Sunday
Jul082012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mission impoverish
Jul 8, 2012 Economics Energy: gas Christopher Booker laments the insanity of the UK government's policy on shale gas, with the headline summing things up rather well
You can’t have shale gas – it might halve your bills
It is an extraordinary thing when the main political parties agree that the way ahead is a the impoverishment of the electorate and transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Reader Comments (183)
Sadly, as I understand it (as a German), "mission impoverish" is dead on.
...and not just "mission impoverish" but also
"mission dulling of the mind",
"mission 'scientific dictatorship'",
"mission 'EU-dictatorship"',
"mission 'follow chicken little'",
"mission follow the money"...
BitBucket
I asked you to explain that theory which you have chosen not to do. I haven't yet come across an economic system where a reduction in the use of resources does not lead to a reduction in economic activity. Explain how it is possible to produce fewer goods and still retain the same level of wealth.No. You're behaving like a troll because you ignore the argument, move the goal posts and simply don't engage with what is actually said. For example:
Or even simply explain how I am wrong.
If you don't like my quotes (and I can quite understand why you don't — they go to the heart of the eco-luddite philosophy) then, like Groucho Marx, I have others. Why not go and find out about the Club of Rome or read Ehrlich's views about the earth's future? Scared?
I repeat, the quotes I gave you sum up the thinking that drives the current environmental paradigm. It's not a question of "we must use less so that sub-Saharan Africa can use more" — that is economically illiterate. It's "we must all use less and those who are unfortunate enough to be living in sub-Saharan Africa when the whistle goes .... well, tough shit!"
If you think that's a moral stance, I don't. And if that's not your stance then stop prattling and sound like you at least understand the argument.
Bucket
Bucket said:
Dung said:
Bucket said:
September 2011
Totally agree!
Well said Mike. BitBucket likes the word "nonsense" but having followed your debate throughout this thread it has become pretty clear where the "nonsense" is coming from.
Mike, we were talking, I think, about efficiency.
You think this is wrong and "economically illiterate"? OK lets have some examples: what if I make the same product with less raw material and energy, grow the same crops with less fertiliser runoff, fly the same route with less fuel, run the same buildings to the same degree of comfort and utility with less electricity (Empire State, 20%), to say nothing of turning off unused lights, turning down thermostats, using heat pumps, insulating lofts, cutting draughts.... You can make up your own list. As an economist you will know where the inefficiency lies much better than I.
All of those reduce resource usage with no effect upon economic activity, or even with increased activity (someone has to do them).
Your quotes aren't worth repeating. You rely on your peculiar misinterpretation of them for your political ends. You can doubtless find more and bend them to your purpose; you could probably contort some of what I say, if it were worth the effort. If your argument rests on such distortions, I'm not surprised that you get so irritated when someone challenges you.
David Porter: care to explain where my nonsense lies? A threesome is much more fun (ignoring the tongue-tied Dung).
OK. I think I've found where the goalposts are so I'll try again.
Energy efficiency is fine. We have, if you care to go looking back, agreed on that as we have agreed that in the interests of everyone and everything waste is not a good thing.
So can we get back to he debate we actually were having which is about resource usage.
Not 'using resources efficiently'; not 'not using them wastefully'; cutting our use of them to below the level where we can maintain the current level of output and wealth creation.
And don't say that isn't what you meant because the whole reason for this discussion is your argument about reducing electricity consumption to a point which inconveniences people. Energy efficiency does not mean brown-outs in the middle of a winter afternoon, still less random power cuts caused by the use of inefficient means of production like wind-fuelled power stations.
And my argument about the use of natural resources is not based on whether or not we are being wasteful around the edges.
So your point about the same output with a lower level of input is fine as far as it goes. We have been doing that for the last several thousand years and the effects have been almost entirely beneficial. but that is not the meat of the argument. We are being asked to reduce resource consumption beyond anything that can be justified by efficient usage and that will lead to economic downturn and that will not benefit the poor.
And I am still not surprised you find Oppenheimer and Strong embarrassing or that you are frightened to pursue the matter further. Do you know what The Club of Rome is and what its philosophy is or not?
Have you read any of what came out of Rio+20 last month? Do you even start to understand the effect that environmental pressure groups with misconceived ideas on just about everything to do with the environment and no idea at all about the basic rights of people are having on the lives of all of us?
Bucket
You apparently suffer from attention deficit disorder, very sad.
BitBucket
"care to explain where my nonsense lies"
Mike just did.
Re: ORBIS
£6.50 to cure blindness. No cant about AGW. No flying off to conferences -- when these guys get in an a/c they fly in a mobile hospital, park it on an airfield and start curing people.
