Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jim Wright
Date: 12 Nov 1996 05:45:13 GMT
"Mike Asher" wrote:
>Scott Susin wrote:
>>
>> How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
>> to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
>>
>
>Large-scale fish farming will become practical if and when demand pushes
>prices to appropriate levels. It may never happen if we keep producing
>cheaper rice, grain, chicken, and other staples at the rate of the past few
>decades.
>
>People who claim we'll empty the oceans of fish, then turn around and cry
>doom over exponential models of human growth, are amusing. Even heavily
>overfished areas can be restored in a very few years; such areas become
>incredibly fertile breeding grounds.
Mike, I know of several countries who would love your expertise in this
area.
Competition and predators decrease,
>while food supply increases. Larger, slower-breeding fish will decline in
>demand as lower-priced, more efficient species dominate the market.
That's an interesting application of economic ideology to biological
systems. There was a guy named Lysenko who tried the same thing in the
USSR with disappointing results.
While the biology is complex, I suspect the ones that survive and
prosper under overfishing will be the ones of little economic value
and/or whose reproductive cycle isn't disrupted as much by over-fishing.
These *efficient* fish will be, by definition, less valuable to us.
>
>If and when fish farming predominates, and we abandon the hunter-gatherer
>system of ocean use, expect to see the same sort of production increases
>land agriculture has shown.
You may be right, but I think that the analogy with the potato is
strained. Most increases in agricultural production have been as much
from the availability of cheap fossil fuel energy as from technology.
And there's little relationship between the technology required to
increase potato productivity and implement a productive fish farming
culture. Leaving aside the use of non-renewable energy, the efficient
conversion of solar energy into food by either means depends on factors
unique to each, I think.
As an example, let me quote some statistics on
>a food staple for many years, the potato:
>
>Year Yield/Acre (in 1000 lbs)
>1500's 2 (estimated)
>1920 7.5
>1950 16.5
>1960 20.8
>1970 24.6
>1985 27.5
>
>Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
>asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
>high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
>companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
>yield explosion here within the next decade.
Assuming it isn't counteracted by a decline in the availability of
cheap fossil fuels, an equally plausible scenario.
>
>Agricultural productivity is a major influence in living standards. When
>the average farmer could produce only enough food to feed one family, the
>entire world must farm (A situation very close to ancient history, where
>even politicians and warriors were required to farm, lest they starve.)
>The declining number of American farmers-- so bemoaned in certain
>segments-- is actually symptomatic of the heath of the nation's
>agricultural sector.
Actually "health" is subjective. More accurately it reflects the
role of economic efficiency in determining farm numbers, and they
are certainly that, although I would argue that they aren't particularly
efficient users of resources, due to flaws in the way our economic
system prices non-renewable energy.
Food production is increasing faster than population
>levels.
Are you sure? Global food stocks are said to be the lowest in recent
history. Of course we may be creating a system where we are keeping
very low inventories while food production rises fast, so I won't argue
the point.
>
>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.
And yet is isn't happening fast enough to prevent widespread poverty
and starvation?? Always something to puzzle about!!
All without an additional acre being farmed,
>though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
>for many years.
I guess if the malnourished in the poorer parts of the world could
bid of the price of food, that would change, would it not?
Perhaps you have some statistics here?
See anon quote below.
>
>Mike Asher
>masher@tusc.net
>
>"Economists quote their GNP predictions to the 1/10 point to show they have
>a sense of humor..."
> - Unknown.
>
>
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 04:41:00 GMT
Nick Eyre wrote:
>Of course it is not that easy in practice as there will be other
>reactions as well as capture and other isotopes will do the opposite of
>what is wanted, e.g. any Xe-134 around could easily end up as Cs-135.
Well, Xe-134, when it absorbs a neutron, becomes Xe-135,
which can decay into Cs-135. However, their plan was to dissolve
the fuel as the fluoride in molten FLiBe, so the Xe can be removed
online by helium sparging (a very fast process). This means the Xe134
will not be transmuted to any significant extent to Xe-135 (the
neutron capture cross section is low anyway). It does mean that the
Xe-135 that is produced as a fission product will mostly decay
after it has been removed from the reactor, so one gets most
of that Cs-135 already separated from the other Cs isotopes.
If Xe-135 is left in a reactor, btw, much of it gets transmuted before
it decays (its thermal neutron cross section is around 2 million
barns.) So one might want to sparge the xenon, then feed it back
into the reactor as a compressed gas in a separate loop.
>You just cannot control which reactions you get.
Sure you can: by separating out the isotopes to be transmuted
(when this is economical) and putting them back into the high
flux part of the system. You can't get reactions on the things
you don't put back in.
Paul Dietz
dietz@interaccess.com
"If you think even briefly about what the Federal
budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
crisis"
-- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 06:29:24 GMT
John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <567flk$ah7@sloth.swcp.com> snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
: > In article ,
: > John McCarthy wrote:
: > >Scott Susin includes:
: >
: > > The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when
: > > compared to the price of chicken. Certainly demand for
: > > chicken is increasing for some of the same reasons. And I
: > > would guess that technological trends are similar.
