I just don't understand how you can think that the power to influence public debate through politics and the media of pro green energy groups can compare to that of the size and influence of the old energy sector.

Green energy is a cottage industry compared to old energy. The power of environmentalists and even a few activist minded billionaires would pale to the spending power and incentive to act of old energy companies.

Surely if you're concerned about money muddying the debate, the first group you would focus on is the ones with disproportionately more money?

Also your arguments I've seen previously echo the tobacco / lung cancer debate. Aren't you concerned you're being duped by these supposedly authoritative blogs?

The industrial age is part of 'economic liberty'.

People were free to make inventions that use coal, or use oil, and were free to market them either as products or services.

That differs from the earlier times/case where folks were obligated to participate only in activities sanctioned by their local lords. Often where they couldn't even travel freely.

Much of the math and chemistry we have comes from centuries worth of largely superfluous [essentially hobbyist at the time] higher education of the privileged classes. (eg. Boyle's/Charles' laws being a foundation of modern internal combustion engines, not used in said form for centuries after written down).

(Note : Which still continues to be the case, what we come up with in a purely theoretical form today, ends up being used in practical application much later. Although maybe it's speeding up. eg. Relativity is used in making GPS work, and that time delta isn't quote as large.)

Once the idea of economic liberty took hold, and people were free to come up with ideas that use the universes natural/physical properties to replace 'manpower', you had the industrial revolution.



The 'honor' part plays a good role too. You can witness this still being an issue today.
You can go to parts of eastern Europe, and talk with people about jobs and respectability.

There are plenty of places where a laborer is scum, and a businessman (eg. owner, who does not himself work, but has people working for him) is highly respected.
In these places, you don't see much work getting done, as a large portion of the typical western service sectors just doesn't exist.
For example, there are ~no house painters. Showing up with paint buckets and overalls would just get you strange stares and mumbles from people around you, and parents would be saying to their kids "See, this is what happens if you don't get good grades".
If you want your house painted, you gotta do it yourself. Few self respecting people are willing to do that job.
In contrast, ask people around the U.S. about who painted their house. Odds are, they hired for it.

The effects on small business are visible too. Lots of shops, the moment the owner can afford to not come in himself, that's exactly what they do.
And on top of that, they take every chance they can get to point out to folks that 'they don't work anymore - people work for them'.

It's a culture where the people responsible for productivity are looked down on, and it has a chilling effect on productivity.

-scheherazade

I'm advocating passivity because I don't recognise overpopulation as a threat, more an inconvenience, and one that we couldn't really prevent even if we wanted to.

I don't see what's preposterous or optimistic about taking widely accepted birth rate data and projecting based off that. Birth rates are predictable and stable sampled over a large population. The data consistently shows that as societies come out of poverty, their birth rates fall. The only assumption here is that there isn't another GFC event that hinders growth which at this point is not particularly likely.

All taken into account we already know it's plateauing, and have known for decades. This isn't a hypothesis, it's happening right now. Unless you can show me why this trend will suddenly and irrevocably reverse, despite population data being incredibly stable and predictable historically, it seems the onus is on you to explain why you're so pessimistic.

Again, I think you're still conflating (1) what I want / whether it's bad versus (2) whether it could plausibly be stopped. I would also rather live in a less populated world. At current rates of technology and resource utilisation, things would be cheaper, there'd be more to go around. Reality is not like that. But as I said before, every policy focus has an opportunity cost. I don't see a plateauing population as a threat and I would rather see that effort devoted to poverty which will help reduce it anyway.

We're nowhere near an economic bubble. Maybe a short term stock market valuation bubble right now, but there's plenty of economic under-utilisation in the US and Europe, and China and other developing countries have decades to grow.

The term technological bubble is a bit nonsensical. You can have a technology sector bubble but actual physical technology which works now, will not magically stop working tomorrow based on inflated expectations. If you're saying instead we'll reach some cusp of innovation, well people have predicting that for decades.

