China as a world power by Khyron

Quote:
Originally posted by Merchantmarine1:
China as a world power, guess no one has travelled to china? They built their own nuclear fast attack submarine, already penetrated japanese waters, TRIED to penetrate our naval base on Guam but our sub detection was active and it was tracked. They are building their Navy which included a guided missile frigate and an underway replentishment ship which made a port visit to Guam. China insisting the spratley islands off Philippines was theirs, the U.N. insisted in holding a conference in who actually holds claim, you know what China, did, sent fishing boats and their amphibious fleet and took the islands.. why, Shell Oil Co. found huge oil deposits. Now, Oil, since Chinese President Hu's visit, he has travelled to Saudia Arabia, Africa and NOW signed a Multi BILLION DOLLAR deal with Cuba to start oil exploration in the GULF OF MEXICO.. Lou Dobbs said it best, we have been so side tracked, our SO CALLED friends or allies have blind sided us... we have out sourced all or some of our manufacturing for cheaper means in China. Our larger companies pander to China. In 2001, China made an attempt to rattle their sabres at us when one of their Jets collided with our EP-3 Orion surveillence aircraft, the plane was forced down on chinese soil or one of their islands, what happend, the crew was interned for two weeks, finally, GWB, cut ties, including trade, stopping all contracts for goods coming from China, making all incoming or arriving goods contraband, and payments to china halted. China recalled their president whom was in South America and voted him out replacing him with the present, President Hu. Can the same threats hurt China? try traveling abroad and see for yourself. China now is into Singapore, Mayalasia, Philippines and Korea. The Chinese are developing into Indonesia and attempts to Thailand and Burma. Since they cannot corner any markets in Taiwan or Japan, they can now create manufacturing in those listed countries, which they are, and still compete against with cheap labor costs. Oh, lets not forget, travel to Panama, look who and how much is bought along the panama canal? Give you a guess and its a 5 letter word as for the name of the country? China doesn't have to be a military power to take over, they are doing it.. Stop buying or importing Chinese manufactured goods, no problem, almost everything else in the Asian region is almost bought and owned by China. We ignored reports and warnings from Taiwan and Japan and now, China is cornering the Oil market and Why, because they can. China has a human rights problem, life is worthless, thus, they do not care about what dictator they deal with just as long as they can DEAL. Now the creator of this blog asks? China as a world power, well they are a military power... The Shanghai defense triad was formed and guess who is a part of it.. no kidding.. CHINA, RUSSIA, TWO FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS AND NOW IRAN.. Ask that question again. two members which were against the war in Iraq, against any resolutions against Iran on its nuclear program, never mind if Iran has already said numerous times.. "ISREAL NEEDS TO BE WIPED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH." The reports that Russia may have helped Iraq with removing any remaining weapons of mass destruction.. with the Help of Brazil.. whom by the way has big partnership with China in natural resources trade and manufacturing.. Brazil has the largest commerical fleets in the northern and southern hemosphere and China has access. It is reported that Brazilian ships, sailed through our blockaids with much of the WMD's and since Brazil is an allie, we did not stop.

Soon, our shelves will be bare, gas stations dry and we have no one to blame but ourselves, our greed for more profits has sold us out and soon there will be nothing left. In closing... JUST WAIT.. IN 5 YEARS WITH THE CUBA/CHINA OIL EXPLORATION, THERE WILL BE AN ACCIDENT ON THEIR PART WHICH WILL RUIN OR DESTROY THE ECO SYSTEM AROUND THE FLORIDA PAN HANDLE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND THERE WILL BE NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. CHINA WILL SHRUG IT OFF, CUBA WILL BE CUBA AND THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA WILL HAVE SUNNY SKIES AND OILY BEACHES. That is not hype..

Merchantmarine1

Hi I'm new here... I just saw an episode (the pilot) of Firefly, and I've decided to buy the Series DVD ( for 20 some bucks, its a steal in my opinion).

Anyways, I'm in the middle of studying for an exam (pulling an allnighter) and you know how that works, I've taken time off to f*** arouind on the net.

Anyways, I saw this discussion and had to put my 2 cents in.

First Lou Dobbs is an idiot. I watch his show for entertainment every night and it suprsise me that such a socialist could have come out of Harvard's Economics program. Then again he studied in the 50s and it was only undergrad (the 50s - 70s were dominated by this sort of Keynsian Socialism in most Economcis depts).

But that is besides the point, despite what the above poster has ranted, China is not a threat to the United States. He has obviouslly seen one two many of Lou Dobbs "Red Star Rising" reports and has been hanging around too many wako conspiracy theory sites.

Of course, if one connects certain pieces of news in any way (no matter how disparate) they will form a tapestry that fits with your statements.

To address oil, the Chinese are looking for oil... big deal, that is what one expects they would do for their self-interest. Chinese companies buying US oil companies don't have much threat to anyone, quite simply, if the firm they buy is a price-maximizing firm (which is safe to assume they are since China in pratcie is extremely capitalist), they iwll continue to sell in the market.... Simple economics that Loub Dobbs seems to have forgotten....

I suppose we are all screwed as the poster above says, assuming nothing changes in technology or human capital in the next 50 - 100 years. But let's be honest, oil is on it's way out as the main factor input for most modern economies.... Chances are uber-resource war is not going to occur (I put those fears along side the fears of race-war erruputing in US/World).

In fact, China, along with the US and 2 - 3 other countries are part of the IAEA project to create a fusion reactor. The Chinese have already started a parralel project reffered to as EAST, based partly on Russian technology and those tehy have developed on their own. Anyone who studies Economics knows what will likelly happen is as factor costs goes up for oil, firms and consumers will slowly switch to alternatives which were comparteively expensive durring the high time of the cheap Oil economy, but now are comparatively cheap. This will create more demand for altenrative fuel, which will propell the development of said resources.

As for China as a country, I do not agree they are a "superpower." They are and have been for a decade or so a important country ("world power"), and if they don't do the same mistake teh Japaense made in the 80s (use gov't firms to direct the flow of investement into technologies) they iwll continue to grow at a imppressive rate. We have to all realize, the growth that we see in China for the last 20 years, was growth tht occured from them deregulating and privatizing. They have essentially increased their effeciency by changning the system.... that's it.

Now if the Chinese go ahead and move to the next step, since they are more and more market driven, it is only natural that they will, they will ahve a sustainable rate of growth for a long long time to come. I'm not one to make predictions, but it is possible the Chinese will continue to become more influential.... afterall, unlike the Soviet Union, they have a much firmer foundation (wheraes the Soviets were never much of a threat economically).

