Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
by grabby » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 23:04:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'W')ell, yyou could give it back or you could refuse to. and they could leave or they could fight.
.....
Let the illini fight for it, if they win then they can have it,.
This is historical precidnce.
Wow! "might is right", the human project is coming along nicely, no sign of progress anywhere.
This is how the illini and the other tribes thrashed it out, is that wrong , what they did?
Tribes fight.
its ok if they do it but not ok if anyone else does it?
Makes no diff, eventually they will be absorbed or removed.
its all future history.
-
grabby
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
-
by rogerhb » Wed 19 Apr 2006, 23:34:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'M')akes no diff, eventually they will be absorbed or removed.
its all future history.
So if you are murdered, it doesn't matter because it is all future history?
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
by Imcal » Thu 20 Apr 2006, 02:37:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'I')n the US, teachers get hired, teachers get tenure, and theachers are then hard to get rid of. Teachers recieve unfunded mandates from the federal government and if they don't have tenure they can lose their jobs if their students don't produce, and this often leads to teaching students to take a test or outright cheating by the teachers.
Tenured teachers can be unmotivated because they have little to lose despite their students results, and untenured teachers can be motivated to do the wrong thing because the system pushes them in that direction.
Tenured teachers can make a lot of money for doing a poor job, while
new teachers struggle to make a living even if they do a much better job.
This isn't a system that makes much sense.
Oh we have a tenure system here as well. That doesn't make the teacher (or other civil servants) impossible to fire should they make a real mess of things but very hard. Anyone becoming a teacher to make lots of money is in for a rude surprise, though. Tenure or no tenure, solidly middle-class is where they'll end up. Tenure is the positive side of working a job that requires an academic degree but has basically no career advancement and little increase in pay during ones career.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'W')hat also happens in a free market, where parents can move their students and the money that goes with them around, is you see more variety in possible education tracks. There are more extra curricular type things, more shop type classes and more trade and vocational schools.
For all intents and purposes there are no extracurricular activities offered by the schools here. That sort of thing is taken care by other organisations (there are municipal music schools and various sports clubs for those sorts of things for example). There are some specialized highschools around for the gifted (most of them are for the musically or atheletically gifted), though.
Moving around is a possibility in the bigger population centers here (and can be done if requirements are met). Most of the country is so sparsely populated that supporting overlapping educational facilities would be a terrible waste. Moving students around when the next school is 50+ km's away is really not an option for most parents.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'T')he market is likely to adapt to make changes and accomidate demands faster than government bodies can.
The function of elementary education is to furnish people with basic skills. Language, mathematics, history, biology and so on. A good general education is not something that can really have a meaningful price tag put on it. It is... elementary. Simply having someone demand something doesn't necessarily make it a great idea. What if I wished that my children be enrolled in a school where no mathematics is taught? Not a single digits worth. I can demand it until I'm blue in the face and it's still a bad idea.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'i')n addition, despite the average consumer not being the best informed individual in the world, it doesn't take a genious to know if your child is learning and happy or not. when such evalutions are left in the hands of the parents and students, the consumer is greatly empowered and big money interests and corrupt government loses power.
There are good arguments for exactly the opposite. Making schools compete against each other introduces an incentive to cut corners. The only place where there is real money to be made in schooling here is book publishing AFAIK (and they are heavily regulated by the national curriculum). One thing is for sure at least: our schools (or teachers) really don't have the money to bribe politicians. Teachers here tend to be among the more socially conservative groups. They are extremely unlikely to strike or otherwise rock the boat in any way. Even to their own detriment. Corruption in general is not a big issue here currently (unless you are using the word in some untraditional meaning). Who is going to bribe whom anyway? Big business bribing schools to educate their future workers and clients badly?
