4 ms·

>Combating it consists mainly of doing things that, in the long term, we should and/or need to do anyway. This is a widespread, but specious, argument. The cos

>Combating it consists mainly of doing things that, in the long term, we should and/or need to do anyway. This is a widespread, but specious, argument. The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is X% of the world's wealth with current technology and Y% of the world's wealth with technology 20 years from now. If we can expect the world to be richer 20 years from now (a reasonable assumption) and technology to be better (again a reasonable assumption) then Y is probably much less than X. It will be a much bigger sacrifice to make the change today than tomorrow. The point is, although our economy will probably naturally convert away from fossil fuel technology in the long run, forcing the process to accelerate entails significant extra costs on a significantly poorer world. It is NOT costless, as the phrase "things we should and/or need to do anyway" seems to imply. The argument is simplistic and involves a narrow view of the problem. I see no valid reason to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to other energy sources faster than what is already happening in the market.

mattmaroon 18y ago
There's a serious problem in the market, which is that publicly traded corporations pay the people who run them largely in stock. This gives the people in charge a very short-term view, because their pay is based on the difference in share prices over a short period of time. What this means is that the market is very poor at long-term thinking and investing (which is why I agree with Andreesen about dual class stock structures). In short (and he sums it up better than I could, so read his article if you want clarification) our market has become very bad at long-term strategizing.
- anamax 18y ago
  If you really believe that public corporations make bad economic decisions, you're investing in the correct decisions and are going to make a killing. You are betting your own money on being correct, aren't you?

mattmaroon 18y ago

There's a serious problem in the market, which is that publicly traded corporations pay the people who run them largely in stock. This gives the people in charge a very short-term view, because their pay is based on the difference in share prices over a short period of time. What this means is that the market is very poor at long-term thinking and investing (which is why I agree with Andreesen about dual class stock structures). In short (and he sums it up better than I could, so read his article if you want clarification) our market has become very bad at long-term strategizing.

anamax 18y ago
If you really believe that public corporations make bad economic decisions, you're investing in the correct decisions and are going to make a killing. You are betting your own money on being correct, aren't you?