But in any event also to dispell the hype about China having a nuclear attack sub... big deal again. The Chinese don't even have a Carrier Battle Group, they just announced they are working on one for the next decade. Which means then it'll be 1:15 on our favor. The Chinese industry is now just beginning to build indegnous defense industry.

About their size (armed forces wies), this is almostm totally irrelevent. 2 - 3 millino man Chinese army is pointless if they can't project them beyond the continent. OF course these are all common notions. I'm not saying they are a cake walk, chances are they will adapt and grow,but I think the poster is being a little to alarmist here.

And lastly, their goverment; in my opinion all goverments are ineffecient, everything should be supplied by the market. Of coruse that does not exist anywhere in any substantive senese, but "authoritarian" China has a freer market then "Democratic" Europe. So which one is more socialist, to me Europe is 10:1. In Germany the goverment has just past alaw to give money to families if the father stays at home for at least 2 months to take care of the family. Northern Europe is way worst....

Ultimitly, words like "freedom" and "democracy" are meaningless. All that matters is that you can satisfy your needs via the market. Further, it was proven that democratic elections never can lead to socially optimal solutions, this is the famous Arrow Theorem. As Economist say, only market equalibriums are "Pareto Optimal." Thus, any goverment meddling of that, will be ineffecient. If I had my way, there would be no goverment, and to espouse the superiority of one goverment form to another is stupid. Goverments are better or worst depending on how much emphasis they put on market orientated solutions and markets in society. Anything else other then this is just propoganda to me.

I think there's a major problem with how most American percieve the world along "Cold War" lenses. More suprisingly is how most Americans sitll look at the world through WW2 lenses. Then again WW2, was our shining moment, but still... IT should not be the case that our mentality stagnates to that of a distant point of glory, that is what Islam did.... They still view things along "Crusader" glasses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:02 PM

Also, I like to note, after reading a couple of back posts on China, there seems to be a real misunderstanding of Chinese history/intentions.

Everyone points out the Chinese were an "Empire" not too long ago, well I think it should also be noted that at the height of Empire durring the Ming Dynasty, the Chiense fielded a fleet that was unparralled until modern times; Yet, they did not begin an imperial venture. They literally sent the fleet (the famouse Admiral Zhen He) and opened treaty ports for trade..... that was the extent of their actions... Compare that with the British Imperial history or Russian and I'd say that is extremely benign.

Second, the Qing's empire only extension was into their Western provinces, but if we lambast the Chinese for this, we also must lambast the British and the Russians as this was all durring the supposed "Great game" era, for control of Central Asia.

I have also read posts on China trying to take over other Asian coutnries in history? I feel the ignorance of actual Asian History pretty high here. To put it bluntly, the most imperalist country in Asia was Japan. The Chinese allied with Chosun Korea to repel Japan in the Imjin Wars of the 1600s. Afterward the troops did their duty, they came back. In fact, if any of you know Koreans, to this date (the older generations) have an affinity for China.

The Japanese have on 3 major occasions attempted imperalist designs in Asia in hte past 400 years. Also on China "assimilating" cultures like the Borg... anyone who has read even a survey textbook on Chinese hsitory will know that Chinese have spent most of their history tying to keep foreign cultures out and keep their cultures in (this is one reason the Ming Emperor dismanteled the grand fleet - he rather destroy Chinese trade rather then have foreign influcne). Believe me, the Chinese don't attempt to assimiliate anyone.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see how anyone who knows even a smudgling of actaul fact of their history can say half the things I've read thus far on this forum, there seems to be a lot of naive people spouting very trite/false comments about teh Chinese.

Oh and Taiwan, I don't know what anyone knows about this, but it really was under the Qing Dynasty for quite a bit. In any event, thier desire to gain it back is more to erase the shame of the Sino-Japanese war (who basically made Formosa/Taiwan their colony for a while), rather then any imperalist design.

In any event, if the Chinese were truly super imperalist as most people seem to claim, Korea and Japan would have been annexed in hsitory a long time ago. I do remmber Korea was occupied for a time after the collapse of Koryo because of a war between one of the Chinese empires, but it never became a provence of "China" or any of the empires that made up China. The Chinese at most imposed "tribute" which just meant political ass-kissing, but nothing substantive... certainly nothing like the Imperial designs Western countries imposed on each other.

I just don't see them as an "expansionist" nation..... If anything they have been hte victam of other expansinist powers throughout the 1800s and early 1900s.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:
But let's be honest, oil is on it's way out as the main factor input for most modern economies...

Then why is the demand for oil in modern economies increasing, not decreasing as it would have to be if your claim were to hold water.

What do you use to base this assertion? Alternate fuels? Even *IF* there was an alternate fuel that could replace oil in its various guises and applications what about oil's material applications? Oil underpins our society to a much greater degree than the liquid you pump into your car.

Quote:
In fact, China, along with the US and 2 - 3 other countries are part of the IAEA project to create a fusion reactor. The Chinese have already started a parralel project reffered to as EAST, based partly on Russian technology and those tehy have developed on their own.

I think you mean The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), not The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ITER is a collaboration to produce a large scale experimental Reactor, situated in France I believe. The collaboration is amongst The European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China.

The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) is not designed to produce power. It is a research device only.

We've built Tokomak Fusion reactors before; the first operational Tokomak was built in Russia in the 1960's. Currently the largest Fusion reactor is the Joint European Torus (JET) in Oxfordshire in the UK, which was completed in 1983. The big thing about the ITER is that it is designed to produce more power than it consumes, but it's still experimental and a working power plant is still some way off.

However none of this replaces the need for Oil. There is still many of the fuel, material and manufacturing applications that can not be addressed with Oil (many that can't be addressed with 'alternate fuels' either).

Quote:
Anyone who studies Economics knows what will likelly happen is as factor costs goes up for oil, firms and consumers will slowly switch to alternatives which were comparteively expensive durring the high time of the cheap Oil economy, but now are comparatively cheap. This will create more demand for altenrative fuel, which will propell the development of said resources.

Anyone who studies Human history can see the few times when a society has run out of a resource that it is almost exclusively dependent on (like we are with Oil) that society collapses. Modern Economics has no parallel to draw from when it comes to our modern dependence on Oil. The "we'll find alternatives" and "economic forces will dictate a switch" is a theory and something hoped for, not a definite.

Quote:
So which one is more socialist, to me Europe is 10:1. In Germany the goverment has just past alaw to give money to families if the father stays at home for at least 2 months to take care of the family. Northern Europe is way worst...