: >
: > > Here are some more figures:
: >
: > > % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
: >
: > > Finished Goods: 317%
: > > Chicken: 178%
: > > Fish: 528%
: >
: > >I think Susin is mistaken about chicken. Chickens have improved
: > >enormously in the amount of meat you get for a pound of chicken feed.
: > >The technology of raising chickens has also improved enormously, i.e. the
: > >machines that feed them and remove the chicken shit.
: > [snip]
: >
: > Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
: > considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
: > it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
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. In another post, I present the price of fish
relative to the more common CPI (which includes services too). The
price of fish has increased 40% relative to that.
This is consistent with the theory that it's getting harder to
increase the supply of fish, or even maintain it at a constant
level.
: Susin's mistake was speculating that the technological trends for fish
: were the same as those for chicken. The fish caught today are
: genetically the same as those caught in the 1930s. This is not true
: of chicken.
I'll take your word for it that technology has marched ahead faster
in raising chickens than in catching fish. But recall that McCarthy
originally claimed, in essence, that techological progress was
slower in fishing than in the _average_ industry. He hasn't
proved this point either.
Here's what McCarthy wrote:
: 2. The relative increase in the price of fish is related to the fact
: that the productivity of fishing hasn't increased as much as the
: productivity of other industries. The price of a haircut has
: increased even faster relative to the CPI than has the price of fish,
: because the productivity of cutting hair has scarcely increased at
: all.
: 3. The demand for fish has increased, partly because of changes in
: taste and beliefs about health, but also because improved
: transportation has extended the market for fresh ocean fish into the
: center of the U.S.
From my layperson's perspective, it seems that technological progress
in fishing is pretty rapid (especially with all this stuff about
aquaculture people keep bringing up). It's certainly faster than in
cutting hair, and probably faster than in construction, or education.
I admit that McCarthy's theory (slow technological change coupled with
an increase in the demand for fish) could theoretically explain the
increase in price. But, in general, this explanation also predicts
that fish consumption per capita will go up. This hasn't happened:
Fish Consumption per capita (lbs/year)
1970 11.7
1980 12.4
1985 15.0
1990 15.0
1994 15.1
Fish consumption peaked in 1987, at 16.1 lbs/person/year. Chicken
consumption, and even pork consumption have been increasing more
rapidly in the last decade or so.
McCarthy could conceivably be right before 1987. But since then, it's
hard to avoid the conclusion that we're hitting natural resource
constraints: fish are becoming harder to catch, and aquaculture isn't
compensating for it.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 20:42:36 GMT
pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid) wrote:
>
>For the second time, I have never proposed any "transmutation" of
>material, David Lloyd-Jones has. I am actually on record on Usenet as
>saying that I don't think that his approach is feasible.
Patrick is taking my name in vain: the only transmutations I have
proposed are the routine two, the first nuclear, the second simply
physical: 1.) Let stuff cool off for a while in pools; then 2.) dilute
it with rock, cement, glass or whatever is useful to make it easy to
store.
I then suggest, lightly, that we drop it down old uranium mines -- but
I make this suggestion only for poetic effect: it came out of uranium
mines where it was doing no harm; why shouldn't it end up there once
it's been milked of some of its energy?
In practice I see nothing the matter with dropping it down holes
drilled in the Canadian shield, grinding it up and dropping it in the
ocean, or building pyramids with bricks of the stuff at Chernobyl. I
do object strongly to the infinite expenditure of money on ever more
ludicrous and complex schemes which are of profit to nobody but the
usual suspects, Brown and Root, Bechtel, and all the other large and
very political contractors.
Radioactive waste is no more dangerous than dynamite. A little bit
will kill you. You have to be careful with it. I propose that we be
very careful with it. On the other hand it is not an evil magic, and
it seems to me extremely foolish to treat it as if it were.
Nuclear power has the very great virtues of being much cleaner than
oil, gas, or coal -- and it is almost evidence of a benificent
providence that we have stumbled across it at the very point where the
human race is reaching a large and stable population which will need
great quantities of energy to power an advanced civilization.
Seems to me we should be getting on with it.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:23:08 -0700
On 10 Nov 1996 08:54:47 -0500, af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
> If nuclear reactors didn't explode,
The only power reactor ever to explode (Chernobyl) had a dynamically
unstable design, in a socialist society that produced inadequate
maintenance. Such a reactor is currently being built in Cuba.
Modern power reactors have never exploded or released significant
radiation.
> and operated with the safety and
>efficiency they were sold to the public as having.
Safety has been there all along. Look at the record. Efficiency is
off, economically, because of overregulation and very long project
times greatly delayed by environmentalist obstructionism.
> If the nuclear
>industry had not engaged in secrecy and most probably murder,
Examples? And did the whole industry conspire to whatever this was, or
just a rogue?
>if it were
>not affiliated with the military use of nuclear weapons,
What in the world is wrong with that?
>and if the
>waste problem were solved,
Not a major problem if people stop demanding absurd levels of
perfection (a favorite way of environmentalists to obstruct
everything).