As far as parents knowing whether their children are happy and learning or not goes I have to be quite a bit more cynical than you. Most parents do. Some don't. And this is not a marginal segment of the population. It wouldn't be so bad if the lives they're messing with were theirs. Childrens lives (or future careers) do not belong to their parents.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bdmarti', 'S')o, while I don't say a government can't supply a nice education. I do think that allowing a consumer to determine what constitutes a "good" education is a very powerful and desireable thing. If I want to be a carpenter, and there are no building or wood working classes in government school...then it sucks to be me. Same thing for the mechanically inclined, or those with musical interests, or agriculture or any number of things.
by UIUCstudent01 » Thu 20 Apr 2006, 03:09:59
IMF Steps up Pressure for Dollar Depreciation
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he International Monetary Fund on Wednesday stepped up the pressure for far-reaching shifts in exchange rates, declaring that the dollar will have to depreciate “significantly” over the
medium term if global economic imbalances are to be resolved in an orderly fashion.
In its clearest statement to date on this highly-charged subject, the IMF said it was essential that currencies in Asia and of oil exporters were allowed to appreciate as part of the required “realignment of exchange rates”. But it shied away from giving any specific figures as to the extent of appreciation required.
So... what's the medium term in economist-talk? A year? or five?
Lou Dobbs$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fault lies entirely with the U.S. government, our lack of strategy and our failed policies. This administration and U.S. multinational corporations have lost sight of the national interest. This administration and the Republican-led Congress have permitted the dismantling of America's manufacturing base and created a dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products that is greater than our dependency on foreign oil.
Make no mistake: Our leaders are the fools, and China's leaders are not to be blamed for taking advantage of this administration's commitment to faith-based economic theories and so-called free trade
that permits the Chinese access to the world's richest consumer market while China denies our businesses access to its emerging market.
He's probably considered "Mercantilist" as well. But, by damn, that's one of the best options in Civilization 4. It turbo-charges your development!
"faith-based economic theories and so-called free trade" sounds really quite ignorant though. The rest of the sentence is something to take note on. (I don't know how true it is though.)
by jaws » Thu 20 Apr 2006, 19:48:52
You still don't understand anything about exchange kabu, but, despite the pointlessness of trying to talk sense into a pothead, I will point out the mistakes in your reasoning for the benefit of the innocent observer.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', 'A')dditionally, you also believe that neither a state nor any individual be responsible for meeting anyone else’s basic needs. This could too work out fine if charity was always shown to those impoverished.
Charity is an elastic good. There is not infinite charity, and charity cannot reach everywhere. Charitable organizations try to spread their resources to the neediest people, just like for-profit organizations respond to the most urgent demands from consumers. If we want to reduce the burden on charity, there is only one way: build more wealth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re there times, then, when is someone responsible to provide for another’s basic needs, without some sort of preexisting trade agreement? Should such a thing be forced upon parents?
Parents aren't forced to care for their children. They do it out of their own self-interest. When a parent is no longer capable of caring for a child we do not force them to. There are many foster families and charities to take care of the child. Forcing the parent to care for the child would be ruinous for the child's development, reflecting the general tendency of socialism to ruin lives.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere’s a funny thing about evidence: it’s verifiable, by definition. Where’s the evidence? Where’s God? I do not see it in your link, just as I do not see the irrefutable proof of God in The Bible. How about you cite the specifics so that I can see it better?
By your own admission you have never studied economics, and now you demand I provide the whole proof? Try reading some books, the evidence is in there.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') will not dispute the part about luxuries, by the way, because Socialism’s goal is to provide for the basic needs of all. I see luxuries as material waste- sadly replacing social and spiritual fulfillment- but I digress.
by kabu » Fri 21 Apr 2006, 01:59:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'Y')ou still don't understand anything about exchange kabu, but, despite the pointlessness of trying to talk sense into a pothead, I will point out the mistakes in your reasoning for the benefit of the innocent observer.
I’m glad I finally got a bit of a reaction out of you. Good for you for showing some personality, Jaws. And at this point, I suspect you’re doing this purely for the sake of your ego, not for the benefit of “the innocent observers.” I have no way of verifying this, of course. Equally, I have no way of verifying that you’re neither lying to me nor lying to yourself when you dedicate this absurdity to “the innocent observers.”
