How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: The Economist Has no Clothes
For those who might like a small insight as to why the human spp is in such deep crap.
quote
Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet
Ravaioli: Of course the discovery of new oil wells has given the illusion of unlimited oil …
Nobel Laureate Friedman: Why an illusion?
Ravaioli: Because we know it's a limited resource.
Nobel Laureate Friedman: Excuse me, it's not limited from an economic point of view. You have to separate the economic from the physical point of view. Many of the mistakes people make come from this. Like the stupid projections of the Club of Rome: they used a purely physical approach, without taking prices into account. There are many different sources of energy, some of which are too expensive to be exploited now. But if oil becomes scarce they will be exploited. But the market, which is fortunately capable of registering and using widely scattered knowledge and information from people all over the world, will take account of those changes. [ p. 33, ECONOMISTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, Carla Ravaioli; Zed, 1995 ]
endquote
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Everything has somewhat of a silver lining.
When it comes to PO, climate change, economic and ecological collapse. We can at least take some solace in the fact that economists will be finally and permanently discredited. All of their pretentious theories and their pseudo-religious cargo cult will be exposed as a fraud and they will be ostracized and chased out of town with pitchforks and shovels.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
And this comes from Nobel Laureate! He is not a stupid but more like medieval church dogmas believer. Very sad and such people are dragging us into oblivion.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
It probably escapes most of you dimwits that everytime you disagree with an economist or one of their theories that you are yourself proposing an alternative economic theory. One that should be able to be back tested and found either true or false. Unfortunately, you do not understand economics (or finance) well enough to be able to do that.
Of course, you are usually more than happy to borrow from any economic forecasts that support your own biases. Especially the pseudo-economic rants about unlimited growth; fiat currencies; fractional banking; or whatever else is popular to hate at the moment.
Physical Reality > Economic Consequences > Social Reaction > Political Response > Feedback Loop > New Reality > Etc.
If post peak oil resource depletion did not have any economic consequences then it would be a non-issue. Big mouths. Small minds. A waste of time. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:41 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
MrBill wrote:
It probably escapes most of you dimwits that everytime you disagree with an economist or one of their theories that you are yourself proposing an alternative economic theory. One that should be able to be back tested and found either true or false. Unfortunately, you do not understand economics (or finance) well enough to be able to do that.
Bill, A little twitchy methinks....
Personally I am not here proposing anything except to suggest the current system is broken and has no way of addressing the world in which we live. Other people seem to be coming to the same conclusion.
Quote:
Of course, you are usually more than happy to borrow from any economic forecasts that support your own biases. Especially the pseudo-economic rants about unlimited growth; fiat currencies; fractional banking; or whatever else is popular to hate at the moment.
Physical Reality > Economic Consequences > Social Reaction > Political Response > Feedback Loop > New Reality > Etc.
If post peak oil resource depletion did not have any economic consequences then it would be a non-issue. Big mouths. Small minds. A waste of time.
Bill ignore the economic consequences, the real effect of peak energy is peak humans and dieoff.
And I can see (unlike yourgoodself) that money is a myth, its a con, the new religion. Neoliberal economics has only one task, to assist in the transfer of "assets" from the many to the few, in this of course it has been extremely successful.
Caution with the big/small comments, the future will be either eaters or eaten, I intend to be in the first group! And please dont waste your time on our account. _________________ "At some point in the not too distant future, mother nature will initiate bankruptcy proceedings against the standing crop of human flesh". Catton Overshoot
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Good luck, Mastodon! Strong backs and weak minds are always useful. Enjoy your eat or be eaten fantasies! ; - )) _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Apr 13, 2007 Posts: 69 Location: western new york
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Mastadon is of course right that neoclassical economics cannot recognize environmental costs, but I don’t think this means that economists have no clothes. There are plenty of economists that are working on the problem of including the environment in prices. They are aware of that and many other market failures. I think that the problem is that much of what passes as economics in these arguments is either chapter 1 economics, which misses all the subtleties, or opinion that is dressed up as economics. Also Milton Friedman is an economist not economists. Paul Krugman is also a famous economist.
