Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Resource management and price regulation and rationing.

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Unread postby Badger » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 00:30:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')The spice shall flow .... I hope the major houses have read their history textbooks and do remember what happened the following dates (in chronological order) February 9th 1775, June 17th 1789 October 25th 1917.
Dune final battle is also against them. But you are right ... in the end there can be only one ("Princes of the Universe" by Queen playing in the background :roll: )


It is to be hoped the Freman inherit the planet unfortunatly even then old scores will be settled from the now. Rather be a Freman than an economist or CEO with out money they are weak. :lol:
Freedom is a elusive concept.
User avatar
Badger
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 19 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand
Top

Unread postby jaws » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 17:51:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S.A. was a socialist state during WWII. It is not a good example of an economy.

It won the war, and the upcoming energy and environmental crisis will be a war like situation. So If socialism won the war, I will take socialism
The USSR won the war as well, but socialism has never ended peacefully. The purges conducted by Stalin and the iron grip of the KGB on their country is proof of that. If you want socialism, you also agree that other people will decide how you live your life and how you deal with the energy crunch.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') dont see how the market can peacefully result in the distribution of fuel in such a situation. Sure a multimillionaire can pay for the gasoline to fly his jet and the guy who flips burgers at McDonalds will stay without gasoline and lose his job. Does that mean that the millionaire wanted it more? I doubt that; the only way I see the market doing this ie. allocate scarce resources to people who want them the most is by making everyone a millionaire. Is this your proposal
The market always peacefully results in the distribution of goods. That's always been true, whether or not there are multibillionaires like Bill Gates competing against Joe Patioman. If you believe you can stop the rich from flying airplanes with socialism, you are dead wrong. The rich will be the first to reserve themselves privileges under any socialist system. Under the market anyone can get their cut. It might be a diminishing cut but it will only get smaller with rationing.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby EnergySpin » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 19:11:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S.A. was a socialist state during WWII. It is not a good example of an economy.

It won the war, and the upcoming energy and environmental crisis will be a war like situation. So If socialism won the war, I will take socialism
The USSR won the war as well, but socialism has never ended peacefully. The purges conducted by Stalin and the iron grip of the KGB on their country is proof of that. If you want socialism, you also agree that other people will decide how you live your life and how you deal with the energy crunch.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') dont see how the market can peacefully result in the distribution of fuel in such a situation. Sure a multimillionaire can pay for the gasoline to fly his jet and the guy who flips burgers at McDonalds will stay without gasoline and lose his job. Does that mean that the millionaire wanted it more? I doubt that; the only way I see the market doing this ie. allocate scarce resources to people who want them the most is by making everyone a millionaire. Is this your proposal
The market always peacefully results in the distribution of goods. That's always been true, whether or not there are multibillionaires like Bill Gates competing against Joe Patioman. If you believe you can stop the rich from flying airplanes with socialism, you are dead wrong. The rich will be the first to reserve themselves privileges under any socialist system. Under the market anyone can get their cut. It might be a diminishing cut but it will only get smaller with rationing.

Jaws sorry but this is wishful thinking. Can you point out, how given a perfectly functioning free economy you can resolve this issue? Dont want to sound a pest, but the situation is similar to the following:
A multibillionaire and a homeless guy find themselves on the desert with enough food to last them for 10 days. The billionaire has 1 billion $ and the homeless guy has 25c. There is no peaceful market mechanism to allocate resources, when such resources are vital for survival.
The tenets of a free market are not operating in such a scenario.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jaws » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 20:26:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'A') multibillionaire and a homeless guy find themselves on the desert with enough food to last them for 10 days. The billionaire has 1 billion $ and the homeless guy has 25c. There is no peaceful market mechanism to allocate resources, when such resources are vital for survival.
The tenets of a free market are not operating in such a scenario.
There is no market in this situation because you haven't specified who owns the food. If the homeless guy owns all the food he can milk the multibillionaire for his entire fortune.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MrMambo » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 06:38:02

You are both wrong

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'A') multibillionaire and a homeless guy find themselves on the desert with enough food to last them for 10 days. The billionaire has 1 billion $ and the homeless guy has 25c. There is no peaceful market mechanism to allocate resources, when such resources are vital for survival.
The tenets of a free market are not operating in such a scenario.
There is no market in this situation because you haven't specified who owns the food. If the homeless guy owns all the food he can milk the multibillionaire for his entire fortune.


Two guys in the desert? Come on. If one is a lot stronger than the other and cynical enough he might choose to kill of the weaker one REGARDLESS of who "owns" it. Or they might decide to be decent ant try and make out of the desert in cooperation, 10 days of food could very well be enough.

I recomend the cooperation method. But if there is clearly to little food for two to survive it will most likely be brutal.
Give me hard facts! Show me the f** evidence. Don't just serve me Milton Friedman/Reagonomics "free" market preesthood dogma! I haven't seen that stable equilibrium of yours yet. I haven't seen that efficient economy yet. Where is it then?
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jaws » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 18:14:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrMambo', 'T')wo guys in the desert? Come on. If one is a lot stronger than the other and cynical enough he might choose to kill of the weaker one REGARDLESS of who "owns" it. Or they might decide to be decent ant try and make out of the desert in cooperation, 10 days of food could very well be enough.

I recomend the cooperation method. But if there is clearly to little food for two to survive it will most likely be brutal.
Well they have no idea how long they will be in the desert. Perhaps the multibillionaire has a helicopter out looking for him. In that situation it is better for him to share or buy food from the homeless man, especially since the homeless most likely has more experience at street fights. Trying to kill the homeless guy is very risky. Trading food less risky.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron