Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 06:46:40 GMT
"Jeffrey Matthews Lamb" wrote:
|
>strange, pessimistic, and dire perspective - but that is NOT what I would
>advocate. Rather we are saying that we must begin to see progress in
>qualitative terms rather than strictly quantitative terms - or realize that
>our whole idea of progress will someday die at the hands of the reality of
>finite resources long after it has taken precious parts of the ecosystem
>with it.
Jeffrey,
Is it a fair guess that if _I_ decide what I should do that is a
quantitative decision, but if _you_ decide what I should do, that is a
qualitative judgement? :-)
As for finite resources, this is a "there you go again." If resources
were finite that would mean you wouldn't be able to create and more.
The fact, however, is that throughout history we have created more
resources all the time, and we continue to do so. Finite means
limited. To assert that resources will reach a point where they
cannot be improved or increased is to repeat your earlier "We're there
now, it can't get better" proposition.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capital Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 06:50:57 GMT
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>"Jeffrey Matthews Lamb" wrote:
>>strange, pessimistic, and dire perspective - but that is NOT what I would
>>advocate. Rather we are saying that we must begin to see progress in
>>qualitative terms rather than strictly quantitative terms - or realize that
>>our whole idea of progress will someday die at the hands of the reality of
>>finite resources long after it has taken precious parts of the ecosystem
>>with it.
>
>Jeffrey,
>
>Is it a fair guess that if _I_ decide what I should do that is a
>quantitative decision, but if _you_ decide what I should do, that is a
>qualitative judgement? :-)
>
>As for finite resources, this is a "there you go again." If resources
>were finite that would mean you wouldn't be able to create and more.
>>^^any^^<<
>The fact, however, is that throughout history we have created more
>resources all the time, and we continue to do so. Finite means
>limited. To assert that resources will reach a point where they
>cannot be improved or increased is to repeat your earlier "We're there
>now, it can't get better" proposition.
>
> -dlj.
Typo corrected. Also I have changed the title, from "Capitalist" to
"Capital." I don't insist on the capitalist mode, and believe that as
an almost sure generalization a mixed economy is best. On the other
hand the continual increase in both capital and in economic
consumption, material, intellectual, whatever, seems to me a clear
good.
-dlj.
>
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: ladasky@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 23:00:38 -0800
In article <32894ABF.3AF5@airmail.net>,
Steve Conover, Sr. wrote:
>Jeffrey Matthews Lamb wrote:
>>
>>
>> The idea of infinite growth seems to be a rather strange (and dangerous)
>> assumption to me - but very, very few folks are challenging it in public -
>> which I think stems from the absurdly abstract nature of modern economics.
>> But then I'm a chemist turned activist-minister - economics is not my area
>> of expertise...
>>
>
>Strange and dangerous? Read _Unlimited Wealth_ by Paul Zane Pilzer, and
>you just might change your mind.
And when you're done with that, email me for a copy of a really neat
chain letter. After you're through with that, I'll show you my super-secret
patent for a perpetual motion machine -- but you'll have to pay me first.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 03:02:42 GMT
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:32:38 -1000, Jay Hanson
wrote:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
>> world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
>> modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
>> double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
>> though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
>> for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
>
>Modern agriculture is not sustainable.
>
>=========================================================================
>
> THERMODYNAMICS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION
> by Jay Hanson — revised 11/04/96
>
Been reading a bit too much Jeremy Rifkin there methinks.
You know, *nothing* is sustainable in the long run. Human life is
clearly not sustainable indefinitely.
Like this nonsense you post here:
"Sustainable systems are "circular" (outputs become inputs)—all linear
physical systems must eventually end. Modern agriculture is increasing
entropy in both its sources (e.g., energy, soil, and ground water) and
its sinks (e.g., water and soil). Thus, modern agriculture is not
circular—it can not be sustained."
There's *no such thing* as a "circular" system. All conversion of
input to output inherently leads to an increase in entropy.
You remind me a lot of some of these creationists on Usenet who argue
entropy disproves evolution. Evolution after all is also a "linear
system" which has somehow "sustained" itself for billions of years.
You should join the creationists in an entry level physics course.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell http://www.carnell.com/
brian@carnell.com
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 07:16:42 GMT
In article <569t77$seb@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> Jay Hanson wrote:
>
> >John McCarthy wrote:
> >> Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes. The five
> >> involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
> >>
> >> The _Limits to Growth_ model was nonsense, and experience verified what
> >> analysis had shown.
