Austerity for us (not the Greeks) is about providing more with less. Becoming more efficient, reducing waste etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's exactly the sort of progress that can resolve this. Austerity is not the end of the world.
Printable View
Austerity for us (not the Greeks) is about providing more with less. Becoming more efficient, reducing waste etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's exactly the sort of progress that can resolve this. Austerity is not the end of the world.
Then you haven't been following the news for the last decades. I mean, even Exxon and Shell stated themselves that the easy-to-reach deposits of oil have all been found.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, in a not-necessarily palatable way. What capitalism provides is a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. It motivates and rewards solutions and work-arounds. It could be the problem is ignored and it adapts just with pricing and scarecity. Other "fixes" we've seen are new resources, better access to previously inaccessible sources, or switching to different technology and methods entirely. What it doesn't do is incentivize preventative measures which would not actually be profitable except in altered circumstances which won't be reached in the near-future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Really? You don't want to rethink that? Just to be clear you're claiming that Exxon and Shell haven't found extra deposits in recent decades?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
And we haven't developed new methods of converting difficult-to-reach deposits into now easy-to-reach deposits?
I suppose all the talk about Fracking is for nothing then?
So when's the world going to implode Khen? I'd like to laugh at you when that date passes and we're all still here living similar or improved life life styles.
Okay, I apologize. The logic was a bit more difficult than 2+2=4 and it clearly flew right over your head.
You said the following: "[...]but we've not shown any hint of reaching such a limit."
We have the documented statements of the spokesmen of two large oil companies that the easy-to-find deposits indeed have been found. Which means that those are limited in number (and also capacity). Which leaves us with the not-so-easy-to-find-and-exploit deposits. Which, as should be clear to anyone with at least half a brain, are also limited in number and capacity.
That is your hint, my dear. I suggest you engage your brain FOR ONCE and start thinking instead of being a dunce who's clearly unable to read because I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THEY DID NOT FIND EXTRA DEPOSITS, YOU MORON!
I seems I have a better grasp of the English language than some native speakers here if they are unable to understand the word they themselves are using. "Hint", Rand, that's the word you used and the word I replied to. That's your bloody HINT: "It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive." - Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008
No its not. Its simply not.
I never said limit of oil - I said reaching a limit on progress that we can support ourselves. And we've not.
Not only have deposits been increasing not decreasing if you check the facts, not only have we been developing new ways to access previously inaccessible deposits, not only is more expensive oil usable, not only have we got enough oil to last for many more decades at today's technology but we have also got research going on into post-oil alternatives.
I somehow like the country debt analogy. Because it kinda proves both scenarios of you guys.
It is fairly possible that we (as humanity) are/will doing the Greece way. Living of the dept (fossils in this case) and have a nice day until we find out it is not possible anymore. But it is also as likely that we use the credit that earth is giving us to invest. It's no problem to take a credit as long as you spend it in something with more return later. Actually most investments need some credit at one time.
So maybe we are lucky, just if we aren't, there won't be a Germany to bail us out.
Of course Rand. And the magical capitalist fairies will come to the rescue in your magical Lala-Land.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
By the way, those post-oil alternatives you're talking about? Those are not really achievements of capitalism.
The success or failure of Google, Toyota, Tesla etc have nothing to do with capitalism? Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Last time I looked, that stuff was predominantly researched at universities. Or do you think that the underlying technology appears magically from the sky?
Your nice and oh-so-inventive capitalism got rid of research centers such as the Bell Labs, my dear.
The companies you named? Those put a polish on tech that's been found through public funding.
You're still using fossil fuel extraction as best examples of "new methods and technologies" for future energy. That doesn't make sense when you consider ALL the science: emission pollutants, water consumption and contamination, or the energy required to extract and distribute those fossil fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Canada may have Oil Sands, but it's still a dirty and expensive extraction/refining/delivery process. The US may have shale resources for oil and natural gas, but fracking has been contaminating underground aquifers and water resources. Potable water and arable land aren't resources that can be easily replenished or recreated once they've been trashed or destroyed.
Should we apply lessons-learned decades ago, that clear-cutting forests for wood pulp/lumber or coffee crops, underground or surface mountain mining for coal, and deep ocean drilling for oil......comes with disastrous and often irreversible consequences?
