Originally Posted by MaxParrish
The calculus for a totally pollution free world is so costly as to ensure human misery and death from a simple lack of other resourcess. The richer industrializing countries, even with some pollution, provides a better life than a desperately poor one, no matter how pure the air.
No one has suggested a totally pollution free world. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument and valueless.
The answer to pollution is cost/benefit ... which is not a slogan but an objective calculation.
Heh, sure it is...its a slogan in as much as benefits are not all reducible to a dollar value nor are all costs associated with a course of action calculable.
Again, you have some kind of social engineering - Soviet style mentality.
This is obviously ad hominem and pointless.
However, I would think that folks that believe in the primacy of cost/benefit ratios to be far more of the Soviet style mentality when it comes to deciding national policy...the Soviets weren't too keen on most things the liberal left wants...but boy did they have a bunch of economists doing centralized national planning based on cost benefit analysis for the State.
As every economist knows the use of resources is based on supply and demand, and resultant market price. The usefulness of lowering the use of resources for a given unit of production depends on land (resources), capital, and labor. Cheap and plentiful resources may play small role in the cost of production (i.e. capital and labor may play a much greater role). It may/may not make sense to invest a lot of money to reducing the cost of resources, and it may make more sense to improve rates of productivity or higher more skilled workers, etc. It just depends on the product.
We're talking about burning oil to move around, heat homes, etc. Unless you're of the mind to engage in some Soviet style social engineering of your own to make folks live closer to where they work (and in warmer, milder places) this argument is ignoratio elenchi (red herring)...
AND supply and demand also direct investment. If price rises, investment flows towards increasing supply and/or using it more efficiently (and thus lowering the price). So let the price rise.
So in your expert opinion a massive increase in oil prices because Chinese needs increase will do wonders for our own fuel dependent economy?
So lets take an example where one company (China) has invested in a more fuel efficient fleet than another (US) in anticipation of a fuel cost increase (or because in this case they understand that their influence in the Middle East is far lower than ours and wish not to depend so much on a resource the US could deny if we so choose).
Which company will be more competitive? The one that had a more efficient fleet or the one that either needs to replace their fleet with a more efficient one in the time of higher prices or stagger along with a less efficient one?
You can claim that oil prices will not rise in the future but um, you'll not be surprised that most folks are going to be skeptical.
Your simple view is that of a lay person.
Yes, because only economists have any understanding of the world. Another ad hominem with a whiff of ad verecundiam. Very nice.
Even if you have never taken economics you should understand the key to lowering the unit cost of producing a Kebler cookie (for example) is not in telling the baker to use less flour and fewer chocolate chips. That is short-sighted.
I didn't skip econ 101 but it seems you skipped logic 101. Either that or your position is so devoid of merit that you're stuck with rather weak arguments...
Your statement is incomprehensible. Chinese growth would be impossible if supply were not meeting demand, that is why it is a good thing. And the supplies are meeting demand because as price nudges upward, more supplies are found.
Yes supply meeting demand is not only a good thing, it is the core of an introduction to economics. As demand inceases, price increases, then supply increases. Get a textbook.
Or perhaps as Chinese demand increases, prices increases but because we will continue to have larger energy needs and an older, less efficient equipment our economy will suffer vis a vis the Chinese one? Their costs to build a more efficient fleet as they grow is likely faster and of a greater percentage of their base than anything we could reasonably PLAN to do...much less react to.
This seems to be a common issue for incumbent companies facing younger rivals. The pros are a deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The cons are a...deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The Chinese do not lack capital for further development of their infrastructure to fuel growth.
So perhaps one doesn't want to see a modern, well trained Chinese military funded by a healthy Chinese economy while the US military is recovering from Iraq and a moribund US economy because US transportation costs have gone through the roof? Perhaps one would prefer China NOT to have the option of pushing on Taiwan and the US having to look the other way in the 2010-2015 timeframe? Whether we would choose to do so anyway is a secondary issue...I prefer that we not HAVE to.
Therein lies the path to a fading superpower. You may wish to see the US reduced to the UK in stature...I prefer that future pushed as far outwards as possible and never mind the cost/benefit ratios.
Nah. I'm just a cliche touting, Soviet thinking, left wing tree hugger that never took any economics. I am guilty of a little argumentum ad baculum there...but given they haven't taken away my conservatives card I can do that with a straight face.
Because it may make sense NOW when oil prices push us into economic slowdowns. Let the market decide.
Now we understand why economists aren't often CEOs of companies or Presidents of countries...
Perhaps I prefer to keep strategic national resource available and let the middle east run dry first? That has a multitude of benefits that I'm afraid your complex economic calculus would ignore.
Look Vinea, all you are doing is pushing cliques (I'm waiting for the addiction to oil mantra).
Hmmm...cliques? Perhaps I slept through Econ 101 and 102 because, well, econ < science...even wimpy computer science which isn't even a science but whatever as I can spell cliché.
Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Its been a while since I bothered to try to remember the names of all the informal fallacies. Had to look a couple up. For your next post try for variety and add some ad populum and ad baculum arguments. Given your dislike of the left I would assume you'd leave off the ad misricodiam arguments. I saw a few ad ignorantiam arguments in some of your other posts so I think you're well covered there.
If you prefer that I didn't simply ridicule your (lack of) logic, perhaps you might actually discuss the topic rather than talk down to everyone...