> >
> >Paul Ehrlich was not part of the Limits to Growth team.
>
> Of course he wasn't. (Nor does McCarthy say that he was.) He was just
> an innocent bystander stupid enough to the Meadowses seriously, and
> lost a bunch of money as a result.
>
I believe that Ehrlich managed that particular blunder all by himself.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 07:15:12 GMT
In article <56bj61$o18@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> 100 million homes with complicated plumbing on their roofs and
> windmills on towers in the back yard will be the most dangerous
> installation since TV antennas back in the fifties. Hundreds of
> thousands of people will be climbing up ladders and crawling along the
> eaves. Thousands will be falling off, and hundreds will be getting
> killed.
>
> The total number of deaths from all civilian nuclear power does not
> add up to a single school-bus crash, from 1945 to the present, except
> for the foul-up at Cernobyl. This may have killed several dozen, or
> perhaps a few hundred. Even if we take the number as a few hundred,
> it does not approach the danger of a few hundred thousand Saturday
> afternoon repairmen clambering around on their roofs and windmills.
>
> Home solar and wind power is the most dangerous idea since the
> back-yard swimming poool, a major menace to life and limb.
>
I think these estimates by David Lloyd-Jones are plausible. They make
solar power a plausible undertaking from the safety point of view if
it were otherwise advantageous. Our society tolerates many activities
of approximately that level of hazard. Doubtless the hazards could be
engineered down by a factor of 10, but at our current standards of
hazard they probably wouldn't be.
Of course, nuclear power has been safer yet for the general public. I
assume the construction of nuclear power plants suffers a level of
accidents about average for construction projects - much less than in
the past. In the 1930s it was considered normal for one construction
worker to be killed for every million dollars in project cost.
A month ago my first wife fell off a house she was helping construct
and smashed her heel and broke her arm. I'm sure it was considered a
quite normal accident, i.e. one that did not give rise to a demand for
increased safety measures. People just said she should have been more
careful.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:57:35 GMT
On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>
> >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > the time of reckoning.
>
> Mason,
>
> This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
> ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
> mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
> treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
> to be done, and we're doing it.
>
> The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
> useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
> bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
> demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
> Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
> example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
> that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
> harm.
>
> -dlj.
It appears that I mislead David and perhaps everyone with a kind of
negative-positive: "anti-Pollyanna".
The Pollyannas are the ones believing all is well, nothing can go wrong,
unlimited growth is possible at least for the farthest forseeable future.
By this definition, McCarthy would qualify (and that is NOT an insult).
The anti-pollyannas to which I referred are the Jay Hansons and Ehrlichs
who fear something will go wrong, in fact are terrified.
With that understood, I repeat my plea for buffering of the acid:
> >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > the time of reckoning.
May I add, I would be terrified by a world of Pollyannas. But please
don't tell my Quimby - New Thought friends.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
or: www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 02:11:34 -0600
In article <5639ue$2ll@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw wrote:
>In <55s4ct$2d@newsy.ifm.liu.se> redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
>writes:
>>
>>Jay Hanson writes:
>>> Our future was sealed when we went over our solar budget.
>
>Our energy consumption is only about 0.00007 of our solar budget...
Incorrect. If you want to start thinking in terms of a solar budget,
then you must also account for the percentage of the solar influx
used by the plant life we need just to continue to eat and breathe.
And then there's the component used by the oceans to maintain
currents (Europe might get a tad irritated if we managed to shut down
the Gulfstream), now the fraction used by the atmosphere to maintain
circulation, that which transfers water from the ocean back to land
masses.....
You first need to work out the fraction that can safely be re-routed
for our use before calculating what percent we use.
>
>>Or you can use an electric oven(nuclear power) to make a new plate.
>
>That, too...
--
rha
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:14:00 GMT
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 03:55:30 GMT, briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell) wrote:
> On 11 Nov 1996 06:29:20 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
> >
> >I do not agree with what I take to be one of Julian Simon's sometime
> >points - that there are no limits at all. I do accept his evidence
> >that we aren't close.
>
> Agreed.
An essential point in Simon is the question: how many souls remain waiting
to be born? Perhaps this determines how close we are.
Simon goes on at some length advocating that the unconceived deserve life.
