Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
by TonyPrep » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 06:27:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')tating that someone having no position on something means they have a position on it is a logical contradiction.
I agree. Good thing I never said that, eh?
Are you having trouble w/ your short term memory?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')imply not considering something is not the same as acting something is infinite.
Sure it is.
According to your statement right there, someone who has not considered something, and has no position on it, means that they are acting as if they have a position on it, a logical fallacy.
I see you're having trouble with English, yesplease. I said that someone who hasn't considered limits will
act as though there are no limits. It is perfectly logical to say that, because I am not saying that they have a position, I'm saying that their actions are very similar to, even indistinguishable from, the actions that would ensue from a belief in infinite resources, or no limits. If it were not so, then their actions would show some acknowledgment of limits, but, since they have not considered limits, then no such acknowledgment is detectable; making their actions similar to a believer in no limits.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') never said that people wouldn't pay high prices for
anything, just that they wouldn't pay high prices for an
infinite resource.
If resources are infinite, then so is anything. Also, remember that I haven't said that people act as though the processed resource is infinite. Hence, "normal" supply and demand, and processing costs, come into it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')o you're making speculative statements based off of your imagination? Now everything makes sense...
Wow, an almost imaginative attempt at deflection. My comment was in reference to your insistance that I can't say anything about how people might act, because I'm not a mind reader (though it would take more than that particular skill); but you then go on to speculate that growth could have happened if only the population hadn't grown, because reduced energy intensity would have occurred even in a stable market size. Well, that is pure speculation; your charts prove nothing except the energy intensity of the global economy decreased, not that resource consumption decreased in the global economy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')ell, in this case there isn't much I can say. Most people prefer to base statements off of the real world
Really? I didn't know you could read the minds of most people, yesplease. You seem to be full of surprises. In that case, I must bow to your superior phsycic abilities.
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 09:51:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')'m going to step out of this one.
That doesn't surprise me, since you seem to be on shaky ground. However, I really do suspect that we agree more than is apparent from this exchange, but you so love argument that you can't bring yourself to actually say you agree.
We agree quite a bit on many things TonyPrep. The only things I don't agree with you on are logical contradictions and fallacies, be them from you, editorials, or any other source. For example the logical contradiction in this statement...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')f resources are infinite, then so is anything. Also, remember that I haven't said that people act as though the processed resource is infinite. Hence, "normal" supply and demand, and processing costs, come into it.
You stated that if resources are infinite, then so is anything. Then go on to say that "normal" supply and demand as well as processing costs, come into it. "Normal" supply and demand, as well as processing costs, are based in a finite world. According to your initial statement,
anything, which includes supply and demand, as well as processing costs is infinite. which is definitely not "normal" supply and demand, as well as processing costs, in any way. You logically contradict your own statements.
Hopefully you can understand this, but based on many statements you have made it does not appear to be the case. We do agree on many things, and the only thing I disagree with you with is your illogical statements, which I point out. Unfortunately, after many posts it seems that you still cannot grasp basic logic, and I doubt anything more from my end would help that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by TonyPrep » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 16:15:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')ou stated that if resources are infinite, then so is anything. Then go on to say that "normal" supply and demand as well as processing costs, come into it. "Normal" supply and demand, as well as processing costs, are based in a finite world.
You've got it wrong again, yesplease, perhaps you should think about what you write, before committing it to a public forum. Normal supply and demand are to do with the amount of finished product (finished from the point of view of the purchaser) you can put in front of a prospective purchaser. If resources are infinite, then all products will never become permanently scarce and production will always be able to be ramped up, over time, to meet any demand, because there are enough raw resources to accommodate any scale of production. Normal supply and demand means that there is a cost and time factor associated with the availability of the "finished" product, either in a finite world or an infinite resource world. I hope that's clear now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'U')nfortunately, after many posts it seems that you still cannot grasp basic logic, and I doubt anything more from my end would help that.
I don't deny that I sometimes make illogical statements, since we all make mistakes, but most of the ones you think you've picked up on this thread are not illogical contradictions and I've explained them enough times for you to be able to grasp that. That you post as though you don't understand probably speaks more for your desire to not admit mistakes, and to argue, than it does for my illogical thought processes.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')ony Prep your statements are either being taken out of context or being misunderstood. It's perfectly clear to me the point you are making.
Thanks, Quinny. Yesplease sometimes has useful points to make but they tend to get lost in a welter of misrepresentation and a desire to point out any trivial inaccuracy. He appears to hate agreeing with anyone.
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 16:46:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')ou stated that if resources are infinite, then so is anything. Then go on to say that "normal" supply and demand as well as processing costs, come into it. "Normal" supply and demand, as well as processing costs, are based in a finite world.
You've got it wrong again, yesplease, perhaps you should think about what you write, before committing it to a public forum. Normal supply and demand are to do with the amount of finished product (finished from the point of view of the purchaser) you can put in front of a prospective purchaser. If resources are infinite, then all products will never become permanently scarce and production will always be able to be ramped up, over time, to meet any demand, because there are enough raw resources to accommodate any scale of production. Normal supply and demand means that there is a cost and time factor associated with the availability of the "finished" product, either in a finite world or an infinite resource world. I hope that's clear now.