> I am sure the nuclear industry would be
>accepted by the majority of the population today.
I predict in the future it will be even if it doesn't improve its
ways. But if it doesn't improve its ways, and the enviroonmentalists
don't stop blocking it, it will not be economical enough to operate.
> When people look at Rocky Flats, or Chornobyl, they see the nuclear
>establishment. This is a good thing, as they are creations of the
>nuclear establishment.
How silly. Chernobyl has NOTHING to do with nuclear power in the US.
BTW, Chernobyl is turning out to have been a very useful (if
unfortunate) experiment. In spite of radiation dosage of a huge
population of people at far beyond the "acceptable safe limits," there
have been fewer than 50 deaths, all (but maybe one or two?) were
workers at chernobyl or disaster workers. Among children with very
high exposures, there have been a number of non-fatal,
non-debilitating thyroid problems.
Chicken little did a real number on us with that one.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:04:05 -0700
On 10 Nov 1996 08:53:13 -0500, af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>(B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
>: A government makes laws, whether it is communist, fascist, monarchial,
>: republican, or democratic. It can enforce those laws. A corporation
>: can make no laws.
>
> Corporations control what their employees say, what they do, what they
>wear, and with growing frequency, what they can and can not do outside
>the workplace.
With growing frequency? Hardly. Corporations exercise very little
control in that regard.... the only exceptions I know of are medical
ones in a few cases (smoking, etc), control that I disagree with.
Look back in time and you will see vastly more control. EDS used to
interview the *spouse* of a candidate to see if she would fit
properly, for example. I'll bet they don't do that any more. Before
that were many single-company towns, where the companies had all sorts
of control.
Furthermore, you can flee a corporation. There are many alternatives.
You cannot flee the only alternative that is frequently discussed:
socialism, which has vastly more control.
>
> Further corporations have a ridged pecking order, within any given
>class, all employees are treated equally.
I wondered why they looked so funny, with that ridge running down
their pecking order :-)
>Advancement in this pecking
>order comes from performing political favors to the upper management.
Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not. Many corporations these
days are much looser in that regard than in the past.
But consider: upper management must satisfy three constituencies:
stockholders, consumers and employees. They are hardly lords at the
top of the heap.
> This does sound very much like the old Soviet state. In fact, it
>sounds significantly more restrictive of personal freedom.
Oh my.... You obviously haven't paid attention to what went on in the
old soviet state, or you wouldn't make such utterly silly comments.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 06:40:18 GMT
In <329ba000.277911862@nntp.net-link.net> briand@net-link.net (Brian
Carnell) writes:
>Heilig is (sensibly IMO) in the middle of the road. He rejects the
>"we're all doomed" message from the likes of Ehrlich/World Watch, but
>also explicitly rejects the arguments of individuals like Julian Simon
>that ag. resources are limitless (though there might be a way Simon
>could wriggle through, but that's beyond the scope of this post).
I do not quite understand this last point: why need
Simon "wriggle through" merely because Heilig happens to
disagree with him? If he reasoned that way, he would never
have started to write.
>Heilig's conclusion is worth quoting,
>
>"But could we feed 10 or 15 billion people? Most likely, if we can
>prevent (civil) wars with soldiers plundering harvests or devastating
>crop fields with lan mines; if we can stop the stupidity of
>collectivization and central planning in agriculture; if we can agree
>on free (international) trade for agricultural products; if we
>redistribute agricultural land to those that actually use it for
>production; if we provide credits, training, and high-yield seeds to
>poor farmers; if we can adapt the modern high-yield agriculture to
>agro-climactic and sociocultural conditions of arid regions and use it
>carefully to avoid environmental destruction; if we implement optimal
>water management and conservation practices. If we do all this during
>the next few decades, we would certainly be able to feed a doubled or
>tripled world population" (Heilig 254).
This is, *perhaps*, true - though there are some implications
of overregulation and social engineering in the above
that might cause, not prevent, famine.
Setting that aside, and interpreting Heilig's
quoted text in the most benign way, there is still the
objection that he does not seem to distinguish
between *sufficient* conditions and *necessary* ones.
Yes, if we did everything optimally, that would
work; but nothing has ever been optimal -
yet we have got by, so far, and have progressed.
There is no reason to think we can't progress
even faster, even if the problems Heilig
names remain unsolved.
There is a great pent-up capacity for food
production growth that has been dampened by a glut,
and can be released by increased demand.
This mechanism is sufficient, and it is in place.
A great majority of the world's farms do not use existing,
long existing, advanced methods: there is
a potential for doubling world food production right
there. New crop varieties have been designed
and tested but are not used yet: count it as another
doubling, more or less. And the genetic revolution (leaving
all else aside!) guarantees that still
other breakthroughs will occur. *Greater*
breakthroughs: since this technology is so new,
its future achievements are bound to exceed past ones....
Quite different directions of advance are possible:
e.g., hydroponics; or farming green algae in the ocean.
If this sounds not quite realistic, that
is for *one* reason only: lack of *demand*.
