5 ms·

Not when that course costs several trillion in lost economic output.

Anon84 18y ago
Or it could be an opportunity to get further and further away from oil and develop a technology that you can later sell to other oil dependent countries.
jhancock 18y ago
spending trillions, whether its for cleaner energy, or buying iPhone fart apps, _is_ an economy. Nothing is "lost".
- jonasvp 18y ago
  Well and concisely put. This is the actually the one fact we should try to get into these people's heads. The only change is in the _distribution_ of wealth. What we should be worried about is not wealth but welfare. And I'm not sure polluting the environment and using up non-renewable resources improves anybody's welfare. Not even that of the people profiting from it.
  - dantheman 18y ago
    You are incorrect, the distribution of wealth means less money spent on healthcare or drug research, or growing food. If it takes more effort, that effort has to come from somewhere.
    - jonasvp 18y ago
      Okay, so the _re_distribution of wealth by a certain political action implies less money spent somewhere. Yes, that's what redistribution of wealth means. But again, how would spending less effort on digging up non-renewable resources negatively impact healthcare? True, the effort must come from somewhere and it comes from not doing certain things we're doing that we now know are impacting us negatively.
      - dantheman 18y ago
        It's not spending less effort on non-renewable resources; it's spending more effort on renewable resources to achieve the same amount of production from the non-renewable resource. So to maintain current levels of production the level of effort would have to increase, when switching which means everyone works harder/longer for no increase production.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    Determining the distribution is the sole purpose of an economic system. Don't trivialize it.
- newt0311 18y ago
  Broken window fallacy. Redistributing capital to renewable energy sources means that more money is needed for the same amount of energy (at least right now) which means that money which could have been used for other purposes like food, water, the US infrastructure, houses, or medical bills now must go into satisfying this absurd need to conform to some arbitrary green standard. Its called opportunity cost, go read up on it. TANSTAAFL.
  - skorgu 18y ago
    It's only broken windows if there is no net benefit. Bringing externalities into consideration by the market is the function of government to a first approximation. And, ahem, "some arbitrary green standard" cite please?
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      Yes, if central planners know the optimal way to spend each marginal dollar, then there is no broken window fallacy. I haven't heard any such case made for the popular green schemes.
      - skorgu 18y ago
        I don't know what "popular green schemes" you're referring to, but a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme are very nearly equivalent and require no central planning at all (save that required to enact, collect and enforce the tax of course) yet both bring externalities under market purview quite nicely.
        newt0311 18y ago
        And what happens to all that extra cash collected in the name of climate change? Oh the federal govt. centrally plans on how to waste it on congressional pork.
        skorgu 18y ago
- mistermann 18y ago
  "spending trillions, whether its for cleaner energy, or buying iPhone fart apps, _is_ an economy. Nothing is "lost"." True, and False. Yes, it is the economy, but saying nothing is lost is debateable. Simple mental experiment....consider a few scenarios of projects society could undertake in a year: a) Spend $500 Billion developing several different versions of iPhone Fart applications b) Spend $500 Billion dropping bombs on any arbitrary country c) Spend $500 Billion on having holes dug in the ground by one crew, and then filled up by another crew d) Spend $500 Billion installing solar/wind power infrastructure using the currently most efficient technology we have e) Spend $500 Billion building plants to manufacture a variety of useful products In each case, it is perfectly true that we have a $500 Billion economy, but if you look at your balance sheet at the end of the year, there most definitely would be differences.

Or it could be an opportunity to get further and further away from oil and develop a technology that you can later sell to other oil dependent countries.

jhancock 18y ago

spending trillions, whether its for cleaner energy, or buying iPhone fart apps, _is_ an economy. Nothing is "lost".

jonasvp 18y ago
Well and concisely put. This is the actually the one fact we should try to get into these people's heads. The only change is in the _distribution_ of wealth. What we should be worried about is not wealth but welfare. And I'm not sure polluting the environment and using up non-renewable resources improves anybody's welfare. Not even that of the people profiting from it.
- dantheman 18y ago
  You are incorrect, the distribution of wealth means less money spent on healthcare or drug research, or growing food. If it takes more effort, that effort has to come from somewhere.
  - jonasvp 18y ago
    Okay, so the _re_distribution of wealth by a certain political action implies less money spent somewhere. Yes, that's what redistribution of wealth means. But again, how would spending less effort on digging up non-renewable resources negatively impact healthcare? True, the effort must come from somewhere and it comes from not doing certain things we're doing that we now know are impacting us negatively.
    - dantheman 18y ago
      It's not spending less effort on non-renewable resources; it's spending more effort on renewable resources to achieve the same amount of production from the non-renewable resource. So to maintain current levels of production the level of effort would have to increase, when switching which means everyone works harder/longer for no increase production.
- newt0311 18y ago
  Determining the distribution is the sole purpose of an economic system. Don't trivialize it.
newt0311 18y ago
Broken window fallacy. Redistributing capital to renewable energy sources means that more money is needed for the same amount of energy (at least right now) which means that money which could have been used for other purposes like food, water, the US infrastructure, houses, or medical bills now must go into satisfying this absurd need to conform to some arbitrary green standard. Its called opportunity cost, go read up on it. TANSTAAFL.
- skorgu 18y ago
  It's only broken windows if there is no net benefit. Bringing externalities into consideration by the market is the function of government to a first approximation. And, ahem, "some arbitrary green standard" cite please?
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    Yes, if central planners know the optimal way to spend each marginal dollar, then there is no broken window fallacy. I haven't heard any such case made for the popular green schemes.
    - skorgu 18y ago
      I don't know what "popular green schemes" you're referring to, but a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme are very nearly equivalent and require no central planning at all (save that required to enact, collect and enforce the tax of course) yet both bring externalities under market purview quite nicely.
      - newt0311 18y ago
        And what happens to all that extra cash collected in the name of climate change? Oh the federal govt. centrally plans on how to waste it on congressional pork.
        skorgu 18y ago
mistermann 18y ago
"spending trillions, whether its for cleaner energy, or buying iPhone fart apps, _is_ an economy. Nothing is "lost"." True, and False. Yes, it is the economy, but saying nothing is lost is debateable. Simple mental experiment....consider a few scenarios of projects society could undertake in a year: a) Spend $500 Billion developing several different versions of iPhone Fart applications b) Spend $500 Billion dropping bombs on any arbitrary country c) Spend $500 Billion on having holes dug in the ground by one crew, and then filled up by another crew d) Spend $500 Billion installing solar/wind power infrastructure using the currently most efficient technology we have e) Spend $500 Billion building plants to manufacture a variety of useful products In each case, it is perfectly true that we have a $500 Billion economy, but if you look at your balance sheet at the end of the year, there most definitely would be differences.