The unconceived must be unborn souls stored in God's warehouse. Surely
this is not an infinite number. God can do arithmetic.
Some religions teach us that once all are born, God will call us all "home,"
well -- only us good people. (I hope we're close.)
I wonder if economists and environmental scientists agree with this reason of
Simon's for unlimited population growth? (population improvement?)
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
or: www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 08:10:37 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>dlj wrote:
>> Home solar and wind power is the most dangerous idea since the
>> back-yard swimming poool, a major menace to life and limb.
> Unable to engineer a solution to even this simple a problem? No
> faith in technology? Don't think a few billion more people can come
> up with the solution? Well, I've pointed out what I wanted to - no
> more replies to this.
It is about as easy as halving the number of people killed in car
accidens. Everybody only have to drive 20 km/h slower and skip driving
when drunk or tired...
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 08:19:26 GMT
In article <3288d4b4.6423368@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>
> On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
> > masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> >
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
> >
> > Mason,
> >
> > This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
> > ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
> > mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
> > treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
> > to be done, and we're doing it.
> >
> > The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
> > useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
> > bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
> > demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
> > Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
> > example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
> > that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
> > harm.
> >
> > -dlj.
>
> It appears that I mislead David and perhaps everyone with a kind of
> negative-positive: "anti-Pollyanna".
>
> The Pollyannas are the ones believing all is well, nothing can go wrong,
> unlimited growth is possible at least for the farthest forseeable future.
> By this definition, McCarthy would qualify (and that is NOT an insult).
> The anti-pollyannas to which I referred are the Jay Hansons and Ehrlichs
> who fear something will go wrong, in fact are terrified.
>
> With that understood, I repeat my plea for buffering of the acid:
>
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
>
> May I add, I would be terrified by a world of Pollyannas. But please
> don't tell my Quimby - New Thought friends.
It is not my position that "unlimited growth is possible at least for
the farthest forseeable future." I argue in my Web site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
that 15 billion can be supported at the U.S. level of material
consumption.
I also do not claim that "nothing can go wrong". My ideas of what the
dangers are differs considerably from that of the political environmentalists.
However, I have discussed the *possibility* that global warming will
occur *and* turn out to be harmful and have discussed ways of mitigating
the danger - again not the same ways as those advocated by the
ideological environmentalists. A position that it is appropriate to
wait is not a position that nothing can go wrong.
(I do not regard Mason Clark's misreading of my position as an insult).
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: Alastair McKinstry
Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:55:50 +0100
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> Is it a fair guess that if _I_ decide what I should do that is a
> quantitative decision, but if _you_ decide what I should do, that is a
> qualitative judgement? :-)
>
> As for finite resources, this is a "there you go again." If resources
> were finite that would mean you wouldn't be able to create and more.
> The fact, however, is that throughout history we have created more
> resources all the time, and we continue to do so. Finite means
> limited. To assert that resources will reach a point where they
> cannot be improved or increased is to repeat your earlier "We're there
> now, it can't get better" proposition.
>
> -dlj.
>
>
Can you explain this a bit further ? What resources have we created ?
In particular, the problem is that of raw materials for _material growth_,
the usage of energy and minerals; the deterioration of soil quality through
overuse. These are what people mean by the problems of economic growth.
Over time, Civilisation (in Europe, to pick a case I am familiar with),
we have survived by moving from one resource to another as growth has depleted
that resource to danger levels, but we haven't avoided the problem in general.
As growth in the middle ages led to deforestation, we moved to coal. As the
growth in traffic at the turn of the century threatened to inundate us with
manure, we moved to cars and oil, etc. We have until now survived by
changing dependencies to other materials, but not solved the problem of
living within finite raw materials. As oil runs out, we cannot switch
back to coal, or wood, or horse and cart. Do you suggest we move onto another
finite raw material ?
--
Alastair McKinstry
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
Subject: Need advice -- Topics in South America
From: giraffe@netcom.com (giraffe)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:20:31 GMT
Dear Economists and Casual Readers Alike:
I am a student of Economics and East Asian Studies. I am searching
for an economics paper research topic, dealing with development in
Mexico (or, anywhere in South America; though, I'm most interested in
Mexico).
My criteria are that the topic be: related to economics (growth, labor
conditions, technological advancement, foreign investment, or anything
similar); and hopefully related to Japanese activites in the country.