And yet their economy is very strong. How do you account for this?

Also China is not Socialist, it is Communist and the two are not the same thing.

Quote:
Ultimitly, words like "freedom" and "democracy" are meaningless. All that matters is that you can satisfy your needs via the market. Further, it was proven that democratic elections never can lead to socially optimal solutions, this is the famous Arrow Theorem. As Economist say, only market equalibriums are "Pareto Optimal." Thus, any goverment meddling of that, will be ineffecient. If I had my way, there would be no goverment, and to espouse the superiority of one goverment form to another is stupid. Goverments are better or worst depending on how much emphasis they put on market orientated solutions and markets in society.

Said like a true free market capitalist economist, your lecturer must be very proud

. I bet you believe trickle down works as well. There's more to life than money and economics, if there wasn't we'd all be economist

.

There is a term for the type of society you suggest, it's called Corporo-Fascism.

Quote:
Anything else other then this is just propoganda to me.

Well so is what you just said really.

Quote:
IT should not be the case that our mentality stagnates to that of a distant point of glory, that is what Islam did.... They still view things along "Crusader" glasses.

Well, some Islamic states do perhaps; the argument could be made with good reason, since white Christian empires are still meddling in their affairs.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:19 AM

Quote:
Then why is the demand for oil in modern economies increasing, not decreasing as it would have to be if your claim were to hold water.

No.... If it's quite simple, if there is a limited supply of something, obviouslly it'll have to be used up eventually. As there is less of it, the more expensive it'll become to find it and drill it up, the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it.....

Quote:
What do you use to base this assertion? Alternate fuels? Even *IF* there was an alternate fuel that could replace oil in its various guises and applications what about oil's material applications? Oil underpins our society to a much greater degree than the liquid you pump into your car.

Actually at most all you could say is that there does ot exist evidence now. Your statement is just as *bias* I highly doubt realit/science conforms to your ability to forsee it.

It is the case however, that humans expand their ability to do things when given the proper incentive. In this case it'll be high prices. It's all quite simple, either an alternative will be found, or people iwll just consume less.... and I know altenrtives exist now (such as electric) which do not yet have practicality because of lack of infastructure. Yet, at some point, the increase in petroleum based fuel will make those investments in the infastructure (for whatever altenrnative) viable.....

Quote:
I think you mean The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), not The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ITER is a collaboration to produce a large scale experimental Reactor, situated in France I believe. The collaboration is amongst The European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China.

The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) is not designed to produce power. It is a research device only.

We've built Tokomak Fusion reactors before; the first operational Tokomak was built in Russia in the 1960's. Currently the largest Fusion reactor is the Joint European Torus (JET) in Oxfordshire in the UK, which was completed in 1983. The big thing about the ITER is that it is designed to produce more power than it consumes, but it's still experimental and a working power plant is still some way off.

However none of this replaces the need for Oil. There is still many of the fuel, material and manufacturing applications that can not be addressed with Oil (many that can't be addressed with 'alternate fuels' either).

I was on the impression the IAEA was somehow directing this. In any event, perfecting this technology will relieve oil burden in energy production. I never said it will reduce the the total burden for oil. That really is the point really, the increase in factors for oil consumption is creating incnetives for firms and govermetns to react and look for altnerative methods....

Quote:
Anyone who studies Human history can see the few times when a society has run out of a resource that it is almost exclusively dependent on (like we are with Oil) that society collapses. Modern Economics has no parallel to draw from when it comes to our modern dependence on Oil. The "we'll find alternatives" and "economic forces will dictate a switch" is a theory and something hoped for, not a definite.

No, because demand will go down gradually, it won't be a a one time event.... therefore the chances of a catastrophic "collapse" is unlikelly. As most economist now, most alarmist end up being wrong because people adopt, quite reasonablly, therefore things usually don't happen as badly as people forsee....

Quote:
And yet their economy is very strong. How do you account for this?

Also China is not Socialist, it is Communist and the two are not the same thing.

Actaully the German economy has stagnated.... in fact all the European econommies save England, who have reformed early on have stagnated.... Further, because of this large well-fare state (which provides inferior gov't service), they are now directly dependent on population levells to fund their programs for the next elderly geenration.

And actaully the Chiense are not communist, at least not in anything other then name. They were always at least a "command" economy, or a "planned" economy.... but not "communist" in any pure or real sense.

Further, obviouslly as the Chinese have implemented market reforms, they have grown...

Quote:
Said like a true free market capitalist economist, your lecturer must be very proud . I bet you believe trickle down works as well. There's more to life than money and economics, if there wasn't we'd all be economist .

There is a term for the type of society you suggest, it's called Corporo-Fascism.

"trickle down" you see I actually study Economics, not political bull shit, that is not a term we use in any formal sense. You'll have to explain what that means before I comment on that.

As for "Corpo-Facism" lol. Right, I'm sorry, I'm speaking like a beorgeouis here. I shoulnd't taint the forums with my captitalist pig-dog notions.

Quote:
Well so is what you just said really.

If you ar ereffering to my notinos that market equalibriums are the most socially effecient soslutions, then no ti isn't. Since Economics is dependent on actual things, it has to be shown rigoriouslly.

The mathematical proof that shows this elmentary fact was shown 40 - 50 years ago....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 7:25 AM

Hummm lots of rubbish there. Where to start??

1) Resources. Everything you say about oil is true in the long term. America still have significant domestic oil resources, just that it's expensive to exploit them. Going forward as the price of crude increases the economic case for pumping that American oil improves so it will be exploited. Further along, newer renewable technologies will become economic to use. The problem? This all presupposed sustained high oil prices and with it high energy costs. A lot of our current economy presupposes low enery costs, as costs rise there will be economic impacts, some of which we can adapt to, some we wont. The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children. If German children's survival and quality of life are improved by fathers spending more time at home that strikes me as being a reasonable priority. As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at. German's problems come from absorbing the run down economically crippled east. Are current Germans living beyond their economic means? probably, but their real problem was that they didn't realise just how much they needed to sacrifice for reunification. It's a little like agreeing to take on your deadbeat orphaned nephew and not adjusting your lifestyle to cover the increased family outgoings. The luxuries that you may have once afforded easily you simply can't afford now. That doesnt mean that those luxuries are bad, just that your changed circumstances make them unreasonable now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 7:41 AM

Quote:
1) Resources. Everything you say about oil is true in the long term. America still have significant domestic oil resources, just that it's expensive to exploit them. Going forward as the price of crude increases the economic case for pumping that American oil improves so it will be exploited. Further along, newer renewable technologies will become economic to use. The problem? This all presupposed sustained high oil prices and with it high energy costs. A lot of our current economy presupposes low enery costs, as costs rise there will be economic impacts, some of which we can adapt to, some we wont.