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')harity is an elastic good. There is not infinite charity, and charity cannot reach everywhere. Charitable organizations try to spread their resources to the neediest people, just like for-profit organizations respond to the most urgent demands from consumers. If we want to reduce the burden on charity, there is only one way: build more wealth.
You’re right, charity is not infinite, which is why we can’t depend on it. The burden on charity can only be reduced if it is the impoverished that are becoming wealthier. If it is merely the wealthy that are becoming wealthier, the burden on charity remains the same. It’s about distribution and quantity, not just quantity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')arents aren't forced to care for their children. They do it out of their own self-interest. When a parent is no longer capable of caring for a child we do not force them to. There are many foster families and charities to take care of the child. Forcing the parent to care for the child would be ruinous for the child's development, reflecting the general tendency of socialism to ruin lives.
In almost all cases, yes, parents are not forced to care of their children; they want to. And in the cases where parents are no longer capable of caring for their children, the government either gives that family a family-allowance, it subsidizes a foster family to take care of the children, or it supports them directly through an orphanage. Governments may also force a parent to pay child support (divorce cases), even if that parent does not wish to have a relationship with his/her child. This is all socialistic. It is required, because charities- or foster families turning down subsidization- will not always be there, regardless of a country’s productivity.
Socialism does not require that parents be forced into the same environment as their children. That must be Jawsism: a school of thinking revolving around idiocy, packed with strawmen of competing theories for the purpose of avoiding the real issues.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')By your own admission you have never studied economics, and now you demand I provide the whole proof? Try reading some books, the evidence is in there.
by skiwi » Sun 23 Apr 2006, 01:39:12
Sorry but I couldn't read the babble above.
How did you find the time to waste writing it
Some of you dudes are just on way too much of an ego trip
Anyway onto the world economy
N.Z Interest rates unlikely to fall on fuel prices alone
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ata showing inflation alive and well over the first quarter is expected to add to the Reserve Bank's resolve in keeping the official cash rate high this year, despite fuel prices being a big part of the problem."..
..The interesting thing is we've just had negative growth, the economy shrank in the fourth quarter of last year and it doesn't look like it's going to grow much in the first quarter of this year," said David Plank, head of macro research and strategy for Deutsche Bank in Australia and New Zealand.
..Deutsche Bank expects higher fuel prices to again feature in the inflation outcome for the second quarter, the annual figure going to 3.7 per cent. But Plank said the central bank will not tighten in response to that alone.
Meanwhile
[url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10378609]Sellers find property market saturated
[/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')alk of doom, gloom and a pending property crash has inadvertently produced a buyers' market, forcing some frustrated home owners to withdraw their houses from sale.
Throughout Auckland, and other parts of the country, the story is the same....
...Auckland home owner Geoff Dale is annoyed at the current state of the market. He and his wife Marie put their four-bedroom Mt Albert bungalow on the market last November, listed it with a real estate agent, paid for marketing and advertising and expected it to sell at auction.
The agent told them their price expectation, in the $800,000s, was realistic.
But the house didn't sell. In fact no one even bid at the November 30 auction. Since then it's been a continuing, depressing cycle of cleaning and tidying the house ready for weekend open days to which few turn up. Sometimes not a single person comes...
Boohoo I'm bleeding
Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us. What shall we do to be invoked; to be remembered in the earth.
We have tried with our first creatures but we could not make them venerate us.
So let us try to make obedient respectful beings who shall
by MrBill » Mon 24 Apr 2006, 06:18:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shadizar', 'T')hank you for your explanation (of comparative advantage) Mr. Bill. There is something in it that makes me uncomfortable though (been thinking about it).
Why should Friday enter in the agreement at all with Mr. Crusoe (great book btw I have a 1916 edition, a true favorite of mine)?
If, his needs are met, and he has no desire for more (granted that would not follow a capitalist ideology-i.e communist) why should he trade at all?
Your example was simplistic (thank you!) so that could be it.