For instance, I don’t think there is any real theory that says that commodity prices always have to fall. This was the experience of the last 150 years, and if knowledge is always expanding, it makes sense, but there is really no reason that it couldn’t go the other way. Similarly, there is really no reason that growth has to be exponential for ever, in fact chapter 1 economics is static, and I think theories of the causes economic growth are controversial.
The substitution argument of Friedman is more basic to economics, because economics purports to explain general theories, and if oil or some other commodity is really special that would require some adjustment. But in the end economics is about getting the incentives right to maximize human welfare, and would not be falsified by peak oil.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Also, practitioners do not win Noble Prizes. These are usually reserved for new theories and/or new insights some of which may not stand the test of time.
They have as much to do with the politics of the selection committee as anything. Sort of like Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres sharing a peace prize, although there was never any end to fighting in the ME. Or Al Gore getting a Noble prize despite doing nothing to end climate change.
I am sure that someday Jeffrey Sachs will get his Noble Prize, and I personally disagree with many of his suggestions with regards to development economics, although one cannot argue that he is not influential. Almost as influential as Bono! ; - )
But worst of all is when politicians of all stripes use pseudo-economic arguments to justify their poor policies. This is just based on cherry picking the bits of theory that they like while conveniently ignoring those parts that they find uncomfortable. Not unlike the way many of Keynes' arguments on supply side economics have been bastardized to justify deficit spending.
However, it is not enough to say Friedman, Keynes or Sachs are wrong or are idiots. One then has to prove why or provide alternatives. Otherwise it is academically dishonest and intellectually lazy! ; - )) _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Mar 12, 2007 Posts: 844 Location: As close as I can get to the beginning of the pipe.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
That's Nobel prize, Bill.
Quote:
Quote:
"Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among the most vocal critics of the Prize in Economics is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.[25] Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal and former Swedish minister of finance Kjell-Olof Feldt have also advocated that the Prize in Economics should be abolished.[26] Myrdal's objections were based on his view that the 1976 Prize in Economics to Milton Friedman and the 1974 Prize in Economics shared by Friedrich Hayek (both classical liberal economists) were undeserved, on the argument that the economics did not qualify as a science. If he had been asked about the establishment of the Prize before receiving it, Hayek stated that he would "have decidedly advised against it."[26][27]
Instead you could try the Crafoord prize, also awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which has sought to remedy some of the damages done by the Economic Nobel by awarding bioscience prizes in Ecology, particularly, for scientists who have done work in ecological economics.
"The annual Crafoord Prize is a science prize established in 1980 by Holger Crafoord, a Swedish industrialist, and his wife Anna-Greta Crafoord.
Administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Prize "is intended to promote international basic research in the disciplines of Astronomy and Mathematics; Geosciences; Biosciences, with particular emphasis on ecology and Polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)," the disease from which Holger Crafoord severely suffered in his last years. According to the Academy, "These disciplines are chosen so as to complement those for which the Nobel Prizes are awarded."[1] Only one award is given each year, according to a rotating scheme (Astronomy and Mathematics; then Geosciences; then Biosciences). In polyarthritis, a Crafoord Prize is only awarded when a special committee decides substantial progress in the field has been made."
One question for you, Bill. How on earth do you describe complex system function with this tool?
_________________ "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." --Patrick Henry
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4357 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
I don't understand how my microwave oven works by my Hot Pockets still come out warm after I play around with the knobs.
The supply/demand model is actually remarkable versatile.
It allows us to judge the effects of taxes, subsidies, production interruptions, changes in income, changes in demand patterns, technological innovation, cost changes of raw materials, and so on.
After all, Peak Oilers manage to turn the following chart into a complex model for how society will collapse.
_________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4042 Location: Memphis
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Iaato wrote:
One question for you, Bill. How on earth do you describe complex system function with this tool?