Conclusion: the question whether limits to
growth exist is academic. *If* they exist,
they are far, far, far away - not
worth practical consideration, because we can't see
so far.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:58:03 -0700
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:56:01 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>John Moore wrote:
>>
>(see original for context)
>>
>> So? Consolidation is common in all industries, and it leads to a more
>> efficient (if less personal) economy. That's what happened to your
>> grandfather.
>
>I reply:
>
>So? Having a competitor, or even individuals whose interests work
>against yours, dominating some governing board is nothing but another
>form of consolidation.
No, it is a form of corruption, and is a direct result of
interventionist government economic policies.
>The rise or fall of any industry is simply
>consolidation, and clearly by your argument we should be supporting
>monopolies, since these are nothing but effeciency incarnate.
We do... it's called Microsoft.
Actually, monopolies tend to grow less efficient over time (check out
your local phone company for an example). In free market theory, they
will then open up niches where competitors will appear and then grow
to compete at a large scale.
But my argument, that consolidation is normal, is not at all the same
as condoning monopoly. That is your construction.
> Your
>assertion is also an argument for the biggest of big governments:
>government running all industries, again no more than consolidation..
>It's also an argument for replacing representative governmen by
>tyranny, clearly more efficient than representative government by all
>accounts.
Please don't hyperventilate - you are extrapolating an observation
into an argument, and then taking it way out into absurdity. Did you
ever happen to read my Laws of Bureaucracy page ?
It should give you a clue about my views on bigness - corporate or
government.
>What happened to my grandfather is an excellent example of the
>inconsistency among those who promote free enterprise in the same
>breath with capitalism. Clearly those aspects of free enterprise
>which are beneficial to the public are those which capitalism works
>most strongly to eliminate.
Not at all clear. I'm not gonna bother to debate that point yet one
more time.
>> As to what would happen if the government didn't control the sale of
>> every single apple or grapefruit sold in this US - handing that
>> control to a large business concern? I think things would work better.
>> Farmers can always go to the futures markets to hedge their bets.
>
>I reply:
>
>Better in what way? I seem to recall that unconstrained monopolies
>tend to overcharge and underpay. Do you think I'm mistaken?
It is the marketing board that creates the monopoly. Without it, you
have hundreds of autonomous farmers. Only through the use of
government coercion are they able to maintain control of their members
(Sunkist) in the face of market opportunity.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:11:02 -0700
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 19:19:40 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, nature coerces us to eat on a regular basis.
>
>No, you misread. We do not agree, since nature acts without intent.
What difference does intent make? Is the purpose of the economic
system to assure that producers are of noble intent?
>
>No, the discussion is about whether buying food at the supermarket is
>done voluntarily.
I think it is. But let's say it is not. I challenge you and others on
this issue to define an alternative. I have seen a lot of very
abstract capitalism bashing by people who are unwilling (even when I
have challenged them) to provide an alternative.
>The issue, as far as the example of purchasing food goes, is whether
>such interaction is free from coercion.
The price is not "set by the owner." The owner is coerced (to use your
wierd terminology) by both the producers of the food, the consumers,
and his stockholders. You may feel coerced if EVERY supermarket is
owned by a single company, but that only happens in small areas where
efficiency requires it.
Your
>argument is the same old argument used by pirates and loan sharks, but
>coercion it is regardless.
Pirates use force... which is true coercion. Loan sharks may, in which
case they engage in coercion. But the supermarket owner does NOT use
any force whatsoever, so where is the coercion? I think you are
confusing freedom from coercion (culturally considered a right) with
choice (which is most definitely not a right, culturally or legally).
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:51:04 -0700
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:10:22 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I reply;
>
>In 1983, the year I left Denver, was the first year that interest on
>my savings account was taxed.
Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
in sight :-)
>Oddly, some economists will disagree with you, although I don't. But
>you notice that reduction in capital gains was and is also on the
>agenda. An effective economic plan is more than a number of
>independent and short-term objectives. Each objective is a step in
>establishing a cohesive system that operates in a foreseen and
>desirable (again a loaded term) manner.
Duh
> Thus disincentives for
>saving, where combining tax with inflation leaves you with effectively
>no return on your investment, make it less attractive than investing
>your money in other ways. Reduction or elimination of capital gains
>tax is still a major objective for many. I want it raised myself.
I want it lowered. It has cost me a lot of money, especially when I
received gains in uncontrolled lumps and then was taxed at brackets
higher than my normal income would indicate. But that's personal.
Have you ever wondered why almost every other first world country has
ZERO capital gains tax rate?
Furthermore, why would you want to raise the tax rate on savings
(capital gains taxes are taxes on savings for most people)? It is
alreadly over 50% for the average personr, who leaves money in capital
investments for a long time, because of the failure to index for
inflation. Fortunately for the economy, most person don't realize
this, or they would invest everything in tax free bonds or some such.
So why do you want to penalize capital? It is employed to do
productive things.
>> Tax *rates* went down for upper income brackets (not a crime as far as
>> I'm concerned). Taxes paid by upper income brackets went up.
>
>I reply:
>
>So, the proportion of income paid by the wealthy dropped. This is
>most people's interpretation of 'tax cut', isn't it?