Uhm... no? Why wouldn't the cost of energy production increase in a petro-based economy if its increasgnily more expesnvie to extract petrol from the Earth?

Further, be specific as to what you forsee the United States "Can't" adapt to in terms of changing hte energy infastructure..... in the long term, there IS NO SUCH THING as fixed capital investement.....

Quote:
The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

Uhm... obviouslly the British have adapted.... in the long term nothing is fixed....

Quote:
2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children.

I'm glad that you have decided the purpose of life for everyone. I merely state the purpose of life is to satsify your utiltiy, whatever that may be.....

Quote:
If German children's survival and quality of life are improved by fathers spending more time at home that strikes me as being a reasonable priority.

Yeah too bad it hasn't actually changed a thing. Since the policy has been enacted, most familise have not used it. Do you know hwy? Cause it's not market viable. The reason firms higher men in most labor mro ehten women is because firms have to invest some time and capital to trainign these people. Unlike women, men are likelly not to take time off for thigns like birth, and are likelly to remain in hte company for a logner term. In fact when DW-TV interviewd people on the street about this program, this is EXACTLY what they said was the problem, none of hteir companeis are going to excuse men arbitrary time to take off from the firm... it makes no sense in a competetive buisness envirment if your labor pool is not consistent.

Quote:
As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at.

All except for market competetivness in just about every industry, especially medical.... and GDP growth.... oh and unemployment.... so basically, we have more people working and the workers have more capital per worker to use with.... that means we're more effecient by defintion.

The only European nation that has similiar growth rates are either implementing market liebralization or its England. France and Germany the two most socialist of the European economies are stagnate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:
No.... If it's quite simple, if there is a limited supply of something, obviouslly it'll have to be used up eventually. As there is less of it, the more expensive it'll become to find it and drill it up, the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it.....

You said we are now, at this moment, moving away from Oil. If this were true we would be now, at this moment, reducing our demand for Oil. We are, at this moment INCREASING our demand for Oil, therefore at this moment we are not moving away from Oil, we are becoming more dependent on it, despite the prices currently going up. It really is as simple as that.

An important line here is "the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it..... ". You can not want to use something all you want, but if you have no choice you have no choice. That is one of the reasons why Governments don’t judge everything based on economics, neither should they.

Quote:
Actually at most all you could say is that there does ot exist evidence now. Your statement is just as *bias* I highly doubt realit/science conforms to your ability to forsee it.

But reality/science does conform to your ability to forecast we'll suddenly get a whole new societal/manufacturing/fuel/transport infrastructure within the time period forecast for peak Oil (some forecasts put it in the next decade)?

Quote:
It is the case however, that humans expand their ability to do things when given the proper incentive. In this case it'll be high prices. It's all quite simple, either an alternative will be found, or people iwll just consume less.... and I know altenrtives exist now (such as electric) which do not yet have practicality because of lack of infastructure.

In my last post I said there was more to life than economics. This is one of those circumstances, it REALLY ISN'T that simple. It's that simple if you look at it merely from an economics standpoint and ignore the consequences.

Your still talking about Oil like it's only used to run power stations and run internal combustion engines. If that was the case we could move over, it still wouldn't be quite as rosy as you make out , but it could be done. Unfortunately it isn't the case.

Let me put it like this, in the US every one calorie of Food requires ten calories of Oil. Firstly just taking Oil as a fuel:

All farming equipment runs on Oil. There are a few experimental prototypes but these would have to be commercially viable at the time of peak Oil, people can't eat less, no matter how much economics wants them too.

Food storage devices such as refrigerators are made from Oil, made in factories powered by Oil, and run on electricity derived from Oil.

The average piece of food is transported 5000 miles, if a viable cost effective means of powering the vehicles that do this is not found people aren't going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread and despite what economics wants, people can't stop eating.

Fertilizers and Pesticides are all derived from Oil.

Oil is used everywhere, as I said it's not just the stuff that we burn to make our cars go, or supply us with electricity, it's also a raw material.

We can't simply use less it doesn't work like that in the real world, in an economics text book perhaps but not the real world. We have to find an alternative to ALL of Oils uses, some alternatives exist yes but not for all applications.

Quote:
I was on the impression the IAEA was somehow directing this. In any event, perfecting this technology will relieve oil burden in energy production. I never said it will reduce the the total burden for oil. That really is the point really, the increase in factors for oil consumption is creating incnetives for firms and govermetns to react and look for altnerative methods....

The IAEA is more of a regulatory board. Fusion power being used for commercial energy production, let alone relieving the 'Oil burden' is some way off, we haven't even produced a Fusion reactor capable of supplying it's own energy requirements yet.

Quote:
No, because demand will go down gradually, it won't be a a one time event.... therefore the chances of a catastrophic "collapse" is unlikelly. As most economist now, most alarmist end up being wrong because people adopt, quite reasonablly, therefore things usually don't happen as badly as people forsee....

The laws of supply and demand alone are not enough to prevent an economic meltdown.

But perhaps you should take your text book understanding of economics up with an economist who works in the real world:

Quote:
One of the biggest problems facing the IEA, the EIA and a host of analysts and "experts" who claim that "high prices cut demand" either directly or by dampening economic growth is that this does not happen in the real world.

Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil demand growth in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25 years. These are simple facts that clearly conflict with received notions about "price elasticity". World oil demand, for a host of easily-described reasons, tends to be bolstered by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices are attained.
Andrew Mckillop

Add to this prices rising staggeringly in the 70's with the Oil crises. Demand did not decrease, despite the "text book" economics proving nothing else can possibly happen.

Seems to me your idea of Supply and Demand has already been disproved in the real world.

Let me sum it up, if prices of food go up, people don't stop eating, despite what the economic laws of supply and demand say they should do, they just pay more.

Civilisations have collapsed before because of economic reasons. Your Economic formula leaves out the most important variable:
Human reaction.

As scarcity of a vital resource increases demand does not decrease and people don't necessarily find alternatives. What they often do is riot and have civil wars. All Civilisations are three meals away from revolution, after all.

Quote:
Actaully the German economy has stagnated....

The German economy is undergoing a period of weak growth, they don't have a weak economy there's a difference. Its economic growth is also recovering quite nicely, your information is out of date.

Quote:
in fact all the European econommies save England, who have reformed early on have stagnated...

You mean the UK and I'm not sure what your trying to say here.