I think that if the lines are curved, that means that it's complex.
MrBill, nice use of the term "dimwits"--I read it like Moe of the Three Stooges lecturing his associates.
Moe:"Now look here you dimwits--I don't know how this happened, but somehow my bottle is full of smartass and your bottles are full of dumbass, so listen up, because you need all the help you can get."
Joined: Mar 12, 2007 Posts: 844 Location: As close as I can get to the beginning of the pipe.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Tyler, life is a complex, three-dimensional derivative consisting of producers and consumers spread out in all directions and at an infinite number of scales vertically, reacting and responding to inputs to their system and producing outputs that affect other systems. This creates a dynamic living respirating world that changes over time. NCE can't explain that world using two axes, two dimensions, and the failure to include derivations over time.
Neoclassical economics is based on discredited 19th century physics and primitive algebraic math. But in the meantime, it has become the mouthpiece, explanatory, and apologist for modern capitalism and fractional reserve banking. It will go down with the ship. _________________ "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." --Patrick Henry
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4042 Location: Memphis
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
Iaato wrote:
Tyler, life is a complex, three-dimensional derivative consisting of producers and consumers spread out in all directions and at an infinite number of scales vertically, reacting and responding to inputs to their system and producing outputs that affect other systems. This creates a dynamic living respirating world that changes over time. NCE can't explain that world using two axes, two dimensions, and the failure to include derivations over time.
Neoclassical economics is based on discredited 19th century physics and primitive algebraic math. But in the meantime, it has become the mouthpiece, explanatory, and apologist for modern capitalism and fractional reserve banking. It will go down with the ship.
Iaato, I wouldn't go that far. Economic theory does provide a good method for explaining the allocation of resources and the determination of price in many settings.
Just because a hammer doesn't work well for brain surgery doesn't mean it's not good for driving nails. _________________
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
The markets and economist models work fine if you account
for the growth in concentrated wealth and consumption by
the reduction in human beings on the planet in response
to resource limitations. We have sort of done this to date
by having a small subset of the humans in the financial game
in any real way, and the rest subsisting in undeveloped areas
almost directly from local natural resources.
We are coming up on the point where resource limits force
the economist models to continue by trading humans for
growth, which if done on purpose or via default is fairly
untenable morally. It does not make economics wrong
or immoral, it just means that it can encounter a set of
circumstances that is beyond the ability of free markets
and growth based systems to contend with.
That math model presented here reminds me of the
SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, threat)
analysis system. Which is similar to the four directions
analysis of native peoples, etc. etc. I am unable to take
this observation any further myself and yield to Golem
to run with it instead.
Joined: Feb 29, 2008 Posts: 55 Location: Borgloon, Belgium
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: The Economist Has no Clothes
BigTex wrote:
Iaato wrote:
Tyler, life is a complex, three-dimensional derivative consisting of producers and consumers spread out in all directions and at an infinite number of scales vertically, reacting and responding to inputs to their system and producing outputs that affect other systems. This creates a dynamic living respirating world that changes over time. NCE can't explain that world using two axes, two dimensions, and the failure to include derivations over time.
Neoclassical economics is based on discredited 19th century physics and primitive algebraic math. But in the meantime, it has become the mouthpiece, explanatory, and apologist for modern capitalism and fractional reserve banking. It will go down with the ship.
Iaato, I wouldn't go that far. Economic theory does provide a good method for explaining the allocation of resources and the determination of price in many settings.
Just because a hammer doesn't work well for brain surgery doesn't mean it's not good for driving nails.
Our precious economics have given us (humanity) short term succes (some more than others). Now we are with too many people, still rising, the earth population will decline in the future, there is no other way. The personal attacks on doomers on this forum is because a lot of guys here made their money with stockbrocking. So any criticism on our economic system (in which they have done well) is a burden for their conscience. Free market will save us all hooray !!!!!!!!
Last edited by KingDavid on Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