It's not really that extreme. It goes hand in hand. To think that capitalism solve the problem by itself is about as wrong as thinking you can solve everything without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Ignoring the role economic incentives have in driving that kind of research, or in allowing companies with good products to make a lot of money. Where are all the great products from the Soviet Union, which had some pretty smart scientists and spent a good chuck of money on science?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Er I'm fairly sure the source of funding wasn't the only thing that set apart the USSR from the West wrt research and its application :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's an exaggeration at the very least, Khen, and grossly underestimates both the role of profit incentives and the direct role companies have in R&D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Why else did Soviet scientists fail to produce many worthwhile products?
Are you asking what other relevant factors there may have been besides the source of research funding? How about cultural and institutional resistance to creativity in both conducting and applying research? How about firmly held and enforced opinions from politicians on what was ideologically acceptable and worthwhile research? How about top-down directives endorsing incorrect theories and dismissing/suppressing correct ones based on ideological preferences? How about limitations on international collaboration? How about differences in the pool of non-scientist inventors and tinkerers? How about differences in the market for products regardless of initial funding, eg. regular private citizens vs. large state-owned industries? How about differences in patent laws? How about the fact that the USSR doesn't actually exist anymore? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How can you separate cultural and institutional resistances from a country's socio-economic system? How can you separate centralized decision-making from that same factor?
Yes, that was indeed the implied question posed to you in my post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Er I'm fairly sure the source of funding wasn't the only thing that set apart the USSR from the West wrt research and its application
And my point is that most of the factors you mentioned can be tied to the Soviet Union not being capitalist...
Tied to, sure, but they can also have independent and inter-dependent effects. And if we're looking for root causes rather than complex interactions between proximal causes, well, capitalism didn't just die in the USSR; it was killed and kept dead through the tyrannical rule of ideology and insanity that was given precedence over everything else including the sort of freedom that facilitates science and its application.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
All that says is that capitalism is the default system modern societies return to. :noob:
I seem to recall, that a certain country now is responsible for getting most of the stuff up to the ISS. One example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Commies are known for being good at white elephants. If you think that's a good thing, well...
For now. Using decades old technology, while private companies are truly innovating and making it possible to get into space relatively cheaply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
While being massively sponsored by the government and using their technology - don't get me wrong, I'm happy that is going in this direction, but it's not exactly an example of free market capitalism.
Its an example of real world capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sputnik? The race to the moon wasn't just an "economic incentive". Associated R & D wasn't driven by freee market capitalism, or corporate interests, but competition between geo-political international powers. The 'winner' would become the global leader, and their philosophies would be accepted, and imitated, by the rest of the world as The Model to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It was an extension of The Manhattan Project during WWII, continued during nuclear arms proliferation, and the Cold War. SuperPower.
If thats the same kind of real world capitalism you expect to address this, let's see.. Space industry, of big strategic importance, essential to the global economy, slowly becoming commercially viable, but only with big government incentives, and relying massively on technology developed by the government at vast expense. Yeah. not that much unlike energy! Keep in mind that nuclear power plants, which I know are seen by some here as an answer to the problem, were also developed using very expensive and decade long government paid research. And have never been economically viable without government support, either..Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ctor-myth.html
Somewhat overstated but I thought this might make for an interesting discussion:
Quote:
Indeed, one of the most perverse trends in recent years is that while the state has increased its funding of R&D and innovation, the private sector is apparently de-committing itself. In the name of "open innovation" big pharma is closing down its R&D labs, relying more on small biotech companies and public funds to do the hard stuff. Is this a symbiotic public-private partnership or a parasitic one?
It is time for the state to get something back for its investments. How? First, this requires an admission that the state does more than just fix market failures – the usual way economists justify state spending. The state has shaped and created markets and, in doing so, took on great risks. Second, we must ask where the reward is for such risk-taking and admit that it is no longer coming from the tax systems. Third, we must think creatively about how that reward can come back.
There are many ways for this to happen. The repayment of some loans for students depends on income, so why not do this for companies? When Google's future owners received a grant from the NSF, the contract should have said: if/when the beneficiaries of the grant make $X billion, a contribution will be made back to the NSF.
Other ways include giving the state bank or agency that invested a stake in the company. A good example is Finland, where the government-backed innovation fund SITRA retained equity when it invested in Nokia. There is also the possibility of keeping a share of the intellectual property rights, which are almost totally given away in the current system.
Recognising the state as a lead risk-taker, and enabling it to reap a reward, will not only make the innovation system stronger, it will also spread the profits of growth more fairly. This will ensure that education, health and transport can benefit from state investments in innovation, instead of just the small number of people who see themselves as wealth creators, while relying increasingly on the courageous, entrepreneurial state.