Quote:
well-fare state (which provides inferior gov't service)

Do you have any proof to back this up? Any at all?

Quote:
And actaully the Chiense are not communist, at least not in anything other then name. They were always at least a "command" economy, or a "planned" economy.... but not "communist" in any pure or real sense.

I really agree, though they are far closer to Communist than Socialist, which is what you said.

Quote:
"trickle down" you see I actually study Economics, not political bull shit, that is not a term we use in any formal sense. You'll have to explain what that means before I comment on that.

Political bullshit?

Anyway I'm surprised you don't know what "trickle down" is, you managed to quote the rest of the Capitalist manifesto word for word

Trickle down is the concept that by the rich getting richer, everyone gets richer.

Quote:
As for "Corpo-Facism" lol. Right, I'm sorry, I'm speaking like a beorgeouis here. I shoulnd't taint the forums with my captitalist pig-dog notions.

"I shoulnd't taint the forums with my captitalist pig-dog notions" I'm sorry did I say anything along those lines, no I did not.

What you are advocating is Capitalist Anarchy, Anarchy because there is no government and Capitalist because what society there is operates under the free market system, correct?

Capitalist Anarchy if ever implemented would become Corporo-Facsism as surely as Communism when implemented becomes Totalitarian. If you'd like me to lay out as to why just ask.

Quote:
If you ar ereffering to my notinos that market equalibriums are the most socially effecient soslutions, then no ti isn't. Since Economics is dependent on actual things, it has to be shown rigoriouslly.

Erm yes it is.

Most efficient social solution? What exactly is an efficient social solution? What qualifies as an efficient social solution? What is efficient in a society?

Most people being successful?
Best Healthcare?
Lowest Crime rate?
What?

Is largest economy the measure of most efficient?

While all your doing is throwing out "buzz terms" I can't hope to address this.

Quote:
The mathematical proof that shows this elmentary fact was shown 40 - 50 years ago....

The mathematical proof that shows what?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 9:31 AM

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gc
i2005.html

Quote:
Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:

Uhm... no? Why wouldn't the cost of energy production increase in a petro-based economy if its increasgnily more expesnvie to extract petrol from the Earth?

It will and that's the point.

Let's assume that electricity generated by oil is 3c per Kwh. Now let's assume that the cost of solar generated electricity is 10c per Kwh. Based soley on economic principles there is little justification for building solar plants in most cases while oil energy costs remain low. If oil costs rose until oil derived electricity hit 12c/Kwh and stayed that way, the position changes. So it is with the US oil Bidness, there is US dommestic oil reserves but right now the cost of foreign crude is so low that it would not be economic to exploit it. If the price of foreign sources becomes high enough then the US oil becomes economic to exploit. What's the problem with that?

Quote:

Further, be specific as to what you forsee the United States "Can't" adapt to in terms of changing hte energy infastructure..... in the long term, there IS NO SUCH THING as fixed capital investement.....

No I said you assumed it would adapt and I'm saying that's not a given. I'm not saying they won't adapt just that "don't worry about it-- we'll adapt" is poor science....

Quote:

Quote:
The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

Uhm... obviouslly the British have adapted.... in the long term nothing is fixed....

In the nineteenth century they were also the world's largest economy, the principle industrial power and the originators of most new innovation. Are they now? Your assumption is that if you are top dog, you will remain taht way because of course you will adapt easily to the new economic reality. It would seem that history has already shown your assumption to be false.

Quote:

Quote:
2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children.

I'm glad that you have decided the purpose of life for everyone. I merely state the purpose of life is to satsify your utiltiy, whatever that may be.....

No, you are an animal, your purpose is to reproduce your genes, that is why your genes made you -- the same way a plant makes a flower. Everything else you do in life is to support that function. The money you make, the posessions you amass everything else you do is just there to support that purpose. Few things you build, own or create in your lifetime will still be here in 1000 years except your decendants. If you made $200B and died childless, you will be a loser.

Quote:

Quote:
As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at.

All except for market competetivness in just about every industry, especially medical.... and GDP growth.... oh and unemployment.... so basically, we have more people working and the workers have more capital per worker to use with.... that means we're more effecient by defintion.

The only European nation that has similiar growth rates are either implementing market liebralization or its England. France and Germany the two most socialist of the European economies are stagnate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 11:34 AM

Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gc
i2005.html]

Now let's take a little quote from this supposed index:

Quote:
All indexes reflect their components. The WEF's GCI has three main legs: the overall quality of a country's economy at the macro level (e.g., budget surpluses, good; deficits, bad); the state of its public institutions, which includes such measures as the independence of the judiciary and the level of public-sector corruption; and the level of its technological innovation.

So this isn't even actually based on GROWTH as defined by Economist.

"State of its public institions" how do they measure that exadtly?.... The vitality of the court system has very little to do with real GDP growth...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/07/art3full.pdf#search='Labor%20per%2
0capita'

US productivity is the highest in the world, so is our labor participation rate. Further, even your link admits US technoglocial innnovation is the hgihest, and we arn't even at a Pareto Optimal point... the US gov't meddles enough with the economy and directs research that the market is not totally able to behave naturally. If the US were to totally liberalize, it would be that much higher.

The only argument you can give me is that the4 Solow Growth model does not link economic well-being with productivity; but since you don't nkow anyo of the theory you deem to criticisize I'll leave it at that.

Quote:
No, you are an animal, your purpose is to reproduce your genes, that is why your genes made you -- the same way a plant makes a flower. Everything else you do in life is to support that function. The money you make, the posessions you amass everything else you do is just there to support that purpose. Few things you build, own or create in your lifetime will still be here in 1000 years except your decendants. If you made $200B and died childless, you will be a loser.

According to the defintion of biological fitness. I'm glad you took Bio 101, but that is merely saying "my defintion is better then yours." Sociey runs smoother if people are satisfied, in whatever way they wish to be. That is why command economies and socialism dosn't work, and that's why it must be left to the own devices of individuals to determine what will satsify their utility..... We can't just direct people to be "biologically fit" and expect society to run properly. People obviosully don't care about this notion of biology, since by defintion, there are many "unfit" individuals (people who remain childless) and that is their right.

Quote:
No I said you assumed it would adapt and I'm saying that's not a given. I'm not saying they won't adapt just that "don't worry about it-- we'll adapt" is poor science....