The obvious topic is "Japanese investment in Mexico"; but I need more
than that...since, I have gone through all my sources here and don't
have enough for a paper given only this topic. Can anyone suggest an
added aspect for investigation? (and, sources?)
The PERFECT topic for me would tie together Mexico, foreign investment
(from Japan, especially) and the computer industry. However, given
the resources I have ready access to, the last twist involving the
computer industry might be nearly impossible to research.
I am extremely eager to pursue this topic. So, any suggestions you
can make for a topic or for possible resources to investigate (books,
internet resources, people, institutes) would be very welcome and I'd
be most grateful to you! I'd be glad to send you a copy of the final
paper.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Rick
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:59:01 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
> : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
> : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
>
> : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
> : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> : > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
>
> : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
> : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
> : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
> : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
> : have been unthinkable in 1970.
>
> The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
> price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
> for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
> the index would have increased by more than 40%.
Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
accept a premium price for it.
> Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
> (that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
> supermarkets").
It was an instance of changing practises that can increase
the retail price. If there is a demand for "freshness"
it pays to fly in the same fillet of fish, which leads to
a higher retail price for the same commodity, even if the
wholesale price was fixed.
> : Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
> : increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
> : both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
> : for consumer convenience.
> I doubt that this effects the CPI. I think you're
> confusing the price level with price changes.
It wouldn't affect the CPI much, unless fish prices
were strongly weighed in evaluating the CPI. What it does
do is affect the retail price relative to the CPI.
ie it makes the retail price higher, not because of an
intrinsic rise in wholesale price but because of a change
in preparation or marketing.
> : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
> : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
> : commanded a premium price.
> You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
> Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
> unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
for the introduction of new products in a category
when calculating a mean index of cost?
> : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
> : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
> This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
> the price of fish in retail establishments, and
> don't make any distinction between domestic and
> imported.
Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
to completely extraneous factors
If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
can not be argued to be representative of some supply
and demand problem with fish itself.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:14:40 +0000
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
> Magnus writes:
> > Isn't David's point correct?
> > It is dangerous to climb around on roofs, check any nearby statistics.
> I reply:
> For someone who believes that modern technology and market response to
> need are the cures for so many social ills, it amazes me to think that
> he and you lack faith in the ability of some bright engineer to create
> implementable solar technology with a reduced risk factor if there is
> demand for it. If there is no demand for safety, where is the
> problem?
Engineering solutions for making clambering on roofs
safer exist and are in some sense trivial (eg as
a first step lower all house roofs to minimum tolerable
ceilings, then surround them with soft yielding surfaces
either on permanent basis or only when someone is
on the roof - there are a number of other obvious
pallatives). The problem is not the engineering, the
problem is that most of the solutions are inconvenient
enough that both the house owner and the roof climber
are willing to risk death rather than waste the time
and money to make the task intrinsically much safer.
There is some marginal demand for safety, which reflects
the fact that relative to other tasks clambering on roofs
is somewhat unsafe - there may even be some movement to
increment safety, but I suspect in practise even the simplest
methods (like moving _slowly_ or having rails with short
double clip safety ropes) will not be bothered with.
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: "Jeffrey Matthews Lamb"
Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:05:05 GMT
> Is it a fair guess that if _I_ decide what I should do that is a
> quantitative decision, but if _you_ decide what I should do, that is a
> qualitative judgement? :-)
No - I would think that intelligent, informed, and compassionate people
together using a real democratic process could decide such things - but we
are far from this... And no you are no where near understanding the
distinction between qualitative and quantitative.
>
> As for finite resources, this is a "there you go again." If resources
> were finite that would mean you wouldn't be able to create and more.
> The fact, however, is that throughout history we have created more
> resources all the time, and we continue to do so. Finite means
> limited. To assert that resources will reach a point where they
> cannot be improved or increased is to repeat your earlier "We're there
> now, it can't get better" proposition.
This is absolute nonsense. Do you think we create things from nothing?
Things change form via any number of chemical and physical processes( ie.
decomposition) - but resources do not come from nothing. So yes, our
given resources are limited - period. We use resources to produce more of
some things - and use some resources that we can not replace (ie fossil
fuels). Some things can be recycled or regenerate themselves to some
degree though things are always lost in the process as useless byproducts
and waste. Technology can make things more efficient - which means
sometimes less waste - but that can only go so far because always on the
final analysis things are being consumed that cannot be replaced. You
need a basic primer in science and a reality check on your "eat all you
want, we'll make more" philosophy. I often call this the "Doritoization"
of life from Jay Leno's dumb Dorito commercials : ).