We're nowhere near a peak oil event. Every time people say current known reserves are dwindling, they either (1) discover a huge reserve in under developed countries that were previously not surveyed (Africa and parts of SE Asia at the moment), or (2) something like fraking comes along which unlocks new supply. The US is forecast to be the largest oil exporter by 2020 based on that second point.

Hell, I'll play devil's advocate with you. Suppose we do reach a glut. We'll know this at least a decade ahead based on dwindling new reserve discoveries. The price of energy will leap up far, far ahead of us running out. That will spur innovation in more efficient sources of energy and will incentivise both individuals and businesses to be more energy efficient. A gradual adjustment like I've talked about endlessly here. Why am I wrong?

Environmental damage is a different issue and something that I agree needs to actually be addressed. I'm sure if you search back through my posts you'll see me talking about the economic rationale of addressing this directly when corporations who pollute aren't subject to the negative externalities that they impose in our current capitalist system and that will inherently create issues. Hopefully countries will take note of the smog clouds in China's big cities.

@enoch

I'd agree Friedman wasn't directly responsible, but served more as an academic influence and a proponent of a particular approach because many of the Chilean economists who influenced policy had studies in Chicago.

As far as exploiting a crisis, arguably the crisis itself warranted dramatic action. High levels of inflation caused by Allende's money printing to support wholesale nationalisation of industries pretty much required this.

As inflation is self perpetuation by its continuous expectation and can continue even after the original stimulus is gone, there was little choice here. After all it took Volker nearly half a decade of high interest rates to tame it in the US in the early 80s, to do that after an economic and political crisis in a undeveloped country was an entirely different scale of difficult.

Successive governments likely reversed some of the economic policies enacted under his regime, but the foundation I meant was particularly the budgetary position, free trade, and a competitive cadre of private sector exporters. The welfare, health and educational spending were all made possible by this. Without a credible tax base, trying to enact spending on this level while also raising the tax rises would have just precipitated another crisis.

Coming back to inflation and economics, I believe policies against inflation especially, are generally misunderstood in the short term and their benefits unrecognised in the long term. I would probably say the reverse of what you said, economic policy rarely shows tangible results in the short term but almost always in the long term.

It's certainly not perfect. After all economics has the unfavourable position of being the combination of social science, lacking the ability to test results in clinical conditions isolating a single factor and yet requiring highly specific answers to solve its questions. At its best, it offers answers based on the cumulative knowledge accrued from iterative policies, at each point being based on the 'best available knowledge at the time'.

But it has worked, as I like to often mention, with independent central banks, essentially the most technocratic and pure application of economic theory, inflation has become a thing of the past in those countries that have adopted it.

Then again I'm biased as I majored in it at uni

Regardless of what happens with these protests, Venezuela is a classic example of a country where a vast proportion of people have conflated Chavez's socialist policies with the country's oil and gas fueled growth from the early 2000s to the GFC. Nothing is likely to change that anytime soon even if there were a change of government.

The problem recently has been the combination of the new president Maduro who does not have Chavez populist legitimacy and the QE tapering in the US which is seeing currencies slide in emerging markets, but mostly in countries that had issues to begin with (Argentina, Turkey, Venezuela).

Economically the country is screwed because of the hugely corrupt and inefficient state owned energy companies, the expropriation and nationalisation of the agricultural sector. The government has responded with minimum wage hikes, printing money and capital controls on currency conversion which all just forestall the inevitable crisis.

As usual with countries like these, what props up the government is the system of patronage between the government and the elite/military. If the government were to make their state run firms efficient and/or privatise them, they couldn't skim off the top. If they can't skim off the top they have no money, no authority and they get thrown out.

That's why it's so great to adhere to science. Science is just the combined efforts of anyone who is inclined to understand stuff better. It looks at things and with a lack of bias only the mathematical can provide says what the likelihood of something is.