ORBIS. www.orbis.org
JF
Mike said:
and
I have said nothing about either of these. Look back over the thread if you doubt me. DM is about smoothing demand to match supply. It would go largely or completely unnoticed by the user. Your idea of swingeing cuts in resource usage are yours alone (in the context of the thread). You introduced these and your misleading quotes in order to compensate for the weakness of your arguments.
I live in the developing world. Here there is 40% poverty; real, grinding, poverty, not the relative kind. I promise you that these people don't go round worrying that the West will cut its resource usage.
It would go largely or completely unnoticed by the user.
That is your opinion mate.
I think it would be to your advantage to tell us where you live, it might explain your thought processes and would not be detrimental to your cause, quite the opposite.
Julian Flood
http://www.mercyships.org.uk/ (shame it has an endorsement from Tony Blair but you can't win 'em all!)
http://www.wateraid.org/uk/
and (my favourite) http://www.marysmeals.org.uk/
Yes, there are plenty out there. It's just a question of not being suckered by the big boys.
BitBucket
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Very reasonable!Demand Management is about dictating to the customer how much electricity he is allowed to use to fit in with the wishes of the supplier.
In the modern world we expect supply to be available to meet demand and since there is at present no shortage of the raw materials necessary to do that all that is needed is for the government to stop paying attention to the eco-luddites and their undemocratic wishes and build the necessary infrastructure.
So that's that problem sorted.
mike
about earlier 'selfishness' versus 'enlightened self interest':
It is likely that the defintion I use for 'selfishness' is different from the one you had in mind.
Bucket apparently is all emotional about the 'mother-frackers' in the London and New York financial markets, :)
When one has a world view that admits to no opponent who isn't evil, conspiring, corrupt or delusional, or failing that stupid, ignorant and illiterate; when any change that challenges entrenched practices and vested interests can be distorted into a threat to the well being and even the very existence of the whole economic system; how could DM be about anything but screwing the consumer?
Gosh, is bitty still doing the black knight number over here?
---------
mike
about earlier 'selfishness' versus 'enlightened self interest':
It is likely that the defintion I use for 'selfishness' is different from the one you had in mind.
Bucket apparently is all emotional about the 'mother-frackers' in the London and New York financial markets, :)
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM | Registered Commentershub
--------------------------------------------------------
shub, I'm with you in the sense that one person's 'enlightened self-interest' as opposed to 'selfishness' is another person's attempt to tell me what is in my best interest. Whenever I see those words, I think - oh, oh - here comes the diktat from someone who claims to be more 'enlightened' than I am (my views being merely selfish).
As for bitty's continuing dogpaddle through the freestyle lane of economics, kudos to Mike and others who have tried to help him, but his lane-crossing, ducking and faux humility is pretty tiresome. Quite simply, bitty, all moneymaking concerns worth existing try to keep costs to a minimum, including energy costs. To that extent, energy efficiency is as embedded in capitalism as the profit motive is. Indeed, the advance of capitalism is all about producing more with the same, or less, resources.
The reason that 'green economics' is an oxymoron is that it turns the whole thing upside down, like the Tijlander series, while claiming that it makes no difference. According to this bizarre mirror universe, wasting resources by artificially making things more expensive is economically beneficial. No amount of arm-waving or emoting or side-tracking the discussion can overcome that fundamental flaw.
johanna
My definition of enlightened self-interest does not encompass telling anyone else how to behave, far from it.
In a nutshell it comes down to making decisions for oneself, not for other people. I do what's best for me as you do for you but hopefully — this is the 'enlightened' bit — being aware of the effect that my decisions have on other people.
A far cry from self-righteousness which is the besetting sin of the eco-activists and other control freaks.
Apologies if you thought that was directed at you, Mike - it wasn't, at all.
No apology needed, johanna.
I'll go along with that though as I described it is more a question of ensuring that one's own interests serve the common good. Difference of emphasis only, I think.I just thought it was worth clarifying what I mean by "enlightened self-interest". In too many cases when you use the phrase people assume you are simply "looking out for number one".
Wikipedia defines it as
BitBucket
Your statement that you live in a developing country could explain some of your attitude. It may be that you see BH as a collection of a privileged people in a rich country who should stop moaning about what you consider to be small hardships?
The trouble with self interest is that mostly it is not of the enlightened variety. It often leads to a Tragedy of the Commons.
Is that what your economics text books tells you, or what you teach your class? The trouble is, you misinterpreted it, like much else. Companies try to keep costs to a minimum and, short term, efficiency costs money. In the longer term efficiency often saves money, but for many, the long term, like lunch, is for wimps.