I'm not seeing a retraction of the "If resources are infinite, then so is anything.", so until you change that, or change what you're talking about (maybe by talking about only infinite demand, supply, production, etc...), your statement will still be a logical contradiction. You can start off w/ the the assumption that "If resources are infinite, then so is anything", but since "anything" includes supply, demand, production, and well, anything, you can't then move on to finite supply, demand, or production, and expect to not construct a logical contradiction. You're talking about an infinite resources and state that if resources are infinite then "anything" is infinite. Then you state that demand, supply, and/or production, a subset of "anything", is finite. Saying that something infinite is finite, is a contradiction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'U')nfortunately, after many posts it seems that you still cannot grasp basic logic, and I doubt anything more from my end would help that.
I don't deny that I sometimes make illogical statements, since we all make mistakes, but most of the ones you think you've picked up on this thread are not illogical contradictions and I've explained them enough times for you to be able to grasp that. That you post as though you don't understand probably speaks more for your desire to not admit mistakes, and to argue, than it does for my illogical thought processes.
Like I said before, if you can't understand why the statements you're making are logical contradictions or illogical after possibly hundreds of posts, there isn't much I can do to help. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 17:30:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'Y')ou're taking what he said out of context. I don't know why you are so argumentative. The points you are insisting on are purile.
I suppose it could be out of context, ie it wasn't mean to be a logical statement, but even if that's the case either way we slice it it's still an illogical statement. That said, no one has to abide by logic. You for instance, think it's childish, provided you meant puerile.
Last edited by
yesplease on Sun 02 Nov 2008, 17:32:40, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 17:51:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'S')orry - you didn't get it did you.
The point that you proved was that you misunderstand/misinterpret/ find flaws like typing mistakes and try to use them to show how you are so right and they are so... wrong.
Its poorile!
I suppose that could be the case for a grammatical error that just happened to result in a different meaning, but do you really think that entire sentences/statements are typing mistakes? C'mon... If you're going by that line of reasoning just come out and say that anything anyone says can mean anything at any given point in time such that it always means whatever they want it to mean. All TEOTWAWKI all the time!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 19:27:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')P was quite clearly here pointing out the discontinuity between the way that basic resources and finished goods act in the consumer market.
Maybe... Maybe they were clearly pointing out how humming birds cause global warming. All I can go on is what they wrote, which is that infinite "anything" is finite, a logical contradiction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')P clearly understands - you are attempting to make him look stupid by selectively picking on minor ambiguities in his language/explanation.
Entire sentences/statements aren't minor ambuguities. Unless you're suscribing to the whatever anyone says means whatever someone wants it to at any given point in time "semantic" language model.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'Y')ou on the other hand have tried to pass off population growth as economic growth which is clearly nonsence.
I wasn't trying to pass off population growth as economic growth, just illustrate how more growth, in this case population growth, can happen w/o using more resources. Which is what the (incorrectly) article said...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.
They didn't specify economic growth, although more economic growth can occur w/o using more resources if said resources are used more efficiently. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by Quinny » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 20:20:40
Oh they didn't did they!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hey didn't specify economic growth, although more economic growth can occur w/o using more resources if said resources are used more efficiently.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'F')rom the 18th of October edition:
Editorial: Time to banish the god of growthIMAGINE an industry that runs out of raw materials. Companies go bust, workers are laid off, families suffer and associated organisations are thrown into turmoil. Eventually governments are forced to take drastic action. Welcome to global banking, brought to its knees by the interruption of its lifeblood - the flow of cash.
In this case we seem to have been fortunate. In the nick of time, governments released reserves that should with luck get cash circulating again. But what if they hadn't been there? There are no reserves of fish, tropical hardwoods, fresh water or metals such as indium, so what are we going to do when supplies of these vital materials dry up? We live on a planet with finite resources - that's no surprise to anyone - so why do we have an economic system in which all that matters is growth (see
"Why our economy is killing the planet and what we can do about it")? More growth means using more resources.
When the human population was counted in millions and resources were sparse, people could simply move to pastures new. But with 9 billion people expected around 2050, moving on is not an option. As politicians reconstruct the global economy, they should take heed. If we are to leave any kind of planet to our children we need an economic system that lets us live within our means.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
by yesplease » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 20:34:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'O')h they didn't did they!
Nope. They stated...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.
If they had referred to economic growth they would've stated something like...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore
economic growth means using more resources.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between "growth" and "economic growth" even if you don't understand what it is.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Mon 03 Nov 2008, 08:51:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'Y')ou are now proving the point again purile & obtoose!
What point? That you don't understand the difference between "growth" and "economic growth"?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by TonyPrep » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 03:30:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')ou can start off w/ the the assumption that "If resources are infinite, then so is anything", but since "anything" includes supply, demand, production, and well, anything
Hint: check the context. Clearly, I didn't mean abstract things, I meant any product. With infinite resources, it's possible, technically, to ramp up to any level of production, but it takes time, effort and finance. No logical contradiction, except when contrived by your good self, in order to engineer an argument.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'L')ike I said before, if you can't understand why the statements you're making are logical contradictions or illogical after possibly hundreds of posts, there isn't much I can do to help.
Very true, except that I understand, perfectly, what you're saying, but you're not finding logical contradictions, only your misunderstandings.
by TonyPrep » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 04:50:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'O')h they didn't did they!
Nope. They stated...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.
If they had referred to economic growth they would've stated something like...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore
economic growth means using more resources.
Believe it or not, there is a difference between "growth" and "economic growth" even if you don't understand what it is.
Surely you can't really be this anal, yesplease. Or can you?