It's how the facts are then "spun" where the bullshit creeps in.

We've known for years that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, it's not even in question any more. We know it's bad but we keep doing it. We have the money to change it but it sits in the corporate sector bank accounts because a few would rather be richer than creosote for the duration of their life than to spread richness upon the world for the lives of those to follow.

Those to follow are me, you, your kids perhaps.

("Creosote" is a pun that my grandma uses - 93 years old - and i've seen Terry Pratchett use it as well. Creosus was very rich, creosote is a rich black tarry substance)

Halfway in, Prof. Wolff's latest monthly update is already fantastic. Nothing new, really. But his presentation of the (post-)FDR period is rather captivating. For an economist, the man really knows how to tell a story.

Edit: also, Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone finally published the sequel to his epic "Vampire Squid" story about the massive wrongdoings of the banking sector, and Goldman Sachs in particular. I haven't read it yet, but the last one was one of the most outrageous things I have read in the last 30 years. Truly epic shit.

You mean that there's a demand for a bank type institution to actually do what banks do: store savings and grants loans instead of taking your money, creating a huge sum of money from that, then invest that in to options and derivatives that is basically gambling, then losing it all and getting everything back as bailouts? Really, who would've guessed a traditional bank is a good thing when it doesn't run on "profit now" ultra-capitalist principle.

It's something that is very common elsewhere in the world. There usually is a demand for very simple, traditional basic banks that can't swindle with overdraft charges, credit cards pushed to people who can't handle them, just the basic bank you store money temporarily.

There are regulations in place that allow such banks to be exist and these banks are the real backbones of the economy, increasing growth in the smallest sectors that immediately invest that money back in to the economy. It might even be state backed bank or a group of citizens, it might be mandatory by law etc. Usually every country has one. It promotes equality, social mobility and keeps the cash rotating much longer than what investing towards investment banking does. The latter is just a cancer, it doesn't really do anything but it skims the most wealth and that wealth does not move anywhere, it stays in that imaginary system.

In USA, regulatory system is so stripped out that freerange capitalism is really showing how bad it is when it's left running things. Capitalism is like fire: good servant, poor master.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

There is a flaw in your premise which suggests that somehow a capitalist system is susceptible to the "evils of man," but a "government" (no matter how limited) is not. Man is either evil or Man is not evil, regardless of the system in which Man functions. A system of government regulation can either be exploited or not, so a government imposed regulation thus becomes a mechanism for that manipulation.

Capitalism, by contrast, does not require the governmental oversight to impose the regulations that the market imposes upon itself. Such a system (despite the prevalent perception, of late) does not, in and of itself, generate the kinds of crony, kleptocratic monopolies that we have seen on the rise for the past 30+ years. That is, sadly, the effect of government -- the original monopoly -- whose regulations and hybridized (private/public) contractual agreements with the private sector create these imbalances and inequities throughout society. As far as I can tell, only the implicit competitions of the free market present the kinds of price restrictions that cannot be circumvented.

Note that capitalist competition does not mean a system of 'survival of the fittest' and it does not entail the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. In fact, the pattern seen throughout a competitive market is that of a "leader" challenged by a "second-place" (Coke then Pepsi), followed by a more distant third (other colas) and then a variety of many others (Sprite, 7-Up, A&W, etc.) Competition in capitalism differs considerably from that seen in the animal kingdom because humans, unlike animals, can increase the supply of what they need to survive, while animals cannot (with possible exceptions like bees making honey). In fact, capitalist competition does the opposite, it allows those who would otherwise not survive (because they cannot produce for themselves, or those too weak to compete) to survive by partaking in the market of increased supply. Even if those people are unable to hunt or farm for themselves, they can still feed themselves with the abundance of food produced by capitalist competition, which is a competition to produce more and better of whatever the market needs (with an accurate reflection of supply and demand in the price, which is very different from the kinds of "blind" economic calculations necessary in a centralized system of government). And to have such an abundance of production/supply, you need capital investment. There's no other alternative.