No, I never said the proportion of income paid by the wealthy dropped.
But frankly, I think it should. As one gets more skilled and higher
paid, one's taxes paid go up exponentially (with the exception of a
social security pedestal). This is fair???
I think taxes ought to be a government fee... the same per person.
But for the less radical, maybe a person consumes more government
resources if they have a higher income (not true, but let's pretend),
then maybe they should pay a flat rate rather than a flat fee.
What the heck is wrong with that?
I think you simply want to punish the rich for being rich, regardless
of the iimpact on everyone else. That would be the result of the
policies you have pushed, on those few times when you made suggestions
rather than just pick at capitalism from a lofty pedestal.
>> Yes, I know. Did you know that the leaders of congress under Reagan
>> announced his budgets "Dead on Arrival" and then made up their own?
>>
>
>I reply:
>
>Did you know that Congressional budgets rarely, if ever, differ from
>the submitted budget by more than about 5%?
I thought we were talking about responsibility here. But if that is
true, then it makes no difference what Reagan proposed... it is
everyones fault.
>Ross Perot obtained $3B from the state of California and $1B from the
>state of Nevada. I may be able to find my source, but it's been
>awhile so you can disagree with me all you want with relative
>impunity.
That means his company received the fees, which is far different than
Ross personally ending up with all the money. Ross had all sorts of
costs, after all. He was a tough businessman, and maybe he shaved some
edges here or there, but I haven't seen that in this discussion. So
please explain, again, what is wrong with Ross Perot's company, or any
other company, getting a bunch of money from the government for doing
something that, at the time, NO ONE ELSE including the government,
could do?
Medixxx was a mandate on the states that did not give them time to set
up the capability to administer it. Ross, through very skilled
management, very hard work, and some luck, was able to do it. For
this, he is being attacked?
I have reasons to not like HR Perot, but that isn't one of them. As an
ex employee I was planning on suing him (reasons not to be discussed,
obviously), and was told to forget it - he could use his money to
crush me financially. That was unpleasant.
But he has done some very good things (I have seen the american flag
in his office signed by all the POWs who returned from Vietnam).
>I know of no company that works for free and can stay in business, but
>to become a multi-billionaire on the basis of profits from work for
>the government means that the government mismanaged, and not in favor
>of the poor as you asserted in your earlier post.
I never said they mismanaged in favor of the poor.
But you fail to appreciate the magnitude of these efforts. And the
profits were for work from MANY state governments, and other
businesses, and the billionaireness came from a stock market which
valued his company quite highly. It seems to me that you are just
slinging mud, without the information necessary to justify it.
>> Effects of what? Airline deregulation? Nope.
>
>I reply:
>
>I sent my wife to UW in Seattle on Cascade and Horizon, depending on
>which offered the cheaper fairs, for a few years after I moved to the
>Hanford area. These airlines ceased being independent, and prices
>rose, about the time she finished her master's coursework. Your
>assertions don't convince me because I have direct experience
>otherwise.
There are always anomolies. But look at the numbers and you will see
the number of people flying is at a much higher level than before
deregulation. Some cities came out worse on deregulation, because the
fairs were being set at below market prices by regulation.
Furthermore, the development of the hub system, which made air travel
more efficient and affordable, may have caused some cities to have
higher prices.
So I am not denying your personal experiences. But they do not address
the whole picture.
>> S&L;? Yes. The final cause of the S&L; failure in 1986 was the income
>> tax changes....(del)...
>>
>> As I showed above, the tax law change of 1986 (which Reagan agreed to
>> in exchange for lowering deductions) was the final straw.
>>
>> Your assignment of responsibility to whoever was on scene at the time
>> belies shallow thinking backed up by little knowledge of the subject.
>
>I reply;
>
>Perhaps, and your clear distortions, inability to create a convincing
>arguement due to your misunderstanding of the issues and prinicples
>involved, and conclusions which are clearly and demonstrably incorrect
>because they disagree with my personal experience, all indicate that
>your claim above is similarly unfounded. Do you really want to take
>this tack, or would you prefer to remain civil?
Alright, now that we have called names.
What personal experience, and how was it relevant to the whole S&L;
issue over 15 years and 50 states?
Do you deny that the tax law change of 1986 (elimination of passive
loss deductions) was the ultimate cause of the collapse? If so, do
what was the cause?
Do you deny that the deregulation under Carter and then Reagan was a
result of the financial insolvency of the S&L;'s in the face of
inflation and restrictive regulations?
Frankly, as far as I can tell, even my neighbor, the arch fiend
Charlie Keating, would have paid back his creditors if he hadn't had
his business snatched out from under him at the last moment by the
regulators (who, I admit, were working for Reagan).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 12 Nov 1996 05:09:36 GMT
Jay Hanson wrote in article
> Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
> people, it's you.
>
> Fishery Declines of more than 100,000 tons, Peak year to l992
>
> Species Peak | Peak | 1992
> Year | Catch | Catch | Decline | Change
> |(. . . million tons . . )|(percent)
Southern African pilchard 1968 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 1.6 | -94
Haddock 1969 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | -80
Peruvian anchovy* 1970 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 7.6 | -58
> (rest of table snipped)
>
> Source FAO.
