[omgwtfbyobbq]

Now, from an energetic, and even economic point of view, there are plenty of alternatives that could mitigate peak oil, alone in some cases, or in combinations in others. Now what's curious is that these would all reduce energy costs because they all have cheap, abundant inputs, but their initial costs are very high. I may be wrong here, but this seems like a boon for the energy business, because it's the exact opposite of what they have now (low initial cost and a market conducive to high product cost), even if it is better for the world as a whole.
Instead of investing large amounts of capital in energy sources that are not only less costly to the consumer economically, but better in terms of externalities (pollution, military cost, etc...), it's much more profitable for them to continue investing very little, and due to the way the current energy market is set up, watch as demand outstrips supply and the cost of their product, and their profit, goes up. In other words, their profit is coming at the direct and disproportionate expense of the rest of the world... Is there any specific term for this, or should we just refer to it as facism and call it a day?

[aldente]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', ' ')Is there any specific term for this, or should we just refer to it as facism and call it a day?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

But there is something to say about capitalism/market economics. Capitalism/market economics is all about maximising profit, regardless of the collective good. E.g. if I can sell something to half the population for a certain amount, or sell something to all of the population for a quarter of the amount, I'm only going to price the item so half the population can afford it. By maximising profit, there is a trend to reduce the efficiency of all resources used in order to maximise local resource concentration. Isn't this something of a fatal flaw with capitalism/market economics?

[NEOPO]

Indeed.
for instance - blah blah country imports 10 gazzillion heads of lettuce and exports 10 gazzillion.

It does not matter that resources were used inefficiently or even wasted to the capitalist who earned 1 cent per head now does it?

10 gaz. cents is still alot and all those wasted resources "paid for themselves" as far as the capitalist is concerned.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', 'B')ut there is something to say about capitalism/market economics. Capitalism/market economics is all about maximising profit, regardless of the collective good. E.g. if I can sell something to half the population for a certain amount, or sell something to all of the population for a quarter of the amount, I'm only going to price the item so half the population can afford it. By maximising profit, there is a trend to reduce the efficiency of all resources used in order to maximise local resource concentration. Isn't this something of a fatal flaw with capitalism/market economics?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

But money's supposed to be the intangible instantiation of resources, so by maximizing profit aren't they creating pockets of resources that are unable to be utilized for the greater good?

[Daculling]

No one invests in zero growth.

[Lighthouse]

And that's why EROEI does not count as long EI is less in Dollars spent than ER in Dollars recieved...

Guys you have to look this Medusa directly in the face: That's the world we live in ...

[omgwtfbyobbq]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daculling', 'N')o one invests in zero growth.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daculling', 'N')o one invests in zero growth.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'I')f you're making twice the profit by using half as much resources, then you are conserving the other half of the resources. Capitalism thus promote the conservation of natural resources.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'Y')ou have that the wrong way round.

You want to make quadrouple the profit by using those resources you aren't currently employing.

Capitalism considers not turning resources into shite wasteful.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')Employing and using don't mean the same thing. To be as efficient and conserve as much as possible, you want to employ every resource at your disposal while using as little as possible.

[Shiraz]

Jaws is trying to use "employ" as use without depletion in contrast to "use" as use and deplete.

In other words, when you employ a resource, it does not deplete, whilst when you use a resource, it is 'used up' so you cannot use it again.

Jaws reminds us that capitalism places a high premium on efficiency, which is of course correct, but appears to confound efficiency with conservation.

To this extent, Jaws fails to respond to Rogerhb's point.

Specifically, where a time value of money perspective favours "use" of a resource over "employment" of a resource, the economically sensible thing to do will be to efficiently deplete the resource, as opposed to conservatively use it.

Efficiency and conservation are not the same thing! Capitalism always favours efficiency but only sometimes favours conservation. A set of instances where capitalism does not favour conservation are collectively known as Jevon's paradox.

[jaws]

Conservation without efficiency makes no sense. There is no point in conserving just to preserve the natural state of the world, that state is always changing. Conservation always has a purpose, perhaps to bank resources for use some time in the future. Efficiency involves finding the balance between use today and use later, thus the right level of conservation.

[CrudeAwakening]

Jaws, the economic meaning of "efficiency" is quite different from the usually accepted meaning. Which one are you using/employing here?