5 ms·

I agree. The free market and competition have created more value than any other tool in human history and it's absolutely the best tool for this job. There seem

by Benjo 16y ago

I agree. The free market and competition have created more value than any other tool in human history and it's absolutely the best tool for this job. There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally and any government involvement will jeopordize them. In reality, government is the method that a capitalist society must use to ensure that no resources are undervalued; that the system is truly generating value, not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. In the case of energy, the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. In practice of course, goverment is too heavily influenced by those who currently happen to have the most resources. As a result, they are incapable of correctly evaluating the true value of immediate energy output versus future greenhouse gas levels. It makes the question of how to solve the energy problem moot, because there's no way to implement that solution under the current political conditions.

VladRussian 16y ago
what you say is true at the national level. Yet there is a hope. This is classical case of "tragedy of commons". Right now the US enjoys the most benefits while the cost is carried by the whole world. In short time China will be enjoying disproportionally much benefits while the costs is spread around the world (i.e. in particular US will be carrying more costs than benefits). This dynamic disbalance will force reconsideration of the current world order.
jpadkins 16y ago
> not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. > There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally History is full examples of humans freely trading with humans. International trade is completely co-operative, free of government oversight (there is no world government). It is not a misconception that people can trade without a central authority figure. And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. > the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. Can you cite an example of when price fixing has improved living standard of the general population? And is there ever been a time when raising energy costs has improved the human condition? Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >"not just moving it from one place to another at a loss." >By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. in the context of this discussion it means : "not just moving it from one place to another to generate personal profit at a somebody else's [usually wide public's] loss." The government role is to prevent such profitable ventures which profit at the loss of the general public - free market isn't able to do so on its own. >Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects? this is just Red Book of Cheyney. Anyway, technological progress, including development of new sources of energy, has generally benefited poor. Where is limiting market competition by subsidizing ineffective outdated technological processes (which de-facto happens right now with coal and other fossil fuel energy) has always restricted technological progress and thus impacted the whole society, including poor. >And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. presence of black market in the Soviet Union was showing universal people desire to smoke Marlboro and wear LEVI's jeans. Desire to trade freely would created the black market in bread as well, yet no such market existed. Such market exist in Zimbabwe though, where it shows universal people desire to eat.
  - jpadkins 16y ago
    Private profit, socialized losses. Now I understand what you meant. I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. Finance sector is the recent example. Polluters are protected from being sued (and damages are capped) by the government. I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. Who picks the winners and losers? How long do you subsidize? Who pays when the costs of the new tech do not come down? Will you raise the cost of transportation so I can develop teleportation technology? I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech, and unfortunately the people who pay for it are already impoverished.
    - 16y ago

by Benjo 16y ago

VladRussian 16y ago

what you say is true at the national level. Yet there is a hope. This is classical case of "tragedy of commons". Right now the US enjoys the most benefits while the cost is carried by the whole world. In short time China will be enjoying disproportionally much benefits while the costs is spread around the world (i.e. in particular US will be carrying more costs than benefits). This dynamic disbalance will force reconsideration of the current world order.

jpadkins 16y ago

> not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. > There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally History is full examples of humans freely trading with humans. International trade is completely co-operative, free of government oversight (there is no world government). It is not a misconception that people can trade without a central authority figure. And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. > the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. Can you cite an example of when price fixing has improved living standard of the general population? And is there ever been a time when raising energy costs has improved the human condition? Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?

VladRussian 16y ago
>"not just moving it from one place to another at a loss." >By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. in the context of this discussion it means : "not just moving it from one place to another to generate personal profit at a somebody else's [usually wide public's] loss." The government role is to prevent such profitable ventures which profit at the loss of the general public - free market isn't able to do so on its own. >Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects? this is just Red Book of Cheyney. Anyway, technological progress, including development of new sources of energy, has generally benefited poor. Where is limiting market competition by subsidizing ineffective outdated technological processes (which de-facto happens right now with coal and other fossil fuel energy) has always restricted technological progress and thus impacted the whole society, including poor. >And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. presence of black market in the Soviet Union was showing universal people desire to smoke Marlboro and wear LEVI's jeans. Desire to trade freely would created the black market in bread as well, yet no such market existed. Such market exist in Zimbabwe though, where it shows universal people desire to eat.
- jpadkins 16y ago
  Private profit, socialized losses. Now I understand what you meant. I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. Finance sector is the recent example. Polluters are protected from being sued (and damages are capped) by the government. I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. Who picks the winners and losers? How long do you subsidize? Who pays when the costs of the new tech do not come down? Will you raise the cost of transportation so I can develop teleportation technology? I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech, and unfortunately the people who pay for it are already impoverished.
  - 16y ago