Look at your own employer - does it operate at maximum possible efficiency? If you think so, you probably don't know enough about it. And what of the 40% of the economy that is public? Do you imagine they have the same efficiency motive? And do you think private companies optimise their products for maximum efficiency? And individuals, they have the same incentives as companies to maximise 'profits'. No waste there?
Dung, thanks for your kind suggestion. I must admit that I find you rather contradictory. Sometimes you are thoughtful (as in your 2:23pm post), conciliatory and nice to talk with; at other times you are unpleasantly rude and make me think, "I'll ignore him from now on". It is as if there are two Dungs. I prefer the former :-)
It is true that moving here (from the UK) has given me a different perspective on life. It has indeed softened my opinions, but I think you would both have found me equally objectionable before I came here ;-)
BitBucket
Talk to the hand ...
Mike Jackson
You have to be careful. Wateraid told me that all they did was drill holes etc. to provide water. But as the 2007 document shows, commissioned by Wateraid, they are signed up to CAGW.
http://www.wateraid.org/documents/climate_change_and_water_resources_1.pdf
Mike Post
Gullible idiots! Thanks for the link. They will be getting a letter from me in the not-too-distant future, for all the good it will do.
I suppose they were prime targets considering that what they do is dig wells. You can't really blame them for getting taken in; better organisations than WaterAid have been duped into supporting this scam and given that water supply problems have been one of the highlighted catastrophes it was probably inevitable.
Ho hum! Another charity with feet of clay.
They still do good work, mind, and I'd rather my money went there than the high profile rent seekers.
Mike Jackson
Since being made fools of by Oxfam, we have researched the charities we give to with diligence. The excellent Orbis fixes eyes. MSF provides medical care in war zones. Medical Aid for Palestinians sends medical supplies to Palestinians. That is all they do, that is with the caveat, "so far as we are aware!"
Even the admirable Amnesty got into bed with Greenpeace. Only by people declining to give to political charities will the abuse of charitable donations be stopped.
We could always try the NZ approach and see if we could get any if them de-registered on the grounds that their political activities and/or their reliance on state funding mean that they are not genuine charities.
I really would love to see Greenpeace disappear down that particular hole.
bitty said:
The trouble with self interest is that mostly it is not of the enlightened variety. It often leads to a Tragedy of the Commons. (etc, etc)
----------------------------------------
You really need to get past the early undergraduate level of discussion if you want to make a contribution here. We all know about the Tragedy of the Commons, and no-one has suggested that all regulation be abolished. It is the lack of rigour and hijacking by ideological agendas that drives so much modern regulation that is so reprehensible.
As others have mentioned, charities have also been hijacked by ideology. Mind, there is nothing new about that. Missionaries, pants and Bibles for the heathens, and all that.
johanna
At least the missionaries were doing it in the name of a God in whom the very seriously believed and who had ordered his followers to go and preach the gospel to the whole world. They also believed that it was part of that obligation to, as far as it was within their power, give those to whom they went a better life both here and in the hereafter.
I'm not sure that the ideology of the modern charity has quite the same level of philanthropic commitment somehow!
As for regulation it is impossible ever to convince a control freak that less regulation can possibly be better than more. The concept of better can equal less simply causes the synapses to fuse!
Mike, the fact that people believe passionately in something doesn't make it more or less valid. Ditto, if their commitment is driven by 'self interest' or cynicism. It is not what people think, it is what they do, that matters.
A typical example is Aboriginal communities in remote parts of Australia. When religious groups ran them, the kids went to school and the parents had jobs. But, because that became politically incorrect, many of these communities were left to 'self determination', meaning that they got the dole, and there was no work and no reason to go to school. The results are hellholes of alcoholism and drug abuse, gambling, violence and sexual abuse starting with infants.
It was not people who wanted to go out and live with the poor who improved their lives. It was economic development. There are a few shining 'silver bullets' like Fred Hollows, who restored sight for $25. God bless him. But, missionaries (aka NGOs) have been inflicting their self-sacrifice on the poor for centuries, with little effect. In contrast, hundreds of millions of people in China, India and South East Asia have been lifted from extreme poverty in the last 30 years without a single external 'believer' being involved.
We're in grave danger of getting philosophical here!
I agree with you that believing does not per se say anything about the validity of the belief, except in the eyes of the believer but as a fairly general rule what and how people believe will dictate how they act.
I can't quite equate missionaries with modern NGOs however.
I do agree that the answer to poverty is economic development which is why I am opposed to the idea that the "third world" needs to be "kept in its place" either by being denied the resources that we have benefited from or by being kept dependent on handouts from western nations that are turning a blind eye to the injustices that are inflicted on poor countries by their rulers or our refusal to level the economic playing field.