--
Jeffrey Matthews Lamb
Doctor of Ministry Candidate
Meadville/Lombard Theological School (Unitarian Universalist)
Affiliated with the University of Chicago
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 11:47:35 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
: >: > > Here are some more figures:
: >: > > % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
: >: >
: >: > > Finished Goods: 317%
: >: > > Chicken: 178%
: >: > > Fish: 528%
: >: >
: >
: >The producer price index for "finished goods" is a reasonable measure
: >of constant dollars. The price of fish has increased by 66% relative
: >to other goods.
:
: 50%. (100+528)/(100+317) = 1.5059952, it sez here. Of course that's
: no big deal if you don't eat much fish, compared to say the amount of
: car you drive.
Oops, my mistake. I shouldn't have called those figures "percentage
change in price," since I didn't subtract the 100. I should have
said fish is 5.28 times more expensive, for a 428% increase
in price.
So the summary figure I keep quoting (a 66% increase in price relative
to other goods) is correct.
And sure, people don't eat that much fish (it's so expensive, after all).
I'm not claiming that it would be a big deal if no fish was ever
caught again -- there's plenty of chicken. But it would be kind of
a waste, and I like eating fish.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 12:28:44 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: >
: > : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
: > : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
: > : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
: >
: > : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
: > : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
: > : > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
: >
: > : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
: > : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
: > : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
: > : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
: > : have been unthinkable in 1970.
: >
: > The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
: > price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
: > for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
: > the index would have increased by more than 40%.
: Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
: to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
: at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
: accept a premium price for it.
I don't see your point. This sounds like an argument about
the interpretation of an increase in the CPI. Sure, it could
be caused by in increase in demand. But I thought we
were discussing bias in the CPI, which I don't see in this
example.
: > Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
: > (that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
: > supermarkets").
: It was an instance of changing practises that can increase
: the retail price. If there is a demand for "freshness"
: it pays to fly in the same fillet of fish, which leads to
: a higher retail price for the same commodity, even if the
: wholesale price was fixed.
The CPI folks are supposed to adjust for quality change,
but I'll grant that the fish index is probably not
their first priority.
Still, I find it hard to believe that this is anything but
a tiny problem. And it's probably not a problem at all
in the producer price index, which shows a similar increase
in price.
: > : Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
: > : increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
: > : both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
: > : for consumer convenience.
: > I doubt that this effects the CPI. I think you're
: > confusing the price level with price changes.
: It wouldn't affect the CPI much, unless fish prices
: were strongly weighed in evaluating the CPI. What it does
: do is affect the retail price relative to the CPI.
: ie it makes the retail price higher, not because of an
: intrinsic rise in wholesale price but because of a change
: in preparation or marketing.
Suppose fish in Kansas is much more expensive than fish in
Maine. Suppose folks in Kansas begin buying more fish.
Does the fish component of the CPI go up? I'm not sure,
but I doubt it. Increasing the weight of Kansas fish
purchasers in the index would be harder to do than not,
and would be undesirable (as you've pointed out), so why
would the BLS do this?
: > : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
: > : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
: > : commanded a premium price.
: > You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
: > Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
: > unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
: Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
: mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
: calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
: for the introduction of new products in a category
: when calculating a mean index of cost?
If they're new goods, we can't calculate a change in
price the first year they're introduced, right?
You can only calculate the change in price in
subsequent years. A price index compares the _same_
bundle of goods in two years.
The treatment of new goods is a common criticism of the CPI,
but the usual critique makes the opposite point from yours.
Expensive new goods like VCRs are introduced, but drop
in price rapidly: the CPI goes down because of the fall in
price. It doesn't go up because VCRs are more expensive
than TVs. (the critique is that new goods aren't
introduced into the CPI rapidly enough.)
: > : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
: > : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
: > This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
: > the price of fish in retail establishments, and
: > don't make any distinction between domestic and
: > imported.
: Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
: imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
: dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
: an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
: to completely extraneous factors
: If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
: trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
: can not be argued to be representative of some supply
: and demand problem with fish itself.
Ok, granted. I misunderstood your point because you didn't
claim any trend in the exchange rate. And you still don't.