Speak of misleading! Your table includes only the species that experienced
declines; not hard to support your thesis that 'fish are running out'.
However, culling from the same source as you, the FAO, I pulled the
following data:
"World marine fisheries production has increased almost fivefold over the
past 40 years, rising from around 18 million tonnes to more than 86 million
tonnes by 1989... The use of fish as a source of food has increased
steadily, rising from 40 million tonnes in 1970 to 70 million tonnes in
1989."
"Five species accounted for most of the production increase during the
1980s. The catch of Alaska pollack, Chilean jack mackerel, Peruvian
anchoveta, Japanese pilchard and South American pilchard increased from 12
million tonnes in 1980 to 25 million in 1989. The Japanese and South
American pilchard share with the Peruvian anchoveta the characteristic of
widely fluctuating yields as a result of natural variability. These stocks
are expected to decrease in the future. Indeed, Japan's catch of Japanese
pilchard dropped from 4.49 million tonnes in 1988 to 3.68 tonnes in 1990.
"Catch has also increased for higher-value species which are facing
increased demand. The catch of all tuna increased fairly steadily during
the past two decades, adding one million tonnes to the total annual catch
between 1980 and 1989. The catch of skipjack and yellowfin tuna have
increased at a rate of 5.4 percent and 4.5 percent per year, respectively,
since 1970... There have, however, been recent increases in the catch of
albacore, particularly by Taiwan, Province of China, whose catch rose from
an average level of about 60 000 tonnes during the period 1977 - 1985 to
almost 140 000 tonnes in 1989"
Source - THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (SOFA) 1992
Hang your head in shame, Mr. Hanson.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Re: new energy forms
From: fukuchi@komae.denken.or.jp (Tetsuo Fukuchi)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 07:40:56 GMT
>By the beginning of the 22nd century, we should have figured out how to
>get by with the abundant solar energy hitting the earth. If not, we're
>probably doomed.
Solar energy "hitting the earth" would be insufficient to meet global
energy demands in the next century. Solar power stations on the earth's
surface suffer from low efficiency due to cloud cover and the fact that
they operate on a 50% duty cycle (year-round average). So, as we see
occasionally in the science magazines, a solar power station has to be
built in outer space, orbiting the earth, and the energy beamed down by
microwave. I don't know if this is acceptable to everyone, since it's
obvious that this can also be used as a spaceborne weapon for frying
targets on the ground.
A better alternative would be the wide use of fusion power, which burns
heavy hydrogen, which is abundant in seawater (1 part in 5000, something
like that). There are two schemes, of magnetic and inertial
confinement, but I think the latter would be impractical unless the
efficiency of the confining lasers can be improved drastically.
Tetsuo Fukuchi.
Tokyo Japan
Subject: Re: Environmentalists
From: "sdef!"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:06:56 +0000
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
> In article <32829B1B.77EE@easynet.co.uk>,
> "sdef!" writes:
> >> I suggest that those who oppose the industrial revolution study history. Pay
> >> particular attention to the continuous inter-tribal warfare of most native
> >> american and other primitive tribes, and the Orwellian-type religious
> >> dictatorship that existed in the "civilized" world.
> >
> >
> >There is a problem here.
> >
> >When your opinions support or go along with the commonly held view of things,
> >that which is reiterated time and time again in the mass media, you can make
> >short statements full of assumptions, which won't be questioned, as the
> >assumptions are shared by the majority of people. All that is debated are minor
> >offshoots. The underlying assumptions are not challenged, they are
> >unquestioningly accepted as 'facts'.
> >
> >But when your view is _radically_ different, you do not have the luxury of the
> >sound bite. Every sentence needs to be backed up with an explanation, every
> >concept has behind it dozens of other concepts which, if not included, will
> >only make sense to others who have looked into those concepts, You will not be
> >understood.
> >
> >This may be a solution.
>
> Believe me, I understand this. My views in many areas are radically different
> from the predominant "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy being pushed by
> the mass media.
>
> Maybe answering a few of these questions would help:
I can only really say what I think, no one can speak for the whole movement though
we all do make that mistake sometimes,
> Are EF'ers "luddites"? (still a bit of a vague term)
I think some probably are, but there is more to it than that, and the philosophy is
evolving. Ludditism, misunderstood as it is, is one of the paradigms that is latched
onto, and is not wholly appropriate.
> Do you necessarily oppose high-technology in all cases, or do you just want
> a change in how it's used?
All I want is to get general agreement that something is drastically wrong with the
course we seem locked into. I don't have any neat 'solutions and don't believe I
have a right to dictate solutions to 5 billion people. This is where I differ
greatly from the mainstream. If we could all just agree on the problem first,
without getting bogged down in solutions, we could get on with finding a better
course. It often sounds like I'm opposed to any high tech, but this is because the
high tech solutions put forward do not take into account the fundamental problems
and amount to business as usual.