Yeah I suppose your right, if we assume people start to behave totatlly unlike what they normally do, then yes, tehy won't adapt and they will just die. That's very realistic. If your given a choice of a consumble and a inferior substittue, and both will satsify your needs, but you wish to have the superior good because of whatever, its irrelvent, if its beyond your budget constraint, you WILL purchase the inferior good if its truly needed. Unless you can stave off consumption for future consumption. But to talk about this in any real detail we have to introduce macroeconomic models of arbitrary periods.

Quote:
It will and that's the point.

Let's assume that electricity generated by oil is 3c per Kwh. Now let's assume that the cost of solar generated electricity is 10c per Kwh. Based soley on economic principles there is little justification for building solar plants in most cases while oil energy costs remain low. If oil costs rose until oil derived electricity hit 12c/Kwh and stayed that way, the position changes. So it is with the US oil Bidness, there is US dommestic oil reserves but right now the cost of foreign crude is so low that it would not be economic to exploit it. If the price of foreign sources becomes high enough then the US oil becomes economic to exploit. What's the problem with that?

Wheres is elctrcity generated by oil directly in the United States? I'm not aware of any, but maybe i'm misreading you.

Anyways, I don't get the point of your statment; yes, when it becomes viable to purchase domestic crude that will happen, when doemstic crude production becomes unberable, in the long term, consumption will fall and an alaternative good will be sought... which will move the market to look for those altenratives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 12:13 PM

Quote:
You said we are now, at this moment, moving away from Oil.

No I said its on its way out, then I clarified in my response and said that any one can observe the finitness of the resources will cause people to look for altenratives (And indeed several altenratives have been found and are continue to being researched... their just not comparatievly sound economically... yet).

Quote:

We are, at this moment INCREASING our demand for Oil, therefore at this moment we are not moving away from Oil, we are becoming more dependent on it, despite the prices currently going up. It really is as simple as that.

Yeah bitching about syntax is stupid. I'm sorry you continued to be misinformed on my meaning even after I clarified it in the previous response.

Quote:
An important line here is "the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it..... ". You can not want to use something all you want, but if you have no choice you have no choice.

Actually in the long term people do adapt. Guess what, if year after year, you can't afford fuel, you'll take the bus, the train, if that dosn't work, you'll have no choice but to relocate your job if its to far away..... but by then infastructure of the altenratives (whatever it may be) will have been estalbished or demand to be established....

Quote:

But reality/science does conform to your ability to forecast we'll suddenly get a whole new societal/manufacturing/fuel/transport infrastructure within the time period forecast for peak Oil (some forecasts put it in the next decade)?

I should piont out the theory for the oil peak is also dubious, but lets assume its totatlly accurate, the US has peakce 2 decades ago and the world will follow within the next decade... its simple arithemetic, if oil starts to cost 7 - 8 bucks a gallon and all of a sudden those electric cars are cheaper, your going to want to have eletric cars and get rid of your obselete capital (the gasoline car); more eletctric cars will create more demand for electric fueling depots, that means enterprising individuals will open more since its not proftibale to do so and/or older firms will convert......In the long term, no captial is fixed.... I mean I"m not using anything beyond principles level micro theory, because analysis of this situation dosn't require it; unless we have hard data... But you havn't provided any so I can't comment.

Quote:
Let me put it like this, in the US every one calorie of Food requires ten calories of Oil. Firstly just taking Oil as a fuel:

the demand for organic foods is increasing. Further, the US has an absurd yield surplus for farming. In any event, I'm sure your right we won't find any other thing that will allow us to increase yields just as petroleum does. How silly of me to think that.

Quote:
There are a few experimental prototypes but these would have to be commercially viable at the time of peak Oil, people can't eat less, no matter how much economics wants them too.

Food storage devices such as refrigerators are made from Oil, made in factories powered by Oil, and run on electricity derived from Oil.

The only way to prove taht we're all going to starve to death is to show the data of the actaul yield effeicny based on the petrol fertilizer... I don't know much about this, but if you have the data feel free to share it.

Quote:
We can't simply use less it doesn't work like that in the real world, in an economics text book perhaps but not the real world. We have to find an alternative to ALL of Oils uses, some alternatives exist yes but not for all applications.

I'll await the data for this claim.....

Quote:
The laws of supply and demand alone are not enough to prevent an economic meltdown.

Really? How did you reach this profound conclusion? By reasoning in your head?

Quote:
Add to this prices rising staggeringly in the 70's with the Oil crises. Demand did not decrease,

Please show the study that shows that neither Marshellian nor Observed demand decreased..... I'm intrested in looking at this since it contradicts the studies I've read in class.

Quote:
Let me sum it up, if prices of food go up, people don't stop eating, despite what the economic laws of supply and demand say they should do, they just pay more.

Civilisations have collapsed before because of economic reasons. Your Economic formula leaves out the most important variable:
Human reaction.

SO you're prepared to show me proof that no alternative exists to petrol fertlizers?

Quote:
As scarcity of a vital resource increases demand does not decrease and people don't necessarily find alternatives. What they often do is riot and have civil wars. All Civilisations are three meals away from revolution, after all.

Right, prove this statement..... Your doing what you accuse me of doing, except whereas I have viable theory you just have words. I also note that all you have done is claim to "work in real life" but at hte same time ommited any real life examples that abides by your claims. In any event, since you have no theoretical freamwork you couldn't do the former anyways.

Quote:
The German economy is undergoing a period of weak growth, they don't have a weak economy there's a difference. Its economic growth is also recovering quite nicely, your information is out of date.

Oh I'm sorry as late as 2003 they had a virtually stagnant economy then they increased to 1.6 % ( not even half of ours), and then in the most recent tabulation their growth rate dropped to .9% for 2005.

Quote:

Anyway I'm surprised you don't know what "trickle down" is, you managed to quote the rest of the Capitalist manifesto word for word

Trickle down is the concept that by the rich getting richer, everyone gets richer.

That is not a theory... that's merely a statmeent. There is no such thing as "Capitalist Manifesto" But what should I expect from someone who obviouslly is influenced by Political "Science."

Quote:

Most efficient social solution? What exactly is an efficient social solution? What qualifies as an efficient social solution? What is efficient in a society?

Isn't it funny that you obviouslyl don't know a thing about rigorious Micro or macro theory yet you feel you can comment on it? Why don't you look up the phrase "Pareto Optimal" and "Walrasian Equalibrium."

Quote:
The mathematical proof that shows what?

Yeah sorry, I assumed you had some clue on what you were talking about hwen it came to Micro or Macro theory. The proof is for the existence of the competeive general equalbirium and that this equalibrium is pareto optimal. Maybe you'll undersatnd onc eyou actually learn what those terms mean.