-Shadizar
Sorry, I already get blamed for enough without ascribing other people's posts to me! ; - )
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill
- Expert
-
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
-
by bdmarti » Mon 24 Apr 2006, 13:17:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '
')alue is marginally subjective. The more taxation there is, the lower the marginal value of goods produced is going to be. Since people balance the marginal value of production with the marginal displeasure of work, higher taxation will mean that people will work less. Any taxation is going to destroy production and result in impoverishment.
You keep saying things like this, but the data doesn't seem to back you up.
For instance Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland all have higher per capita GDP production than the US, but both Luxembourg and Norway have higher tax rates. Denmark and Sweden have slightly less per capita production than the US, but denmark has the worlds highest tax rates, and Sweden's tax rates are higher than the US tax rates by far. Yet, in these more socialist countries, poverty is not nearly the issue it is in a less socialized country like the US? How can it be that higher tax rate countries are meeting the needs of their people better than lower tax rate countries? Can it be that you are incorrect in assuming the infallibility of your assumptions?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You still do not understand anything about productivity of capital and exchange. If the state takes 1 million from a man with 1 billion in wealth, it is suppressing the production of one of the most productive men in the economy. Not only is the capital going into the hands of a much less competent owner,
everyone who trades with the billionnaire is going to be impoverished by the diminution in his capital. We all profit from each other's work and capital accumulation. To attack a man who is wealthy just because he is wealthy is highly destructive for everyone who does business with that man.
Once again you state these things as if they are facts, when really they are unsubstantiated assertions.
A person having 1 billion dollars does not make them by definition "one of the most productive men in the economy." A vegetable laying on a table, with thousand dollar bills stuffed in his mattress could have a billion dollars and yet produce exactly nothing. Being rich doesn't make one productive.
Furthermore, if we all profit from each other's wealth and capital accumulation, then why would it matter if we moved that wealth from person 1 to person 2, or from rich moron to the government? The same amount of capital remains. One must assume that when the government takes capital that they will use it less "competently" than the previous "owner" did in order for this to hold true. However, history shows that despite the vast incompetencies of governement, it is not safe to assume that they will spend all wealth or use all capital less efficiently in all cases.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
There is no such thing as pure production, only transformation. The trees were transformed by his actions, therefore he owns them.
If Friday produces 12 mangos per day from the tree does he "own" the tree? Wht happens with someone better comes along?
Let's say a boatload of stangers arrives on the island with Friday and Robinson, and they bring with them Farmer Bob. Farmer Bob can produce 1 million mangos per day from the same tree that Friday owns, but unfortunatly for all the strangers, Friday doesn't want to sell his tree for arbitrary reasons.
The strangers bring with them no wealth, and Friday just likes owning his tree. What could they possibly offer him to make him sell the tree? When the Strangers offer to lease the tree for 15 mangos/day or even 1000/magos per day or 100,000/day , friday might agree, but he still owns his tree. he NEVER needs to sell it. Friday can make a lease on the tree that extends to his children and children's children such that they never need work ever again, because others will always farm their tree and pay them for it.
Let's just take a moment to recognize that under such a program, Friday himself produces NOTHING, and yet he can forever remain the wealthiest person on the island.
Socialism can address this absurdity where the free market fails due to the incompetincies and arbitrary wishes of individuals within the market.
A socialist society would allocate the Tree directly to Farmer Bob, and everyone could get all the mangos they could eat, and pay Farmer bob in fish or whatever it is they produce. Or a socialist society might allocate the tree based upon bidding...whoever promised to produce the most mangos for the state would get to have the tree. Or perhaps everone gets the same amount of time at the tree...Any number of things could happen when the people collectivly owned the tree.
But since we don't have a socialist society on the desert island, and Friday never needs to sell, it is quite possible that either our ship of strangers will lease the tree, eat only fish, or starve.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You understand nothing about exchange and productivity. It doesn't matter if Robinson doesn't want to eat fish, what matters is that if he did want fish, he would be better off trading for it than fishing it himself. That is comparative advantage. It always applies and is irrefutable.