For example the'green revolution', which seems to just put off starvation for a
generation or two as it turns huge areas into deserts. The genetic engineering that
is going on now is just an extension of that. The science is subverted to the aims
of big business before the scientists themselves have finished investigating what
its potential uses and dangers are. We are being railroaded.
So I would like to see local solutions rather than global ones. This would involve
the dismantling of all those power structures that cause uniformity to emerge where
before there was variety. People can solve their problems without 'help' from the
experts, if those problems are not compounded by outside exploitation. This is as
true of farmers in the US corn belt who are being srewed and turned of the land by
the banks just as much as those in the third world who grow cash crops for us
instead of food and materials to improve their own lot.
> Do you support individual rights/libertarianism?
Absolutely, along with the responsibilities that go with it. Our network is made up
of completely independent and autonomous local groups. There is consensus on certain
things, for example whilst we don't (and can't) stop a fascist group from calling
themselves EF! They would be completely ignored by the rest of the network and so
would not have any succsess. Individuals in groups have an equal right to make
suggestions and to say no to anything. There are no leaders, although some
individuals do more than others, they have no more power over decisions.
> What's your approach to "value"; where does it come from? Revelation? Logic?
> Utilitarian evaluation? Also... who is the relative observer? Man? God?
Don't know really, it's a personal opinion in the end. I believe that every organism
is equally evolved and worthy of respect from a basis of love. This is not a popular
concept and people always simplify it to "save the aids virus" or something like
that. another example of the commonly held view being easy to argue from.
> Who do you think is responsible for more evil: government or private
> individuals/businesses? (Government controlled and funded contractors are
> basically part of government.)
In this country the majority of MPs are also top corporation directors so the
distinction is not really that useful. I think the main evil is our own profligate
consumption, and blaming the directors is not helping. Thet are no more addicted to
'progress' than we are. If I was in their situation I would be just as corrupt. It
is true when people say it is human nature. I think we must have some kind of
soultion that does not involve people being in such positions of great power.
Thanks for making me think about this.
Andy
--
IMPORTANT: please change 'avage' to 'savage' in the address before replying. Junk
mail proofing against robots.
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:40:59 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
>The price of a haircut has gone up because it's hard to substitute
>capital for labor in many service industries, so technological change
>is slower.
The standard price of a man's haircut in Toronto has gone from $12 to
$10, or $8 with frequent discounts, in the last ten years. This is a
drop of between 16 and 33%, and represents mainly the effect of
technological change introduced by the TopCuts people: training,
standardization of hair cutting subroutines, and store management.
> I'd guess that slow productivity growth in fishing is
>caused by the fact that it's harder to catch fish, not by slow
>technological change. There's no way to measure this, but anecdotally,
>technological change in fishing has been rapid, certainly compared to
>curring hair.
Return to effort is measured with great accuracy in fishing, as in
mining or oil recovery, although I do't have that information. You
are quite right that the marginal return in fish per cubic kilometer
of trawl, or whatever, is down. At the same time the amount of
effective trawling s up -- and this represents dangers, as we have
seen with the Grand Banks cod fishery.
The good news is that political evolution is going on at a headlong
pace, and the laws, rules and practices surrounding fisheries are
changing in a blink of history's eye.
>: 3. The demand for fish has increased, partly because of changes in
>: taste and beliefs about health, but also because improved
>: transportation has extended the market for fresh ocean fish into the
>: center of the U.S.
>
>The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when compared
>to the price of chicken. Certainly demand for chicken is increasing
>for some of the same reasons. And I would guess that technological
>trends are similar.
>
>Here are some more figures:
>
>% change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
>
>Finished Goods: 317%
>Chicken: 178%
>Fish: 528%
"Fish" says much less than the report I gave you in my earlier post
with the numbers I see on price tags at my local supermarket. How
much of this 528% is catfish that has been marked up from slum offal
to yuppy delicacy? When an oily bulk marckerel gets sliced inhalf and
dusted with file and labelled "Louisiana", the price goes from $1.75
to $11 a kilo, (which coincidentally is exactly your 528% increase).
>
>
>: 4. We shall see how the supply of farmed fish increases. When I was
>: in Oklahoma recently (giving a lecture about sustainability), I was
>: told of a start-up intending to farm lobsters in Oklahoma. American
>: farmers are very enterprising in looking for new crops that will fetch
>: a high price.
>
>How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
>to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
My impression is that stocking of streams has been around for fifty
years in Japan and maybe thirty in the trout industry of the US Rocky
Mountain states. Oysters, winkles, and other shellfish have been
farmed in Europe since the middle ages, but only on a large scale in
America for the last twenty years or so. The stream salmon industry
in Canada is fifty years or more old, and maybe half that in Iceland,
Scotland and Norway. Stockade-fed fish, however, is a brand-new
industry in the last eight or ten years, and is still accelerating,
and being applied to new breeds. The creation of offshore reefs to
encourage fish-friendly environments is a comparatively new
development, and is also still growing in popularity.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:48:22 GMT
Just a few thoughts inspired by lurking in this thread.
