine their land. Citizens don't have $200 000 to fight it out in your "Law by Wealth" justice system.

 

"a particular individual, has decided that people should value" How's that working out for all those Americans forced to live near coal mines because some CEO decided they needed the coal next to their townships? How's their health? You know that the average resident of a coal mining area has lung and throat cancer 3 times higher than even us city folk?

 

"You go bust and your competitors become rich."

No, they only go bust when Erin Brokovitch takes them to court and freakishly wins! Usually they just keep on dumping on the little guy, and usually get away with it. Again, the bean counters have done the math. Watch the Corporation doco and join the real world.

[ivantheboss1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maPQumMIhuE

[sigurdV]

If that is true then it would serve to hasten the inevitable. But, like JMJones said, solar is region-specific. Transporting power is relatively easy though, so solar, I would recon, has a very large part to play.

 

~modest

 

So we connect all distribution. Then surplus go where it is needed.

[esbo]

Renewable energy is typically clean energy.

 

Fossil fuel is a limited resource. As supply diminishes price rises.

 

The largest, and really the only, impediment to renewable energy like solar is that there are cheaper energy sources available. It isn’t economical to use renewable energy right now because it can’t compete with cheaper methods.

 

We are nearly upon the precipice of peak oil and peak coal.

 

Given the previous four postulates, the clean energy problem (and global warming by extension) is going to solve itself shortly without intervention. Once it becomes more expensive to extract and transport oil and coal than it is to produce and transport clean energy, no one will use it... at least not in a worrisome amount.

 

I’m not an expert and I’m sure this has occurred to plenty of people, so I’m wondering if I’m missing anything. Why, in other words, are ‘dirty’ energy, and global warming, problems that need to be fixed with the likes of Kyoto, rather than problems which are inevitably and shortly going to shortly fix themselves?

 

~modest

 

 

Quite right, unfortunately everyone seems to have completely ignored your question despite it being a very important one.

It is about the first time I have ever seen this rather obvious point mentioned, it is certainly not mention in the

corporate and government media.

 

If is so odd we spend so much time worrying about something that is going to happen whatever we do, the real issue

is not global warming but how we are going to manage when the fossil fuel runs out.

When fossil fuel runs out global warming will be seen as a godsend. It will be much easier to keep warm and alive

with global warming, trying to prevent global warming is insane.

 

Also it is clear there have been no negative effects of global warming so far despite us having burnt around half

of the fossil fuel. Burning the remainder will make little difference, rather like adding a further jumper when you

already have 3 jumpers on.