In any event, if you've taken some Real Analysis, you should be able to piece the proof together, I think the only prerequistie you need is the Banach fixed point theorem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:
Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gc
i2005.html]

Now let's take a little quote from this supposed index:

Quote:
All indexes reflect their components. The WEF's GCI has three main legs: the overall quality of a country's economy at the macro level (e.g., budget surpluses, good; deficits, bad); the state of its public institutions, which includes such measures as the independence of the judiciary and the level of public-sector corruption; and the level of its technological innovation.

So this isn't even actually based on GROWTH as defined by Economist.

Growth isn't everything, piracy has wonderfully fast growth, the fitness of an economy for business has far more factors than how hard you push your workforce. You should study more.

Quote:

"State of its public institions" how do they measure that exadtly?.... The vitality of the court system has very little to do with real GDP growth...

Do you want to protect your interlectual property? Do you want contracts you enter into to be enforced by law? Do you want to operate in a free market or one that goes to the guy that offers the biggest bribe?...... scratch that you're American, you have the best government money can buy..... Do you want your competitors to win contracts more on corruption than merit?

If so then all of that depends on the vitality of the court system. I can get great productivity by kidnapping kids of the street at gunpoint and working them in sweatshops, but if I lived in a place where I can get away with that I can be murdered in my bed just as easily.

Rule of law is important to business.

Quote:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/07/art3full.pdf#search='Labor%20per%2
0capita'

US productivity is the highest in the world, so is our labor participation rate. Further, even your link admits US technoglocial innnovation is the hgihest, and we arn't even at a Pareto Optimal point... the US gov't meddles enough with the economy and directs research that the market is not totally able to behave naturally. If the US were to totally liberalize, it would be that much higher.

Yes Americans like GDP/Capita even though it's a worthless statistic. I suppose it's like Baseball, easy to win a world series when only Americans play. GDP/Capita includes various other factors including direct foreign investment, so everytime China or Europe buys a US company your GDP improves. Congratulations.

[quote}

The only argument you can give me is that the4 Solow Growth model does not link economic well-being with productivity; but since you don't nkow anyo of the theory you deem to criticisize I'll leave it at that.

Know why they are called models and theories? Because they are not verifiable enough to be used as laws. Even I have come up with an economic theory in my time that explains things just as well as any other. Economics is a social science like sociology and should be seen as such.

Quote:

Quote:
No, you are an animal, your purpose is to reproduce your genes, that is why your genes made you -- the same way a plant makes a flower. Everything else you do in life is to support that function. The money you make, the posessions you amass everything else you do is just there to support that purpose. Few things you build, own or create in your lifetime will still be here in 1000 years except your decendants. If you made $200B and died childless, you will be a loser.

According to the defintion of biological fitness. I'm glad you took Bio 101, but that is merely saying "my defintion is better then yours."

Glad you admit it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 1:47 PM

Oh dear, it seems someone was unable to answer my questions or points so they just threw their toys out of the pram and went for the string of fallacious insults response.

It's called cognitive dissonance my friend, look it up.

This ends any sort of discussion.

But anyway:

Quote:
No I said its on its way out, then I clarified in my response and said that any one can observe the finitness of the resources will cause people to look for altenratives (And indeed several altenratives have been found and are continue to being researched... their just not comparatievly sound economically... yet).

Nope you merely repeated what you said before. You've now changed what you've said and gone for the insult, but whatever gets you though the night yeah

Quote:

Yeah bitching about syntax is stupid. I'm sorry you continued to be misinformed on my meaning even after I clarified it in the previous response.

Hmm, bitching about syntax, yep that's funny. You're a funny guy, you know that?

Quote:
Actually in the long term people do adapt. Guess what, if year after year, you can't afford fuel, you'll take the bus, the train, if that dosn't work, you'll have no choice but to relocate your job if its to far away..... but by then infastructure of the altenratives (whatever it may be) will have been estalbished or demand to be established....

Of course, its that simple... in an economics text book. If you had any knowledge of anything outside of Economics you'd know its not that simple in the real world, but whatever.

Quote:
I should piont out the theory for the oil peak is also dubious, but lets assume its totatlly accurate, the US has peakce 2 decades ago and the world will follow within the next decade...

Do you even know what peak Oil is? The Peak Oil bell curve has been seen time and again when Oil wells have dried up.

Quote:
I mean I"m not using anything beyond principles level micro theory, because analysis of this situation dosn't require it; unless we have hard data... But you havn't provided any so I can't comment.

Have you? Have you backed up a word you've typed with a single piece of evidence? The answer you're looking for is no.

Quote:
Really? How did you reach this profound conclusion? By reasoning in your head?

Well it beats the hell out of taking something you read in an economics textbook and applying it to every vista of Human existence, wouldn't you say? Oh actually no you wouldn't, never mind.

Quote:
SO you're prepared to show me proof that no alternative exists to petrol fertlizers?

There's plenty of alternatives, but they aren't used because they have a lower yield for a higher cost.

Add that to the previous points and what do you get? Come on you're an economist you can work it out.

No?

Okay, you get more expensive food. Oh but that's right, supply and demand always works under all circumstances, so everyone will find alternatives to food. Good to know.

Quote:
Right, prove this statement..... Your doing what you accuse me of doing, except whereas I have viable theory you just have words. I also note that all you have done is claim to "work in real life" but at hte same time ommited any real life examples that abides by your claims. In any event, since you have no theoretical freamwork you couldn't do the former anyways.

I thought it was common knowledge actually (I note you still haven't provided that proof I asked for, nor for anything else you've said BTW

). Here's a clue, History. Doesn't matter much which part it's all over it. And hell if you went off and read a book other than an economics textbook for once it would do you good.

I apologise for assuming I was speaking to someone who'd had a well rounded education, that is someone who has learnt something outside of economics, know what I'm sayin'

Quote:
That is not a theory... that's merely a statmeent. There is no such thing as "Capitalist Manifesto" But what should I expect from someone who obviouslly is influenced by Political "Science."

Of course not sweetpea. It's just funny how all advocates of pure free market capitalism all speak with the same voice and blame the same things for its failings in the real world (I understand if you have a problem in this area)

Socialist body snatchers did it! It's the regulations that make companies dump toxic waste into drinking water!

Oh I'd forgotten how arrogant economists were. Economy is all there is, it holds all the answers, politics is unimportant. My chosen field is king!

Quote:
Isn't it funny that you obviouslyl don't know a thing about rigorious Micro or macro theory yet you feel you can comment on it? Why don't you look up the phrase "Pareto Optimal" and "Walrasian Equalibrium."