1. Lurking in a thread is uncomfortable.
2. Fishing in the oceans has undergone enormous technological
advancement. From poles - one fish at a time - to enormous
seines that sweep miles of the ocean from great factory ships.
A far greater technological advance than bigger chickens in
bigger barns. It was only a few decades ago that even tuna
were being caught by men with poles on the deck of the boat.
3. The posts in this thread are by people who do not play poker.
Poker players know that there are two considerations, not
alone the ODDS. Tbe other consideration in placing a bet
is the STAKE -- what might be lost as well as what might be
won. What is at stake in the limits to growth is life on the
planet as we know it. Should we play the game if the odds are
even 5000 to 1 that there is no limit in sight? Think a moment.
What odds are good enough?
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.
5. Human nature is being ignored. Human events in the daily
papers are not instructing. History is being forgotten.
Consider the stress of population crowding --and there IS stress --
ask any New Yorker or read the experiments with rats and the
observations of overcrowded zoo monkeys. Consider the fact of
tribal warfare (Bosnia, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, East Timor, Los Angeles).
Consider the proclivity of humans to follow demagogues (Hitler, Milosovic,
Mussolini, Napolean -- name your favorite).
It is the nature of technologists to ignore human nature - at the peril
of all of us. In a world of ideal humans, resources would be shared fairly
and without the need for warfare. In a world of ideal humans, resources
would be developed timely for the need. In a world of ideal humans, all
things would be possible. That world does not exist.
Mason Clarkl
Mason A. Clark masonc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 09:31:53 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
: >The price of a haircut has gone up because it's hard to substitute
: >capital for labor in many service industries, so technological change
: >is slower.
: The standard price of a man's haircut in Toronto has gone from $12 to
: $10, or $8 with frequent discounts, in the last ten years. This is a
: drop of between 16 and 33%, and represents mainly the effect of
: technological change introduced by the TopCuts people: training,
: standardization of hair cutting subroutines, and store management.
Hey, it was McCarthy's example, not mine; and I'm sure he was
cribbing it from Baumol or somebody. I think I'm going to
vow never to say anything about technology again, except that
it can't be measured.
: > I'd guess that slow productivity growth in fishing is
: >caused by the fact that it's harder to catch fish, not by slow
: >technological change. There's no way to measure this, but anecdotally,
: >technological change in fishing has been rapid, certainly compared to
: >curring hair.
:
: Return to effort is measured with great accuracy in fishing, as in
: mining or oil recovery, although I do't have that information. You
: are quite right that the marginal return in fish per cubic kilometer
: of trawl, or whatever, is down. At the same time the amount of
: effective trawling s up -- and this represents dangers, as we have
: seen with the Grand Banks cod fishery.
:
: The good news is that political evolution is going on at a headlong
: pace, and the laws, rules and practices surrounding fisheries are
: changing in a blink of history's eye.
: >: 3. The demand for fish has increased, partly because of changes in
: >: taste and beliefs about health, but also because improved
: >: transportation has extended the market for fresh ocean fish into the
: >: center of the U.S.
: >
: >The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when compared
: >to the price of chicken. Certainly demand for chicken is increasing
: >for some of the same reasons. And I would guess that technological
: >trends are similar.
: >
: >Here are some more figures:
: >
: >% change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
: >
: >Finished Goods: 317%
: >Chicken: 178%
: >Fish: 528%
:
: "Fish" says much less than the report I gave you in my earlier post
: with the numbers I see on price tags at my local supermarket. How
: much of this 528% is catfish that has been marked up from slum offal
: to yuppy delicacy? When an oily bulk marckerel gets sliced inhalf and
: dusted with file and labelled "Louisiana", the price goes from $1.75
: to $11 a kilo, (which coincidentally is exactly your 528% increase).
Your other post hasn't shown up in my newsfeed, which is having troubles,
I think.
I think you're exactly right, though. These figures understate the
price increase. The CPI (and the PPI too, I assume) changes the
bundle of goods it measures, as people substitute away from
things that are getting more expensive. This is right for most
purposes, but for measuring resource depletion, I think a
fix-weighted index would be better. And such an index would
surely show bigger price increases.
: >
: >
: >: 4. We shall see how the supply of farmed fish increases. When I was
: >: in Oklahoma recently (giving a lecture about sustainability), I was
: >: told of a start-up intending to farm lobsters in Oklahoma. American
: >: farmers are very enterprising in looking for new crops that will fetch
: >: a high price.
: >
: >How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
: >to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
:
: My impression is that stocking of streams has been around for fifty
: years in Japan and maybe thirty in the trout industry of the US Rocky
: Mountain states. Oysters, winkles, and other shellfish have been
: farmed in Europe since the middle ages, but only on a large scale in
: America for the last twenty years or so. The stream salmon industry
: in Canada is fifty years or more old, and maybe half that in Iceland,
: Scotland and Norway. Stockade-fed fish, however, is a brand-new
: industry in the last eight or ten years, and is still accelerating,
: and being applied to new breeds. The creation of offshore reefs to
: encourage fish-friendly environments is a comparatively new
: development, and is also still growing in popularity.
:
: -dlj.
:
:
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_