In any case, read the article I posted. Let me know what you think.

The December update highlighted an issue that has been driving me insane for years now, an issue that makes me want to punch my fellow citizens right in the kisser for not looking beyond the facade.

His illustration of the price you pay for a t-shirt can be applied, without alteration, to our energy sector in Germany. The old, centralised infrastructure, primarily coal/gas/nuclear power plants, were subsidized heavily over the years, both directly through interest-free public loans and the privatisation of the energy grid as well as through indirect means, such as tax/insurance exemptions, R&D financing. Hell, the clean-up at Sellafield in the UK alone is expected to cost just shy of £100B. All this outsourcing of costs made it possible to keep the price of energy comparably cheap.

Meanwhile, all the subsidies for renewable energy are added on top of the energy price for consumers. No smoke screens, no outsourcing, no legacy costs. You get the price tag on your energy bill. A decent level of transparency, at last. But now people get pissed at the high prices of energy and demand a stop to the renewable energy program, which ironically pushed prices to a record low on the energy exchange. On-shore wind and solar are now cheaper than heavily subsidized coal and gas. My home town in the middle of nowhere generates wind power at 0.08€ per kwh, all year long, with minimal operating costs. Even solar works splendidly, despite the abysmal central European weather.

I think I might just try his Walmart explanation on some people, it's much easier to understand.

So cheers again for pointing out this wonderful series of lectures.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-austerity-public-sector-cuts

So Dave is done with all the pretence now, is he? Declaring permanent austerity from a golden throne...

And worse is the private sector. At least in healthcare.

"Misuse of police powers" = fired. I think you may not realize what he forfeited. A- A handsomely paying job that obviously he doesn't deserve (Or he needs heavy counseling, which is usually prohibited by an establishment afraid to be sued. Perhaps that is one reason why cops kill themselves so much more than the general population.) B- Retirement benefits that could range into the hundreds of thousands of dollars--or more depending how long he lives. C- The ability to work other like jobs, ie. Solider. He probably has nothing much else to go to as far as employment.

If he was in the private sector this would be a water cooler laugh session more than likely.

I would say that's a fucking lot more than you or I would lose. Plus being arrested. I wonder, should he be anally violated too? He made a dipshit move like 90% of Americans, he just happened to be in a dipshit-free requirement profession.

Here's a bigger picture of mandatory " health insurance" , one that resembles another failed institution's successes and failures through extortion with the goal of diverting capitol to private coffers.

Fuck birth control, I don't feed myself as influenced by the corporate media machine's saturation diet of shit food but the majority of unhealthy, overweight, drones in sector EVERYWHERE do-The bulk of health care expenses in the U.S. are squandered on correcting or marginally forestalling the inevitable cascading failures associated with these poor diet habits fostered by the machine. The SAME machine owns the insurance companies, the medical establishment, down the fucking line.

Chicago 1921-1923- New York, Boston, hell pick a city on the east coast.
The mafia invented it, gangster fucks perfected it, it continues under the guise of the Affordable (fuck you, I have my own insurance) Care Act.

If people, were not such fucking imbeciles, they'd see through the simple veil of graft and extortion these suited, elected (joke) criminals use to continue to divert attention away from the obvious criminality of their ruse.

Get me started on eating healthy and the lack of availability and inaccessibility of the healthiest of raw materials...of how staple crops have been hijacked and genetically coded with ONE goal preeminent: To increase the profits of the monopolies that control the food supply.

The fastest way to fix the problem of affordable health care, is to fix the broken habits of dumb-ass humans who allow themselves to be bent-over and ass-fucked into thinking they need insurance AT ALL!

Teach people that their diets are being being systematically and fundamentally altered to keep them in this loop and the insurance companies and the cunts who make the laws that benefit them, will collapse under the weight of their own, orchestrated illusion.