English language comprehension not a requirement for economy courses then no?

I didn't comment on anything, I asked you what you thought was an "efficient society". You reaction would seem to indicate you're not sure yourself.

Okay, well given your limited understanding of human affairs or indeed anything outside of economics full stop I'm guessing your criteria as the most 'efficient' society is the one with the best economy. It sure as hell ain't the one where the resources are allocated most efficiently, you've pretty much said that yourself

.

Oh well I'm not surprised you have a problem with reading comprehension, given your obvious handicaps with writing.

Oh low blow, bad Citizen

Quote:
Yeah sorry, I assumed you had some clue on what you were talking about hwen it came to Micro or Macro theory. The proof is for the existence of the competeive general equalbirium and that this equalibrium is pareto optimal. Maybe you'll undersatnd onc eyou actually learn what those terms mean.

In any event, if you've taken some Real Analysis, you should be able to piece the proof together, I think the only prerequistie you need is the Banach fixed point theorem.

"there's a mathematical proof!"
"For what?"
"You idiot! can't you read my mind?"
Erm, no, sorry I can't. I suggest a night school class in writing may help you to better convey your point, that is when you get one that wasn't written by someone else in one of our old friends: economics textbooks.

In any event if you ever bother to stop being an arrogant economist you'll realise there's a lot more to life, society, the universe and everything than economics, and that economics doesn't hold all the answers. Sometimes the "pareto optimal" way isn't the best way.

Many undesirable systems are Pareto efficient. For example, a dictatorship where the dictator gets every resource is Pareto efficient because any redistribution would decrease the wealth of the dictator.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:38 PM

SASSALICIOUS

China has historically been imperialistic regarding Vietnam (though it was more Vietnamese people than the country seeing as it didn't really exist as we know it today) and in present day it's imperialistic in Tibet.

It's possible that imperialistically China is not as bad as other countries, but given that serious human rights violations are occurring in Tibet (which is a sovereign nation in my opinion) as a direct result of Mao Tse Tung's invasion in 1949/1950, I think the fact that the Western world is getting so friendly with China is a problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
China has historically been imperialistic regarding Vietnam (though it was more Vietnamese people than the country seeing as it didn't really exist as we know it today) and in present day it's imperialistic in Tibet.

It's possible that imperialistically China is not as bad as other countries, but given that serious human rights violations are occurring in Tibet (which is a sovereign nation in my opinion) as a direct result of Mao Tse Tung's invasion in 1949/1950, I think the fact that the Western world is getting so friendly with China is a problem.

If I may usurp our resident economics whizz kid for a second:

Well what you fail to understand is that it's cost effective and makes extra profit, which is good economically speaking.

Which is all that matters, economics is all there is, there are no Human rights, they have nothing to do with economics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:30 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
China has historically been imperialistic regarding Vietnam (though it was more Vietnamese people than the country seeing as it didn't really exist as we know it today) and in present day it's imperialistic in Tibet.

It's possible that imperialistically China is not as bad as other countries, but given that serious human rights violations are occurring in Tibet (which is a sovereign nation in my opinion) as a direct result of Mao Tse Tung's invasion in 1949/1950, I think the fact that the Western world is getting so friendly with China is a problem.

If I may usurp our resident economics whizz kid for a second:

Well what you fail to understand is that it's cost effective and makes extra profit, which is good economically speaking.

Which is all that matters, economics is all there is, there are no Human rights, they have nothing to do with economics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

I knew I must have been misunderstanding something. Thank you for clearing it all up. PN was right, I'm too stupid too live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:34 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I can't believe it.

I can't believe we have one group of people arguing that there will be a failure to adapt resulting in massive economic impacts and energy wars...

And another group of people arguing that adaptation is natural and that there will be no massive economic impacts or energy wars.

What is this? Extreme Point of View Week?

Obviously adaptation is inevitable. (Or you believe the human animal will cease to exist because of an energy crisis.) But if there is anything that history has shown us, it is that the amazing adaptable and ingeniously creative human animal is one that resists change until change becomes absolutely necessary.

Otherwise, we'd all be driving our hydrogen powered cars to work, and our military would be flying hydrogen and methane powered jets exclusively. I mean, we know we're going to run out, so why not jump on this problem and have it solved early?

Well... Because we don't have to. Not yet. And it takes time to adapt. Oh, I have no doubt we will adapt, but we won't do it in one year, or even ten, or probably even twenty or thirty. Adaptation to a world without oil could take the better part of a century for all we know. (I point out that we 'abandoned' coal as a primary energy source in the twentieth century... Except that we didn't, haven't yet, and might not for some time.)

So, while our ability to adapt is a given, it may not be quick enough. What happens in the meantime?

Well, we have economic upheaval and energy wars. Duh. (One might argue that the Iraq war is already an energy/resource war. Though it is important to remember that there is rarely, if ever, only ONE reason to do anything. People will argue endlessly over ten different reasons we might have gone to war, and neglect the notion that ALL of those reasons are probably correct along with a half-dozen they didn't think of.)

So...

YES we will adapt and survive and YES there will be pain involved in the process.

You are both right and can join me in the middle of the road.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:42 PM

Anthony, you are absolutely right. We will adapt but there will be economic costs and winners and loser depending on how we adapt and how soon.

So the idea that "something magical" happens and the world continues as normal is probably false. There will be upheavals some of which may change pre existing economic and political structures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 5, 2006 4:10 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What is this? Extreme Point of View Week?

Lol, yeah. I'm keeping out of this one, both sides I feel are a bit too removed from the real world. But anyhow, this thread was meant to be about China and I thought MarginalRevolution had some interesting points about it, instead he gets ripped apart for his comments on future energy supplies or something (can't be bothered to read everything everyone wrote).

Welcome to RWED, MarginalRevolution. Here's some advice: don't make any subarguments, ever. For instance your comment on the dependence on oil. Some people here know that subarguments are usually the weak link in a post, so if they're in the mood to have an argument and feel like attacking a post, that's what they go for. Notice how in your case nobody disagreed with you main points (at least as far as I could tell, but as I said, I didn't read everything), but they're trying to tear your subarguments to shreds (maybe rightfully so, maybe no - at the moment, I don't care).

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 6, 2006 12:50 AM

Actually Khyron in the post I replied to I was replying to the majority of it, which was largely MR's assumption that economics is all that matters.

I didn't agree with all his points on China either, for instance China not being imperial?

He used this thread as a soap box for his economic based opinions on why government should be abolished, it was his main point not his 'subargument' at all.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 6, 2006 1:23 AM