I have no idea what's happened to exchange rates over the last
25 years. Maybe the increase in the price of fish is even
more rapid than I thought.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Subject: Re: Canadian States?
From: ANNA MARIA PY DANIEL BUSKO
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:27:35 -0800
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> "Speak English Or Die!" wrote:
>
> >- you have a higher assault rate than america
>
> This could very well be true. A cop who can't get himself assaulted
> five times on Saturday night between the time the bars close and the
> 3:30 a.m. donuts isn't doing his job. Assault in Canada is shouting
> at somebody across the back fence as often as it is knifing somebody
> in the US>
>
> > - you have a higher burglary rate than america
>
> This could also very well be true. My house was burgled six times in
> a year one of the times I lived in Washington. After the police
> staged a alrge phoney "stolen goods" bust, and displayed the obviously
> bought-for-the-occasion junk that they put on display ("sold to buy
> thousands of dollars worth od drugs," they said of pile of trash which
> you could buy for $200 or sell for $25 at any flea market in town),
> they made their theft records open to the public. I looked at mine,
> and it turned out I had been burgled once, and the IBM Selectric I had
> reported at $660, its actual cost, was listed as a $60 item.
>
> Canadian burglaries, by contrast, are reported, and stay reported.
>
> > - you can learn it from any pair of almanacs
>
> And if you think carefully enough you can sometimes distinguish truth
> from fiction.
>
> -dlj.
> Dear Friends,
I am a brazilian student of art, and I would like to know the address of
Mr. Werner Herzog (the director of movie) in Munich.
If you know how can i find him, please e-mail me.
Best Regards,
Danielle Busko
rsj4318@pro.via-rs.com.br
Subject: Advice -- Topics in South America
From: giraffe@netcom.com (giraffe)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:25:21 GMT
Dear Economists and Casual Readers Alike:
I am a student of Economics and East Asian Studies. I am searching
for an economics paper research topic, dealing with development in
Mexico (or, anywhere in South America; though, I'm most interested in
Mexico).
My criteria are that the topic be: related to economics (growth, labor
conditions, technological advancement, foreign investment, or anything
similar); and hopefully related to Japanese activities in the country.
The obvious topic is "Japanese investment in Mexico"; but I need more
than that...since, I have gone through all my sources here and don't
have enough for a paper given only this topic. Can anyone suggest an
added aspect for investigation? (and, sources?)
The PERFECT topic for me would tie together Mexico, foreign investment
(from Japan, especially) and the computer industry. However, given
the resources I have ready access to, the last twist involving the
computer industry might be nearly impossible to research.
I am extremely eager to pursue this topic. So, any suggestions you
can make for a topic or for possible resources to investigate (books,
internet resources, people, institutes) would be very welcome and I'd
be most grateful to you! I'd be glad to send you a copy of the final
paper.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Rick
Subject: Re: Canadian States?
From: Bill MacArthur
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:42:23 GMT
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>gillies@cs.ubc.ca (Donald Gillies) wrote:
>
>> In recent years the Financial
>>Post has not been publishing this bleak statistic regularly, but you
>>can read "The Betrayal of Canada" (Mel Hurtig) for a whining Canadian
>>account, laced with lots of economic statistics proving the bankrupcy
>>of Canada, and complaining of how the USA pulls all the (purse-)
>>strings in Canada today...
>
>This was written before the US-Canada Auto Agreement. Mississaugua
>was a green field, and the industrial ring around Toronto did not
>exist back then.
>
I don't think that anyone can argue that Canada hasn't benefited
tremendously from the Auto Pact. Canada has some of the best high tech
companies in the world and some of the most efficient plants. How many
of those would have been built and how many jobs would be missing without
it?
>>Last year the financial post published an article claiming that of the
>>?100? most profitable businesses in Canada, nearly all were under
>>foreign ownership...
>
>The 100 most profitable businesses in _any_ country are mostly under
>foreign ownership. If this is not yet true of the US itself, it
>eventually will be.
This may be true but it misses a much bigger picture. The vast majority
of people work for small companies. In Canada, the average no.of
employees is 11. Multinationals don't typically own these businesses;
Canadians do.
I also read an article a couple of years ago in which the author compared
the working conditions of multi/transnational companies with home growns.
Typically, multis offered better pay, benefits and working conditions
than homegrowns. IIRC this was a worldwide phenomenon.